Talk:2.0 (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tamil film

There are no references for the movie being a bilingual film as in Raavan and Ravanan. Please add proper citations which prove the point without doubt, since Shankar has never done a bilingual film.--213.47.76.227 (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Indian had a few scenes reshot in Hindi, titled Hindustani. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also a particular scene preluding the "Athiradee" song in Sivaji was shot to feature popular Telugu songs (instead of MGR, Sivaji, Kamal songs) for it's Telugu version. Editor 2050 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Some portions being reshot differently is not the same as reshooting the whole movie. Even Endhiran had Hindi letters for the magazines Chitti read. --213.47.76.227 (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see the link for reference http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Akshay-Kumar-plays-the-villain-in-Robot-2/articleshow/50203162.cms. In fact, most of the national media mentioned it as bilingual movie in Tamil and Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.130.126 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

as far as I see the TOI ref is the only source, which calls this film a bilingual and that too with the titles "Robot 2" and "Endhiran 2". These titles were never confirmed and a product of TOI's imagination. It's just a bad source which I was talking about earlier to be avoided.--213.47.76.227 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

not yet in hindi: http://nanonews.org/akshay-kumar-to-begin-shooting-robot-2-next-month/--213.47.76.227 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

2.0

2.0 MaxMilianmax (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Telugu version is dubbed. Only the Tamil and Hindi versions are being originally made.

Most of the time the media gets confused between dubbed versions and 'made versions'. 'Vishwaroopam' and 'Dasavatharam' too were reported by a group of online media portals to be 'MADE' in Telugu, but they ended up having the usual dubbed versions. The recent IBtimes source is an example. When the shooting of '2.0' commenced , it was reported that the film was being SHOT in Tamil and Hindi only! Almost two schedules of filming being over, how can one support a claim that a third version is being simultaneously filmed?

It is a dubbed version. Please refrain from conveying wrong information because a lot of online portals refer Wikipedia for info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.196.22 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in making claims, such as you have, without citing reliable sources - and please read the section above - Arjayay (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the TOI reference. The article was published when the filming had commenced.

References

We've already been through this. Read the discussions above, please. The bilingual claim was originally made months ago based on that December 2015 source you provided. The claim was disputed by another editor. Another user pointed out a January 2016 reference where Kumar said "It is too early to say if this film will be a bilingual." We refrained from including content about the language status, then TOI IBT published not one, but two articles that supported the three language claim. This reference says unambiguously that the film "is being shot simultaneously in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi." So I'm not sure what you expect is going to happen. We're going to ignore the two TOI IBT articles because you personally think they might be confused with dubbed versions? Not logical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You JUST said //then TOI published not one, but two articles that supported the three language claim. This reference//. Now YOU seem to be the one who is confused. TOI and IBTimes are different. TOI is TIMES OF INDIA, a leading Indian daily, while IBTimes is International Business Times. The TOI link is more reliable. Besides, the report dates back to December 2015, the month in which filming had officially begun. 103.14.196.22 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Made a mistake. It happens. Fixed it. Now you want to address the rest of my points? You're glossing past Kumar's statement made weeks after filming had begun that it was "too early" to say if it will be bilingual. Maybe he said that because he knew it was being filmed in three languages? Hmm... How would using a reference from December be more proof of something that Kumar danced around in January? It's a moot point... That IBT source is unambiguous. As for your unsubstantiated statement "The TOI link is more reliable", I'm calling your bluff--show me the discussion at Wikipedia where it was decided that Times of India is more reliable than IBT. I'll wait. But if we're just talking about some anecdotal experience you have, sorry, ain't interested. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Order of languages

I'm in acceptance with the fact that it's a film shot in multiple languages. I was about to change the order and put Tamil first followed by the others before I saw the comment requesting not to. Why is that? Considering it's primarily a Tamil-language production, shouldn't it be the first language mentioned in the infobox and in other places in the article? Nirinsanity (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

