Talk:Action Replayy
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Action Replayy → Action Replay (film) — The only source in the article calls the film "Action Replay", not "Action Replayy". Active Banana (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)}}
- Oppose - "Action Replayy" seems to be the correct title; for example, this is what it says on the image of the official poster, as depicted in the article. Also most news sources are calling it that. It looks for now like IMDB has got it wrong so unless more information comes to light, we should not move it. (Some more sources would be useful though). Muraho (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also most news sources are calling it that. Got links to any of those sources so the article can be properly sourced? Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Muraho; we're not constrained by the article's one source. A search engine test shows that both Action Replay and Action Replayy come up, but considering that "Action Replayy" is a full-intended spelling of the film title, I see no reason to move it. I tried to find an article that could explain the unusual title but did not come up with anything at the moment. Regardless, the intention is there (as made clear by the poster image), and it is fine as it is. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "considering that "Action Replayy" is a full-intended spelling of the film title" - on what are you basing this statement? We are required to reflect what the sources say, and so far we have one source that says "Action Replay". Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The spelling is widespread as seen here. When I say "full-intended", I mean that it is unlikely that it is a mistake. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- We go by reliable sources, not google hits. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The link provides results from Google News Search, which is a more reliable concentration than a general Google search. In addition, the reference in the Wikipedia article comes from the domain rediff.com, and this also comes from there with the spelling Action Replayy. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, here is the spelling used with The Hindu, The Times of India, and Hindustan Times, three of the national newspapers of India. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- We go by reliable sources, not google hits. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The spelling is widespread as seen here. When I say "full-intended", I mean that it is unlikely that it is a mistake. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "considering that "Action Replayy" is a full-intended spelling of the film title" - on what are you basing this statement? We are required to reflect what the sources say, and so far we have one source that says "Action Replay". Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The sources are now incorporated into the article. Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Action Replayy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116002252/http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=318&catName=MjAxMA%3D%3D to http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=318&catName=MjAxMA%3D%3D
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225055900/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mayank-Shekhar-s-review-Action-Replay/Article1-622338.aspx?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4cd2f4777c69d9af%2C0 to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mayank-Shekhar-s-review-Action-Replay/Article1-622338.aspx?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4cd2f4777c69d9af%2C0
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020102145/http://businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=17221 to http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=17221
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415033726/http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2011/01/01/6977/index.html to http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2011/01/01/6977/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)