Talk:2.0 (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

add telugu also in release languages list only tamil and hindi is added Hemanth12121 (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @Hemanth12121: Telugu appears to be a dub. We don't indicate dubs in the Infobox. Imagine how many dubs there were for Captain America: Civil War. We only care about the primary language or languages a film was produced in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

NO HINDI NO TELUGU

2.51.17.85 (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC) THIS IS A TAMIL FILM. ALL OTHER LANGUAGES = DUBBING ONLY.

Ok Chinmayap7210 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I THINK IT IS IN HINDI ALSO. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Languages issue

What are the number of dubbed languages in the film, is it 13 or 15? Aggarwala2727 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwala2727: This source indicates 15. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

News website issue

Is the website www.diginewspoint.com a trusted news site to be added as reference? Aggarwala2727 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwala2727: I've never heard of it, and we're only interested in mainstream sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Please see WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for some examples of sources that are, and are not, useful at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

So, the edit by Androidbijay1 was referenced by this news site only.

What to do now?

Aggarwala2727 (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwala2727: Well, you could have searched for a better reference like this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for searching the best reference.

Aggarwala2727 (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for blocking Androidbijay1 for advertising. But how did you get confirmed that he was promoting (his own) website?

Aggarwala2727 (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Film Budget

Additional 100 crore spent on vfx work. Asj052 (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Asj052: Did you want us to do something with this information? You didn't provide any references, so we can't make any changes to the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:Film budget should be change. Additional 100 crore should be added.

https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/2-0-rajinikanth-and-shankars-magnum-opus-adds-another-rs-100-cr-to-films-budget-to-accelerate-vfx-work-4531601.html Asj052 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:However it is not official yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asj052 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Protection

Request for semi protection due to repeated editing without reference. Asj052 (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What? Have you requested a protection or want us to request it? Please be clear Aggarwala2727 (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Release date

Hello, what to do about the film's release date? Aggarwala2727 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Is TBA good under the release section of infobox?

Aggarwala2727 (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I got rid of it. It's a pointless thing to add, because obviously a film date will be announced. I added January 2019, but since only one site of the three references (The News Minute) appears to be reporting Pongal, "January" could probably be deleted for now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Director of movie tweeted on July 10,2018 that movie will release on November 29,2018. Yogendra014 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Language in which the movie was shot

By seeing the teaser of all the three versions of 2.0, it can be confirmed that it was shot only in Tamil. The teaser has a scene showing a news channel named News7, which is operating in India only in Tamil language. There is no such channel called News7 in Telugu or Hindi. The 'Lifestyle' logo written in Tamil in the Tamil teaser has been removed in the Telugu and Hindi teasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.49.218.194 (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

2.0 will officialy release in Tamil and Hindi under of Lyca Productions and Dharma Productions. Hindi is also primary version because Akshay Kumar will be dubbing in his own voice for the Hindi version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiqsazzad001 (talk • contribs) 12:48, September 15, 2018 (UTC)

Dubbing voice is not the problem here. Prabhas did not give his voice in Tamil version of Baahubali even though the film was shot both in Tamil and Telugu. If the movie was shot in both the languages why was this scene in the teaser not re-shot, instead edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.49.216.224 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree this film original is Tamil only. I watched the scenes in the trailer as well. They did a great job at dubbing in Hindi, but when you compare with Tamil version, you see the dubbing in the Hindi version quite well. Some idiots on wikipedia always try to discredit south Indians by using Hindi hegemony propaganda material of large newspapers.-2A02:8388:3C1:4480:B184:182E:148D:50E1 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How can anyone logically extrapolate that the teaser is indicative of how the entire movie was produced? Maybe it was easier and faster to take footage from version A and slap different vocal tracks over it just to get the buzz going. As for the News7 argument, that's just ridiculous. Surely you can't expect them to have to change every piece of signage or every logo or every landmark just to make Telugu and Hindi-speaking viewers feel like they are immersed in Telugu and Hindi worlds. Now, you all could be correct that the film was only filmed in Tamil and then dubbed into everything else, but you have to be correct for the right reasons. The arguments above are not logical, and the film hasn't been released, so any argument thus far is speculative unless there is clarification from the producers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Why would they show an unoriginal Hindi teaser "to keep the buzz going", if they had original Hindi material? We already know that there is Tamil original only by watching trailer.--2A02:8388:3C1:4480:7C79:BFB0:AFE4:F7A1 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2018

the real budget of 2.0 is 552 crores (5520000000INR), this is not estimated, based on the poster launched by "Variety" a weekly American entertainment trade magazine on their first page quoting "India's first 75 million dollar VFX wonder", that's why when you convert 75 million USdollars to INR it will be 552 crores! this poster was shared by the Director, Akshay Kumar and Lyca Production (the Production company of the movie) Delak0923 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the plot

Please feel free to edit the plot as I have written the plot on the basis of just hearing the story from my friend. I know there are many mistakes in the plot. So just go ahead and add and correct it if necessary Gunjan Kayarkar (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

unsourced box office figures

unsourced box office figures added to the article--Hjkl12345 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you are refering to the lead section figure. The sources are found in the article body in the box office section.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

800 crore box office in 4 days Jagadeep2020 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jagadeep2020: Article talk pages are intended for users to discuss specific improvements to the article, not to lobby for prayers or to act as a wishing well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018 for collection

The collection world wide is 216 after day 2. Here is the source - https://boxofficecollection.in/box-office-report/2point0-2nd-day-collection-39122 2406:7400:B2:0:0:0:2:24E7 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. boxofficecollection.in does not yet qualify as a reliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Voiced by" unclear