How do you figure that it's "primarily" a Tamil-language production if it's being shot in three different languages? The reason why it should not be changed without consensus, is because this has been the subject of dozens of silent reversions over numerous months and arbitrarily changing it has the aroma of subtle ethnic-warring, which you might be aware is a problem at Wikipedia, and I'm sure you would agree, would be completely unacceptable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you lived in Tamil Nadu or watched Tamil films, it's quite obvious. As the director is Tamil, works in the Tamil industry, the producer is Tamil, etc. But since Wikipedia requires citations, I'm not sure how I can prove that it's a Tamil production. Either way, I can counter question the current displayed order as well and proclaim that it is arbitrary. On what basis is Hindi displayed at the top, with Tamil and Telugu below it? Nirinsanity (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly because, although India does not legally have a national language - as the Gujarat court ruled "the majority of people in India have accepted Hindi as a national language". There have been multiple edits and reverts re-ordering these languages, which, as warned above, "has the aroma of subtle ethnic-warring". This film is not even being released until next year, but this article already has over 1000 edits - the language issue is particularly fraught - please see the Talk:2.0 (film)#Bilingual vs. Tamil-Hindi thread above. If you can come up with a clear statement from the film-makers, I would support that, but until then the article needs some stability. - Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Nirinsanity - If you can point to a guideline anywhere at that suggests we organize content in articles based on the director's ethnicity, producer's ethnicity, or the ethnicity of a film industry, then I might be inclined to agree. However just saying that aloud sounds odd to me. This is something that perhaps you should bring up in a more formal discussion arena be it the Indian cinema task force or WikiProject Film so editors don't have to keep having discussions about this very thing. (I'd probably go with the latter forum--there are more people willing to participate.) That said, the content was originally added here and appears to be organized Tamil, Telugu, Hindi, based on the language in this source. That version was maintained until IP 174.119.34.44 changed it six days later in this edit. When I asked him why he did that, he explained he organized them alphabetically. Since I don't particularly care what the order is, that was the version I maintained and that we seem to be maintaining. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb and Arjayay - Other than both you editors (who by the way, seemingly, don't particularly care about the order), most people, including myself, would be okay with the order mentioned in those sources—Tamil, Telugu and Hindi. Which is why all those edits happened in the first place. I don't think anyone is "not okay" with that order. So, it's logical and in a way, consensual to change it to that. Essentially, what I'm saying is this; Order 1: "Hindi, Tamil and Telugu" - some are not okay with this order. Order 2: "Tamil, Telugu and Hindi" - No one is not okay with this order. And Cyphoidbomb, as for your first point about the guideline, I don't see any guideline either saying that languages in the infobox need to be in the alphabetical order. If there is indeed such a guideline, I'm guessing several hundreds of film pages need to be edited to follow that guideline, from Baahubali: The Beginning to Inglourious Basterds. Nirinsanity (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is still predicated on the belief that the film is "primarily a Tamil-language production". That is unsubstantiated if the film is being shot in three languages simultaneously. How could it be more of one language than the other two? Unless you're arguing that the film has more Tamil words than Hindi words or Telugu words, but that is obviously not what you are saying. The obvious subtext of your argument is that this film is the property of the Tamil ethnic film industry, which is kind of a strange concept to film articles in general, since most films are organized by nation, not by ethnic this-or-that. Do The Right Thing is an American movie, it's not an African-American movie.

And this isn't a new argument. Similar arguments took place at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films when editors were adamant to exclude Tamil from appearing next to Baahubali even though it was simultaneously shot in two languages. (It still pops up, actually) A wise approach would be to open a discussion about this in a wider arena so we have something a little more concrete to point to going forward, if the community decides (and they very well might) that the perceived ethnic industry is the trigger for how to order language and other facts, then great. So just to make it clear (and so that you have at least some satisfaction from this discussion), if you open a general discussion about this at WT:FILM and participate in it in a meaningful way, I'll gladly yield on the issue in favor of the ordering in the IBT source. I don't speak for Arjayay, however. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being supportive and I actually understand your opposing when I think of the issue from an outsider POV. But what I meant was that you're contradicting yourself when you're opposing the order I'm proposing but didn't oppose the change in order before. In what way is the current order superior? As for your example, Do The Right Thing isn't very relevant here as the film was shot only in one language. This isn't an issue of race, rather an issue of language. In India, every state speaks its own language, unlike most countries. There are several cinema industries in India you would know of, if you visited Cinema of India, unlike the USA where it's only Hollywood. Also, another argument in my support is that the previous film in the series was only in Tamil, indicating that it is a Tamil production. Anyway, I'll start a discussion sometime on WP:ICTF or WT:FILM as you suggested. - Nirinsanity (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nirinsanity. I support your view. These editors are part of the problem. The inclusion of Hindi and Telugu is based on a single source author, which is very likely fake, but they didn't mind keeping Hindi and Telugu there. Same goes with cinema industry. Although all articles are displayed in order of cinema industry instead of just language, these guys try to defend the unutraditional order for some dubious reason. We can assume that there is an Anti-Tamil sentiment involved here like in many articles where Hindiwallas get jeaulous of the growing popularity of South Indian languages.--213.47.76.227 (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Save the nonsense for your conspiracy blog. The content is sourced and the push to remove all but one language from a film that has been described more than once as being bi-and-trilingual is far more indicative of some sort of ethnic bias than editors who are representing what the sources say. If you've got a beef with the "single source author" go take it up with them. I'm sure they'd love to hear your opinions for why you think their facts are fabricated. In the meantime, if you can find a reliable source that denies emphatically that the film is being produced simultaneously in multiple languages, by all means, bring it here, but until then, your personal POV has no place being reflected in the article, and you're just using up oxygen harping about it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nirinsanity to say that it is not a matter of ethnicity, but of language, seems a little naive to me. I'm quite familiar with the arguments that spring up in Indian film articles, and ethnic identity is absolutely the basis of many of these disputes. Look at the IP's (nonsensical) comment above sugesting "Anti-Tamil sentiment". He's talking about an ethnic identity, not just the way thoughts come out of people's mouths and are written on paper. The debate about Baahubali involved editors who were adamant that the Telugu industry should get credit for all their hard work. Those people were not talking about languages, they're talking about ethnic and cultural identity. That's why I brought up the Spike Lee film, because that it is a non-Indian equivalent. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be wise for us to wait till the film is released and hen decide about the order of languages even though I condsider that the "Tamil, Telugu and Hindi" order would be a better one as the film's predecessor - Enthiran - was released only in Tamil and the fact that the the film's main actors & crew work mainly for the Tamil film industry. However there is no rush. --- Rajan51 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Since there was a lack of follow through to take this issue to a wider forum for greater scrutiny, I have done so here. It's a shame that these issues rarely get brought up by people who edit Indian film articles. Indian films shouldn't be isolated from the rest of the film article community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Bilingual vs. Tamil-Hindi

