Talk:22 June 1897

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

India: Maharashtra / Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Additions needed[edit]

I could not find details about Lt. Ayerst. Such as his regiment etc. Please update if possible. ~~Another bit I found was that Jinnah also defended the assasins, please confirm and add.~~ Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to ask this were Chaphekar & Co Hindu Kasabs? Well I find one no, they did not attempt to kill Rand's wife who was travelling with Rand. If it is not here we have to ask this question to ourselves some place. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is about the movie, details about the event are unnecessary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of[edit]

Thanks for correcting the typographic errors. Is the of really redundant in Awards ... sub-section? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - "comprises of" is never correct. You can either say "it comprises", or "it is comprised of". – iride scent 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also incorrect because parts comprise the whole, whereas the whole consists of its parts. So it should be: "This collection consists of ninety feature films and one hundred short films", not "This collection comprises ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better composition. I will change it right away. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Malleus, I hate to disagree with you, but in Wikipedia's usage - and, much as I dislike the MOS in general, we have to follow something - "The whole comprises the parts" is not only an acceptable usage, it's the primary usage. – iride scent 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's what the MoS says then who am I to argue.:-) I always tend to side with Fowler, whose view is that "comprises" is only appropriate when it's the entire contents of the whole that's being written about. So in thast case to say "The collection comprises ninety feature films ..." would be perfectly OK if everything in the collection was a feature film. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This collection comprises of ... sounded perfect to me. An incorrect colloquialism that we use perhaps. Additionally the sentence has not generated errors with MS Word. Also the comment was preceded by editing, so I was not required to do anything. Can anybody explain how it is wrong though? MF's clarification was a little tangential for me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I for bothering you with talkback calls. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any ways I hated comprises the moment I wrote it. I could have written, "There are xxx films in the collection" but that was a little too informal to me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What MF means is that "50 films comprise the collection" is legal not the other way round. What to do MF to have fundamentals so clear? Lots of practice and application perhaps. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I still think MF is wrong. "The collection comprises 50 films" is acceptable - see this very brief summary. See the "undisputed usage" example at Wikipedia's article on the topic. – iride scent 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Iridescent says, if there is nothing else in the collection but those fify films then "The collection comprises 50 films" is perfectly OK. There is absolutely no doubt though that "comprises of" is wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one other question. Are you using British or American English spelling in this article? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From memory I use the Indian spelling for English which is almost always equivalent to British English. I am not very sure which English my Google spell check follows, so if you find discrepancy you now know why. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not as complicated as it seems. Comprise means to be made up of. So if we write comprises of it would expand to made up of of, making of redundant. The other is that a whole is made up of its parts, so it is The collection comprises xxxx feature films and xxxxxx documentries ~~or xxxxx feature films and xxxxx documentries comprise the collection.~~ Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xxxxxxxx comprise the collection, would be wrong as comprise means made up of, not 'made up', so we cannot change the voice. The of would stand in the way. Which has made me change my mind and strike through.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]