Talk:Mukherjee-Samarth family

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance 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 was last assessed in April 2012.

Wikipedia titles do not usually include "the"; they are capped on the first word, unless it is a proper noun. The title of this article really must be changed. Mukherjee-Samarth family would be OK, I think. I will hold off on doing the move until you have a chance to respond. Zora 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been googling furiously, but I can't make sense of who was who in the Mukherjees. We need more info, and maybe some cites. Zora 19:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Mukherjee-Samarth family (film), not realizing that this is the same notation used to differentiate articles about films. I think it should be Mukherjee-Samarth family pure and simple. Would it be OK to change it, if I do all the work on changing the umpteen articles that link to it? Sorry for my mistake. Zora 19:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not split into two articles? In India, Film people are endlessly related to each other, and even in the family tree here, we see that Ashok Kumar is grand-uncle to Kajol, hence the whole Ganguly family might as well be included, by this logic. On the other hand, Nutan etc have nothing to do with the say Subodh Mukherji or Dadamoni. So lets not be arbitrary. Two articles is no big deal. ImpuMozhi 21:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, makes sense to me. Let's see what Pa7, who has done the heavy lifting on this one, has to say. Zora 22:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah i agree with the whole splitting thing, as ImpuMozhi said most of these filmi stars are related to some extended family anyway. Im fine with it, go ahead... Pa7 23:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to list all of Rani's hit films. That's covered in her article. I think it's sufficient to say that she has starred in many successful films. Zora 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the family trees given in this article are real ugly. can someone suggest a way, or, even better, lend a hand to improve them? - Aditya Kabir 13:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mukherjee-Samarth family. 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/20090110093705/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2001/12/21/stories/2001122100800100.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2001/12/21/stories/2001122100800100.htm

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) 22:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]