Please do not use the word "bilingual" or "multilingual". That just implies that the film speaks in more than one language. The lead should only highlight the industry in which it is from. I've clearly indicated this in the hidden message in the article edit box. Editors with an account should stop blindly reverting this without clear explanation as to why you're reverting. Thanks. 174.119.34.44 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It says Tamil-Hindi in the opening paragraph, and lists Tamil and Hindi in the infobox, but there are no references whatsoever verifying this. I see the references above, but these are quite old.
Exactly what is the arrangement? and what reliable sources, not Bollywood gossip mags, or fanzines, can you provide to show that this is correct?
Once the actual facts are known, we can then consider how it should be worded - Arjayay (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

References proving that it's a Tamil-Hindi film? Really? Just relax... almost all references already scattered throughout the article mention this. The origin of the producers (in this case Lyca which is a Sri Lankan Tamil telecommunications company based in the UK) come first, then following that is the other industry it is being simultaneously made in, hence "Tamil-Hindi". In the case of Baahubali for example it would be a "Telugu-Tamil" film, since the producers are based in Andhra Pradesh. Simple logic. 174.119.34.44 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll "relax" when you cite specific references from reliable sources that explain exactly how the languages are being included - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

174.119.34.44, Baahubali is listed as a Telugu–Tamil film not because of where the producers are located, but because the film was simultaneously filmed in the languages of Telugu and Tamil, and because reliable sources described it as a Telugu–Tamil film. There's no provision for including "the industry in which it is from" at MOS:FILM, so your argument is based on a faulty premise. The lead should identify the nation of origin, and if relevant, the language/languages it was originally produced in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact the prequel of this movie Enthiran/Robot itself is a bilingual movie in Tamil and Hindi. Then how come the sequel movie will be only in one language. Wikipedia page for Enthiran is showing it as Tamil movie. That needs to be modified as Tamil-Hindi. See the following reliable sources for Enthiran showing it as bilingual movie. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-08-10/news/27627378_1_first-film-special-effects-yuen-woo-ping http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/endhiran-the-costliest-film-in-india/1/108599.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.85.181 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's wise to refer to 5+ year-old articles to support content found here. There is, however, this source [1] that indicates the film is going to be bilingual. An IP editor disputes that here, with an argument that because the source was using a working title for the film, the language info is likely not accurate. Who knows. It's speculative. Granted, it's possible that this is just some typical ethnic "it's our film!" kind of stuff that (unfortunately) does often occur here, but it's bound to be sorted out one way or another as more info is released. There were numerous editors who shat themselves when Wikipedia called Baahubali a bilingual film, but that's what the sources said and that's what we went with. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's funny that you call me a desruptive editor, just because I know the subject better. Baahubali isn't a "bilingual" film. It was shot in both Telugu and Tamil. Bilingual would mean, that both languages would have been used in one single film. But in 2.0 the film is only shot in Tamil language, but of course for commercial purposes like the Endhiran prequel it will be dubbed in Hindi and Telugu and released at the same time. If you include Hindi here, then a film like Lord of the rings, which was dubbed in German, Spanish and hundreds of other languages would have to be included in the language box. Nonsense! There are some language fanatics on wikipedia and Indian newspapers, who can't distuingish between original language and dubbings. But a seasoned wikipedian should be able to differentiate correctly. --213.47.76.227 (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I was referencing old resources for Enthiran because it was released at that time only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.82.204 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Editor 213.47.76.227 is confused with the word bilingual in Wikipedia jargon. Bilingual doesn't mean that the film should have both the languages in one single film. If he assumes like that, then tons of Wikipedia pages have to be modified to suit to his view. Here in Wikipedia, Bilingual means the film is shot in both the languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.82.204 (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, all the Rajnikanth movies will be dubbed and simultaneously released in Telugu language also, did the Wikipedia page of 2.0 mention Telugu in the language list? It is not mentioned because Telugu version will be a dubbed version. But it is not the case with Hindi version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.82.204 (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the correct term for the film, Multiple-language version, if the film really was shot in Hindi. But it's not shot in Hindi. Shankar has never and never will direct one film in two languages like other directors. He would rather shoot a straight Hindi film, than doing same film in different languages.--213.47.76.227 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's wonderful that you have such a deep insight into the director's mind, but that's irrelevant here, because we go with what the references say. If a film is made in one language but dubbed into another, that does not belong in the infobox or the lead sentence. If, however, the film is shot in two different languages like Baahubali was, then we'd indicate that. The chief problem here so far is that you (IP 21.47.76.227) have unilaterally decided that the film is only going to be a Tamil-language film, when that is not supported by this reference. Your argument "the source didn't even report the film title correctly" is flimsy, extraordinarily common to use shorthand or a working title if those details haven't been released or finalized yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just 3rd grade reporting by a cheap newspaper. Reliable newspapers give notice to readers that the film is untitled yet. But these TOI retards do everything to please the expectations of their dumb readers. If I had a say only "The Hindu" newspaper would be allowed on Indian wikipedia articles. The fact that only the Toilet newspaper reported a Hindi film gave me hope that other wikipedians supported me instead of this dynamic troll IP, who insists on this fake source. I didn't know that one shitty source is enough to edit fundamental parts of a wiki article anyways. 213.47.76.227 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Maybe not. TOI is generally considered reliable by the Indian Cinema Task Force. Whether or not that conforms with your worldview is not relevant. As an example of my earlier point, Variety describes the second SpongeBob SquarePants film as "Spongebob 2" (in quotes, I might add) in May 2014. The film was later released as "The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water‎". Bad reporting? Or does it just reflect the information available at the time? Variety didn't mention that the film was untitled. The same is likely applicable here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is wikipedia is not a newspaper, but people here treat it like a newspaper, use newspaper jargon and culture. Pretty stupid if you ask me. But the case here is even more stupid, because TOI is the only newspaper who reported this bullshit.213.47.76.227 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What jargon are you referring to? The word "bilingual" doesn't appear in either this version or this version. The only thing in immediate dispute as far as I can tell is whether or not both Tamil and Hindi belong in the article. In one corner, we have one reference that is generally considered reliable, and in the other corner, a guy who thinks TOI is garbage. I don't see how you could possibly prevail here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't need your certificate of correctness. I could cite 100 wikipedia policies that counter you. Admins like you shouldn't be allowed on wikipedia, but yeah, I don't know "how I could possibly prevail here". I will have the last laugh once the film comes out.213.47.76.227 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You're resorting to personal attacks, which should be beneath someone of your intelligence. The issue isn't about whether or not you are correct--you very well may be--the issue is about verifiability. If a fact can be verified, i.e. with a reliable source, then it can be reasonably added to the article. What cannot be verified at present, is your assertion that the film will be proven to not have been filmed in both Tamil and Hindi. And since I don't particularly care whether this is a Tamil-Hindi film or not, the triumphant laughter you are eager to send my way in the future, will fall on apathetic ears, and I'll just point you back to WP:V. In the interim, if you'd like to start your list of 100 Wikipedia policies that counter my WP:V argument, please feel free. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm usually not a person, who attacks people, but I recently read some newspaper articles, which wrote that the wikipedia project is under threat due to excessive admin misusings. Don't take it personally when I tell you that you should be kicked. Your abusive commentary and pretended bad knowledge about wikipedia policies to game the system reflect your mindset in itself. I don't believe, that you have never read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. Because that woould mean you accept my view regarding the language topic. A blind man could see that undue weight is the problem here. A quick google search reveals interesting infos:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/akshay-kumar-glad-to-be-the-villain-in-robot-2/story-7cSiM5lwYPbNJYuXCANmpO.html

