Talk:Subarnarekha (film)

India: 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 the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Indian / Core

	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.
	This article is on the project's core list.

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. I've created the proposed title as a redirect, though. Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subarnarekha (film) → Suvarna Rekha –

“

A picture is worth a thousand words

”

--Tito Dutta ✉ 07:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with that rationale; the picture is worth little. What is the story behind the different transliterations? Is there a problem with the present one? Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film censor certificate is part of a film and shows how the creators of film spelled it also what spelling has been registered in Government's database! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:COMMONNAME, this film certificate should be inadmissible evidence. The title should be based on the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources – not based on the name printed on a government-issued or legal document. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it be admissible? I don't think it's enough evidence to outweigh other sources, but it certainly seems relevant. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~—Are there any other sources that write it this way? IMDB etc all seem to write it the way we have it now. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, this spelling has been used too–

There are multiple spellings– 1) Subarnarekha 2) Subarna Rekha 3) Suvarna Rekha 4) Suvarnarekha. In film censor certificate the fourth spelling was used! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've struck my oppose. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion: B If we are going to stay here, I suggest to add this spelling too as alternative spelling (eg. "Subarnararekha or Suvarna Rekha......") --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film poster: Okay, I have found a poster of this film which is using the requested spelling. I have uploaded in my GPlus stream, you can see it here --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The post doesn't show it as two words. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if there are that many spellings, do need to pick one for the main, but regardless of which, the other spellings should also probably redirect to the main one, no? -— Isarra ༆ 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.