http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/hindi/Impressed-by-Story-of-2.0-Akshay-to-Make-Tamil-Debut/2016/01/14/article3226541.ece

http://www.indiaglitz.com/rajinikanth-amy-jackson-20-will-have-only-one-song-tamil-news-153911.html

http://www.glamsham.com/movies/news/16/mar/akshay-kumar-set-to-rock-in-tamil-nadu-with-robot-20.asp# --213.47.76.227 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is irrelevant, as we're not talking about an opinion or viewpoint. If a source says that a film is going to be shot in Tamil and Hindi, that's a statement of fact. It may prove to not be an accurate fact, but it's still a statement of fact, not an opinion. What would be problematic, is letting one editor decide that a reliable source cannot be used because it contradicts his personal POV. WP:GAMING is irrelevant as well, because there is no bad-faith coming out of me. A reliable source says X, and X was being maintained in the article. Contrarily, WP:GAMING also says "Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view." If a reliable source says the film is bilingual, and a single editor comes by to change it to Tamil alone, that could very well be indicative of a non-neutral point of view being enforced. Ethnic warring is (sadly) very common here, and the same sort of thing happened at Baahubali, where Telugu editors were adamant that their culture get their proper credit! As I am not Indian, I have no horse in this race. Moving along, your assertion that no way, no how is this film being shot in Hindi contravenes WP:CRYSTAL, because it represents unverifiable speculation. Contrarily, the Tamil–Hindi content suitably meets WP:V. As for your references, they're sufficient for establishing that the film will be produced in Tamil. That, however, is not in dispute. By presenting these references though, you are arguing from the negative, suggesting that since "Hindi" does not appear in these sources, that the film will not be made in Hindi. That constitutes an argument from silence logical fallacy. Further, "Tamil" is ambiguous in some of these references. Does it refer to the language, or does it refer to the industry? Rhetorical questions. None of them address the Hindi issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My sources cite quotes from actors themselves and they say it's a Tamil film, not a double language film, not even mention Hindi. And your claim that all these papers and the actor himself argue from silence is just another retarded way of yours to game the system. I hope you don't mind if I say that no sane guy on this planet would think you act here in good faith other than the aforementioned accused by newspapers community. You are not only gaming the system, but also doing horrendous Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, since your real motives become shadier and shadier. It will be all the more fun once the movie gets released I guess. --213.47.76.227 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who took up the position of having some expertise in Wikipedia policy. Don't bring up policies or guidelines if you don't want your misinterpretations to be countered. And again, please avoid the personal attacks. I'm sorry that you don't understand the point I made about your logically fallacious argument, but that's your problem, not mine. You do not presently have consensus for your preferred version of the article, but since you seem to have some familiarity with Wikipedia, you are no doubt already aware of what your options are at this point. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The recent source http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/hindi/Impressed-by-Story-of-2.0-Akshay-to-Make-Tamil-Debut/2016/01/14/article3226541.ece mentioned by Editor 213.47.76.227 itself says that the original Robot (2010) was a bilingual film. So I would ask the admin to change the language of Enthiran to be Tamil and Hindi. Even my earlier mentioned old sources also say that Enthiran is a bilingual movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.85.104 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The source you've provided also says, "Akshay claims, 'It is too early to say if this film will be a bilingual. The release is one year away. Work has begun and I will start shooting within a month.'" This would tend to sort the other editor's position that the language status is up in the air. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier: It's quite obvious that some Indian journalists are just randomly pulling out unqualified statements. Endhiran was released with a Hindi dubbing along with the Tamil original, which nobody in the world disputes, and this "journalist" calls it then a bilingual film. What the interview actually tells you is that it's not even 100% sure if the film gets dubbed in Hindi and released due to whatever reasons. BTW, yes, this newspaper is also regarded as a "reliable" source by the wikipedia community. Retarded. --213.47.76.227 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not only NewIndianExpress but also EconomicTimes and IndiaToday mention Enthiran as bilingual film. The sources are mentioned above. In the initial years, nobody cared about the language and hence Enthiran was maintained as Tamil movie in Wikipedia even though it is a bilingual movie in Tamil and Hindi. Not only the above three sources, almost all the national newspapers at the time of release of Enthiran movie mentioned it as as bilingual movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.85.104 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Who cares what newspapers falsely report when the film is NOT in Hindi? If Endhiran is not dubbed but shot in Hindi why are there only dubbed versions available? Are you seriously saying that Endhiran was shot in Hindi? Or are you just sticking to the retarded understanding of some retarded Hindi entertainment journalists about what is a "bilingual" film? I've slso seen news reports which called Puli a "trilingual film", although it was only shot in Tamil: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150928/entertainment-kollywood/article/puli-makers-release-3d-game

It's quite obvious that you are trolling hard, but in the end 2.0 will be called a pure Tamil film despite all your efforts.213.47.76.227 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Enthiran was shot in Hindi because of Aishwarya Rai factor. 2.0 will be shot in Hindi because of Akshay Kumar factor. Generally dubbed films won't fetch much money when compared to direct films. Generally, the budget of a movie will be made depending on the market value of the actors and the highest distributor shares one film got in a particular language. If the distributor share value of Tamil only version films(excluding dubbed versions) doesn't even cross Rs. 100 crores, how one will put a budget of Rs. 350 crores for making a Tamil language film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.84.73 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So you believe that Kollywood flms which include Bollywood actors get automatically shot in Hindi, and the "evidence" of your claim is the high budget, because Bollywood actors have some sort of high msrket value? You are also saying that dustributor share of "Tamil only version(excluding dubbed versions)" can't cross even 100 cr, which sounds quite funny from a person who keeps saying that the films are not dubbed in Hindi. Maybe you are jeaulous of Tamils because their films are bigger than Bollywood films, although they don't work in Hindi, because a dubbing in Hindi is suffecient enough to collect more money in the Hindi market than Bollywood films. Has the cultural pressure become so hard hitting that you have to desperately start to hijack the cultural identity of Kollywood films? The problem here is that Hindi is for us Dravidians like Arabic.–06:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)213.47.76.227 (talk)

There is nothing more to discuss here if you are claiming that Kollywood films are bigger than Bollywood films. In fact distributor shares of Telugu only films are much bigger than Tamil only films and forget about Hindi films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.84.21 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC) In fact your edits at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most_expensive_non-English-language_films&action=history shows that you are trying to prove that Tamil films are bigger films in this world after English language films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.84.21 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying South Indian films are earning more money with dubbed Hindi in Hindi market than most Bollywood films: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/baahubalis-hindi-version-crosses-rs-100-crore-mark/ The people of Hindi belt go crazy about south indian content. But South Indians mostly reject any Bollywood film. Overall South Indian films are much much bigger than Bollywood films, which reflects in budget and culture of the movies. Bollywood is rapidly going downhill in all of India. Even some Marathi movies make more money than Bollywood films. Truth hurts, isn't it?–213.47.76.227 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This conversation has gone off the rails and we're getting into some ridiculous "My ethnic film industry is better than your ethnic film industry" territory here, which is easily one of the lamest pissing matches you can be involved in. My recommendation is that based on this reference where an actor involved in the film says it's premature to call it a bilingual film, we hold off on including "bilingual" in the article or "Tamil–Hindi" until we have a clearer picture of how the film is actually going to be produced. What we do know is that it will be shot in Tamil. What is not glaringly obvious is whether or not it will be shot in Hindi or whether the film will be written to contain both Tamil and Hindi dialogue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this matter resolved with these references [2][3], which were added in this edit? According to both, the film is being shot in three languages, Tamil, Telugu and Hindi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

it's just another example of cheap journalism in India, with a little difference in wording that they actually shot the film in 3 languages. Since the source website is considered reliable by wikipedia for whatever reason, there is actually no way to remove it as per my understanding, since minority views are to be presented accurately. Now this whole nonsense got its way into this article.. until the film's release. Then we can remove the source and blacklist the journalist. --213.47.76.227 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the same IBTimes writer has now written that the film is being shot in Tamil and dubbed in Hindi and Telugu in the latest article about the film. That should say something about his credibility and IBTimes' as well. I'll be removing Hindi and Telugu from the infobox and change the wording in the article wherever necessary. - Nirinsanity (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It is better to consider multiple sources than just one. I have updated with all three languages - Tamil, Hindi and Telugu. Rajan51 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think most of those sources reported that the film is being produced in Hindi and Telugu just because that is what is written on Wikipedia. I know that is quite a blatant claim to make, but you never know. Anyway, for now, I guess we'll include all three languages and see how it pans out. - Nirinsanity (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Release date

@Cyphoidbomb: The release date is mentioned here. Should it still be mentioned inside the infobox? --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 18:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Balablitz, thanks for your note. There is no specific release date in that section, only a general mid-October. I think it's always a good idea to employ the |ref1= parameter of {{Film date}}. I figure it's there for a reason. It also helps wikignomes like myself to spot potential vandalism. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Versions of the movie

The movie page, eventhough there are no reliable sources whether it releases in Telugu, has the language included in the infobox. But, even after I add reliable sources which claim that, the movie will be released in six languages, it is being removed. A comment adding, "it is highly unlikely for a tamil film to be shot in Japanese or Chinese". Please go through the source carefully where, it was never mentioned that, the movie will be made in six languages. It may get dubbed and released. For a film being shot in 400 crores, releasing in several languages by dubbing is always likely. I hereby add the sources for my stand. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/2.0-is-set-to-go-where-no-Indian-film-has-gone-before/article16738922.ece http://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/southcinema/rajinikanths-20-budget-goes-up-to-a-whopping-rs-400-crore/ar-AAl2hMH?li=AAggbRN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.31.177 (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Movie produced in Kollywood

This movie, which is produced by a production company based in Chennai, can have a statement of brief regarding the production under the Production title. This is just an information that, the film is being produced in Kollywood. My Claim stands justified since the same alternate version of the statement was applied in Baahubali page. You can find their version of statement under the Production title in Baahubali page. And I think there are adequate sources already present in the infobox to justify my statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.31.177 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No. it is up to you to cite a reliable source not make an assumption or use WP:Synthesis - Arjayay (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hai. Why can't you do the same edit in Bahubali:The beginning and Bahubali:the Conclusion page which has the same unsourced sentence under the production title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.31.177 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I added that line at Baahubali as a concession to the various people who were whining on the talk page and via edit warring about how their ethnic film industry should get proper "credit". "Never thought Tamils will stoop to this level of taking credit for someone else film" "People please give due credit to Telugu and stop being cheap and taking the credit for the work that has nothing to do with Tamil". Enjoy the read. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"The film was chiefly produced in "Tollywood," the center of Telugu language films in India, which is based in the city of Hyderabad." That statement seems like original research as I don't see any references at the end. Either way, I think it's completely pointless and unnecessary to add "Kollywood" or any crap like that to this article. - Nirinsanity (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no complaints if it is removed. I have no ethnic dogs in this fight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are biased. We never took credit for someone else's films. Rather we claimed that, the movie was made in Tamil, the same which goes on for the Telugu version of 2.0. "People please do give some credit to Tamil and stop being cheap by adding Telugu as primary language in almost all the movies that has nothing to do with Telugu". And I kindly request all the Telugu ethnic dogs to please stay away from this edit page and a Tamil editor to involve in this matter. As the entire scene is under their control, they can add lines like 'produced in Tollywood' or craps like that, but, if anything like that is added to the article that has the original credit to Tamil, these guys cry to do so by asking for references. I kindly advise those Telugu editors to put some brains on this issue. Biased editing spoils the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.249.180.158 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Telugu and Hindi versions seem 'dubbed'.

SOURCES indicating that the Telugu and Hindi versions are dubbed — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Budget of 2.0

Hey that's 4bn₹ and not 3.5bn द रयल (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the cited source here clearly states 350 Crore - you have not provided any source whatsoever for your claim - Arjayay (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

OK - the reference I cited above was 16 October 2016, whereas this is 4 December 2016, and states "the film's budget has risen to "400 Crore" - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Specific release date

Unless there is a source that supports a very specific 18 October 2017 release date, we should be vague and present something in the "mid-October 2017" range. Though sources say that the film will be released on Diwali,[4][5][6] whomever submitted the specific date seems to be taking the Diwali date very literally". Western films that are slated for Christmas releases don't necessarily get released exactly on 25 December. If Christmas is on a Monday, you'd release the film the previous Friday. It contravenes WP:CRYSTAL to extrapolate a specific date. For all we know the film could be released in advance of Diwali, which falls on a Wednesday, or they could delay release to the Friday after Diwali. Got specific sources? Also, do we need three references and a footnote for this one piece of information? (See Release section) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute about "most expensive film in Asia"

In this edit, NutellaCambridge made a good-faith edit to challenge the claim that 2.0 is the most expensive film in Asia. Though The Hindu makes this claim, with a budget of ₹400 crore (US$48 million), The Hollywood Reporter indicates that Asura, a Chinese film, is being produced at a cost of USD$100 million. So participants need to figure out how to present this information, since there is a huge disparity. While we could say that the film is the costliest in India, neither source says this explicitly, so it would require a note or something to explain. Regardless, the claim that it is the costliest film in Asia is dubious. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The map of Asia here clearly shows what is universally accepted as Asia. The most expensive Asian films above the 2.0 films are therefore, Asura, The Flowers of War, Red Cliff, D-War II: Mysteries of the Dragon, Dragon Blade, The Bombing, Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons 2, The Mermaid, The Monkey King, The Monkey King 2. This is clearly listed on Wikipedia's list of most expensive non-English-language films. We can clearly conclude it is not the most expensive in Asia but is in India. (Proof the listed films budgets are on the link)

comment unsigned by user:NutellaCambridge

I believe the Asian "dispute" was quickly rectified and accepted as ok. Not only was "Asian" in the quoted source, but geographically, IT IS IN ASIA.

But, since then, a new movie is claiming to be more expensive than this one, which makes this movie no longer the most expensive in Asia, but is still the most expensive in India.

Kellymoat (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to update my comments above with a link to this, where I did a partial revert and presented the disparity in a fairly clear way, I think. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Budget format

Just wondering, but would it make sense to put the budget into USD instead of INR as with many other Asian/Indian films have given it, could give easier comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaCambridge (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thus far, the references have been quoted in non-US figures. Kellymoat (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense - denied facts

The first lines of this page are just wrong, it is not the most expensive film in Asia but is the most expensive Indian film (until 2018) to be made, as there are 3 entire films with a greater budget, two chinese and one us/korean, as NutellaCambridge pointed out The Flowers of War (2008) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16638897), Red Cliff () (http://variety.com/2007/film/features/mega-film-red-cliff-makes-history-1117972838/), and D-War II: Mysteries of the Dragon (http://variety.com/2016/film/asia/china-finance-for-d-war-sequel-1201734811/).

It is also universally accepted that China and South Korea are situated in Asia meaning that the statement that the film is the most expensive in Asia is clearly false. I have also provided better references for this where NutellaCambridge has failed. I trust you will make the necessary edits before I am forced to take this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisdeBourbon (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This is also what is presented in List of most expensive non-English-language films so either they're wrong or you're wrong. If this is still not clear to anyone, all hope is lost.

Thank you for your cooperation and I say again to cross check these bold claims before they are made (hence Wikipedia's deteriorating reputation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisdeBourbon (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Eurovision! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaCambridge (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2017

Add INR Convert to USD rates in Budget 103.66.79.236 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia does not prefer the inclusion of INRConvert in infoboxes. Concerns raised: 1) There's no clear reason to arbitrarily convert to US dollars, as opposed to, say, Chinese Yuan 2) The default INRConvert template creates problems with inflation. 3) Even if we adjust for inflation in the template, the result is bloated and needlessly converts to US Dollars. (See #1) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Part two: Dispute about "most expensive film in Asia"

Kellymoat, NutellaCambridge, I think we should probably be discussing the flare-up of the "most expensive film in Asia" edit dispute here. Can someone please summarise what the current issue is, please? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Some guy changed page to claim again it was the most expensive Asian film so naturally I challenged it again but keeps getting revertedNutellaCambridge (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the claim of 2.0 being "the most expensive film in Asia at the time of filming" would be legitimately disputable if we could get clear sourcing for the Chinese films The Flowers of War and Red Cliff. The only source I see at List of most expensive non-English-language films is Statista.com. No idea what that source is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Flowers of War (2011): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16638897, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9447846/The-Flowers-of-War-the-Chinese-film-that-is-sparking-a-revolution.html

Red Cliff (2008-09): , http://collider.com/exclusive-interview-john-woo-talks-red-cliff-and-his-next-movie-flying-tigers/, http://www.foreignercn.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=736:red-cliff&catid=64:china-movies&Itemid=131NutellaCambridge (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these, NutellaCambridge. I don't see the cost of Flowers of War in that first source, but The Telegraph does post a gross of $90 million for Flowers of War. And if Collider says that the 2008 film Red Cliff cost about $80 million then both films would be higher than the ₹450 crore (equivalent to ₹647 crore or US$78 million in 2023) asserted by The Hindu. I'm of the opinion that the superlative should either be removed entirely, or should be changed to "most expensive film in India", which I don't think is being disputed. I'd also note that that phrasing used by The Hindu doesn't make it sound like they vetted the claim. "Actor Rajinikanth’s 2.0, which is already being labelled as the costliest Asian film till date..." We have no idea who did the labelling. Regardless, we're not required to regurgitate a claim verbatim, especially when there is a legitimate reason to doubt the absolute-ness of the claim, and especially when Indian film journalism often has these problems with superlatives and declarations and inflated financial figures and so forth. Kelly, do you have any thoughts on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -

One of my complaints about WP is the insistence on people including "this is the top" this or "this is the highest" that - when you know damn well that these things are going to change frequently. Of course, that is an issue for a different forum than here. So, as to the current issue, the article first stated (per source) that it was the most expensive Asian film. Which was an issue because some people didn't want to include India as part of Asia. Followed by another movie being made with a higher budget, causing this one to be the 2nd most expensive Asian film, but still the most expensive Indian film. All is well. Fast forward to the other day (May 11), with yet another film announcing another new record - NutellaCambridge makes an edit leaving a note and an edit summary saying that we should consider rewording the sentence.

I reworded the sentence. And instead of making yet another changeable fact (1st becomes 2nd, 2nd becomes 3rd, etc etc), I took it back to the original sourced content "the most expensive Asian film." But I added "at the time of filming", so that we would not need to update its ranking every time there is another expensive film. Kellymoat (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As to the rest of the conversation --- China is part of Asia. But, per a couple of the sources regarding 2.0 losing its "top" ranking (some of which I removed for being irrelevant to 2.0), they don't include Chinese film budgets and ticket sales because they are often inflated to create hype. Kellymoat (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat,@CyphoidBomb the entire problem is that is was NOT the most expensive Asian film at the time of filming, as the Flowers of War and Red Cliff were released in 2008 with a higher budget; that is what I am trying to get at. 'most expensive Indian film would be much more suitable.NutellaCambridge (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

2.0 is being released this year (2017) after 2008 after these films, which, after applying common sense, would not make it the most expensive film in Asia even at the time of filming so this bold statement MUST be changedNutellaCambridge (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Consistent with the List of most expensive non-English-language films (I know Wikipedia is not reliable...), 2.0 was the 4th most expensive film in Asia at the time of filming.

More references from that page Flowers of War: http://www.statista.com/statistics/260159/most-expensive-film-productions-in-china/ Red Cliff: http://www.statista.com/statistics/260159/most-expensive-film-productions-in-china/ D-War II: Mysteries of the Dragon: http://variety.com/2016/film/asia/china-finance-for-d-war-sequel-1201734811/

We may indeed have to accept that not all sources are reliable, which is where the source that claim that it was the most expensive film in Asia at the time of filming comes from. NutellaCambridge (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It was never however argued that India is not in Asia, but it simply was NOT the most expensive film AT THE TIME OF FILMING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaCambridge (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what NutellaCambridge is saying, I took at a look at the sources and there is incredibly strong evidence against this claim, countless reliable websites and corroborates with the rest of Wikipedia as well. I think Kellymoat is perhaps attached to one source and may have to accept that is was not reliable and wrong, in the face of the truth.LouisdeBourbon (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting aside

I was brought here via my talk page, as was Rothorpe according to the culprit's contribution history, for reasons unknown to me, and although it turns out the arguing users were sockpuppets, I'm concerned that this entire matter will be dropped as a result. Once I have finished some assignments real life, I'll take a look at the claim of 2.0 being the "most expensive film in Asia at the time of filming". I've started a new sub-header, 'cause this entire page is an absolute mess. To all those interested in partaking in discussion, remember to indent your comments appropriately and sign. Thank you. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 22:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If you put most expensive asian film 2.0 into google, you will get plenty of results. Some are older and say that 2.0 is the top, and some still have the 350 budget, not the updated 450. While others are newer and say things like "move over 2.0, there is a new most expensive".

But, I am going to let you guys come together with a consensus based on your findings, as well as WP guidelines and inflation issues. Because I honestly don't care one way or the other what the end result is. I was involved a few months ago when someone took offense to India being included as part of "Asia". Which was easily fixed because other movies came out to take the top spot. But then, about a week ago, when one of the socks said that yet another film took the top spot again and suggested that the entire thing be reworded, I reworded it in a way that would not need changed when new movies broke the record again. And then, for some reason the sock didn't like it - which resulted in a back and forth and him trying to round up the troops.

And that brings us here to today. So, like I said, I have no opinion other than the geography lesson at the start (india is in asia). Kellymoat (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you need better sources of information than a Google search, because there are several much older films with a higher budget in Asia (refer to the novel above). If you can still not see this, then God help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.134.3 (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat: There was no ambiguity in this discussion that could have been described as "for some reason". The reason was very clear: The claims that the 2.0 was "the most expensive Asian film at the time of filming" is demonstrably false when there are Chinese films from 2008 and 2011 that were costlier. So, very kind of you to "let us come together with a consensus based on [our] findings", but this was a needless stonewalling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember if it was here, your talk page, or my talk page, where I said "according to some of the sources the sock posted, most people don't count Chinese films because they are too hard to verify because they are often inflated to cause a hype". Which is one of the reasons I said that I would let the "posse" figure it out. But they haven't shown like they said they would (unless they are still looking into it). Certainly, with so many sources claiming 2.0 to be the most expensive ASIAN film (since overthrown), there must be some semblance of truth to it. I mean, people aren't calling The Mummy the most expensive film. Why do they say it about this one? Kellymoat (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Language

2.0 is a Tamil film which is dubbed and the dubbed version is simultaneously to be released. So I think we must remove Telugu and Hindi from it's language *^🦂😎 Nabeelgm 😎^🦂(Talk)•°(contribs)

• 😎Nabeelgm👍 (talk • contribs)

@Nabeelgm: Nabeel Gm 14:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nabeelgm: Is there a reason why you signed your post twice and then pinged yourself? Please just sign posts with four tildes like ~~~~. Pings are used to notify other editors that you are talking to them. As to your post, I believe early reports indicated that the film was being shot in three languages. What indications do you have that the film is only being dubbed in Telugu and Hindi? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The Telugu version is a dubbed one and there are no source, as of now, about the hindi version. Please have a glimpse at the below links and update appropriately. 1. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/tollywood/120817/20-sold-out-for-a-record-price.html 2. http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Tollywood/2017-08-12/Robo-20-bought-for-81-cr/318455 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.219.62 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Telugu - Hindi dubbed

Please remove both languages from the articles. The film is dubbed into these languages. Original = Tamil only. --178.165.131.37 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

"It is the First Indian movie which is directly shot in 3D" This statement is inaccurate.

"My Dear Kuttichathan" is the first indian movie to be shot in 3D. This was released in 1984. The movie was shot in film with stereoscopic camera . 3D conversion technology was not in place that time. It was shot with stereoscopic 3D camera in film. Even there is a wiki page is available on this topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Dear_Kuttichathan

I strongly request to remove this sentence Sanuj ss (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Unsourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

About the title

Is it 2.0 or 2.O? Latest news spelled it as 2.O here, here and here (though the last one seems to be a bit old;over a month ago). The official announcement also spelled it as 2.O. Comments? 2.51.17.85 (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right, I have seen nearly all of Rajnikanth's and Shankar's press interviews regarding this film and the all say it as 2.o too. Moving. South Indian Geek (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Why so quickly without discussion? It's 2.0. "O" is merely another way of saying zero. Please also see official material released by the producers such as the jukebox / making video on YouTube - where the makers themselves write 2.0. Make the changes accordingly asap. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems premature and counter-intuitive to me as well, as there is no context for why we should consider it "oh". Their official Twitter presence seems to use numerals. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor who moved it seems like he made a very rash and unconsidered decision. How do we take steps to revert it? Editor 2050 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor 2050, I agree with your viewpoint, and moved the article back to its original title. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)