@RajFilmBuff: Can you or anyone else please explain the meaning of the "voiced by" labels next to some of the cast, like here? There is a glaring lack of context, so this doesn't make sense to someone who has not seen the film. Why do we have an actor playing a role only to have their role voiced by someone else? Is this because of dubbing? If so, that should be stated clearly, and it's also not terribly clear why we would care about a dubbed role, when that's not typically logged in most films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb The original language of the film is Tamil (With the Hindi and Telugu versions dubbed.) Akshay Kumar primarily works in Bollywood (Hindi) films, and doesn't speak Tamil. His voice in the film's original version was provided by Jayaprakash. Kumar voiced himself in the Hindi version, but that was for a dubbed version of the film. Same goes for Amy Jackson, who is British and doesn't speak any Indian language. Her voice was provided by Raveena Ravi. How do you suggest we write this for clarity? RajFilmBuff (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@RajFilmBuff: Thank you for the explanation. I think the more clarity you provide, the better. I'm not quite sure how to do that without introducing original research, i.e. our own interpretations/evaluations. This is maybe something that some of you could discuss. Maybe along the lines of "Akshay Kumar as Pakshi Rajan - In the Tamil and ___ version(s), Kumar's voice was dubbed by Jayaprakash. If there were external sources that acknowledged why Kumar's voice was dubbed, that would be helpful, but I won't hold my breath. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Even Tamil people get dubbed by a different Tamil person, if their original speech is not good enough. Trisha was dubbed for many many years in her mother tongue. In Wikipedia this is often overlooked, because media doesn't talk about the dubbers. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

"When Chitti returns to the lab, Dr. Vaseegaran inquires about the three huge parabolic antenna and comes to know that they were built secretly to send signals of negative energy into space with the hope of finding or communicating with other species" in this the signals were of "Positive energy" not negative.

"Ultimately they manage to destroy Pakshi Rajan (although they are tricked into believing this)." they actually capture him instead of destroy. Chiranjivi Mokashi (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Change the Poster

Present poster is not up to the mark. Its look like some one cropped and collage them together. Please upload new poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.0.5.237 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Enthiran sequel 2.0 set photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Budget Issues

Uh

"543 crores (or 54300 lakhs) is equal to 5430 million (5.43 billion)."

Is this not out by a factor of a 1000 or so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.162.102 (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Cyphoidbomb:,

In the Bollywood Hungama source, The actual overall budget of 2.0 is Rs 552 crores, and that too after all the VFX being done all over again since the original VFX were of very poor quality. Also, the film is far more expensive than the usual 3D films in India. Most films in this country using that format are first shot in 2D and then converted to 3D. 2.0 was shot in 3D”, says the source. The main point is that who is the source? Is it director Shankar? Lyca Productions staff? Or What? In the previous source, they said Akshay Kumar name is Dr. Richard, which is founded by source. That is completely false information which is claimed by Shankar during interview with Rajeev Masand. He also claim that the film bugdet is $75 Million. Here is the source https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJQ5CQlIGBA . So what should we do? Should we believe source that close to the film or director Shankar? Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Verifed: 400 crore is the old bugdet. After completed their VFX work, the graphics visual seen very poor. Later they shifted their VFX studio at DNEG. Thats why they needed more 143 crore. Interview Source: (https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJQ5CQlIGBA). 75 million mean 543 crore (https://twitter.com/shankarshanmugh/status/1039068601536339968/photo/1). All the sources are properly verifed. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: I don't understand your explanation or this edit when Bollywood Hungama writes on 26 October 2018, "It not all the ridiculous figures being thrown around by people who have no idea such things. The actual overall budget of 2.0 is Rs 400 crores, and that too after all the VFX being done all over again since the original VFX were of very poor quality." According to BH, the 400 crore budget includes the additional costs of shifting studios. Now whether or not that is 100% accurate is anybody's guess, but BH says explicitly that the higher figures are suspect, so I'm not clear why you'd outright remove the lower figure. Maybe the earlier reporting of 400 crore was inaccurate a few months ago. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Rajnikanth said 600 crores were invested: https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/2-0-2point0-trailer-live-updates-rajinikanth-akshay-kumar-5424013/ --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Rajnikanth is an actor, not a news outlet, and I'll point out that this very same thing happened with Kabali, (a Rajnikanth film) where news outlets were indiscriminately publishing super-high gross figures that could only have come from the producers wanting to inflate their projects. Anything that Rajnikanth says publicly about financial figures should probably not be trusted, give the track-record here. This guy seems to like to fluff up his films either with claims of high box office grosses to lure audiences, or, apparently in this case, high budget figures to lure audiences. The 600 crore figures should be excluded at face value anyway, because we do not use primary sources for controversial content, especially about a topic like Indian film finances, which are notoriously unreliable and subject to corruption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

So which are the 3rd party sources you are relying on? I quoted a quality newspaper by the way. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

To me it looks like the 400 cr figure is a fringe opinion by a source which is actually "hostile" towards south indian films based on the text. By these standards we can quote any figure which floats around the internet. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to have opinions and your interpretation of their hostility is irrelevant for deciding on inclusion. And no, your hyperbolic conclusion that "we can quote any figure which floats around the internet" is inaccurate, since we're always held to using reliable sources. Bollywood Hungama is a widely-accepted source at Wikipedia. In contrast, the quality newspaper you provided is quoting Rajnikanth, who has a vested interest in the performance of 2.0 and who would have every reason to manipulate financial figures. This is why we don't use primary sources for controversial content. Since you haven't been editing for long, you are no doubt unaware of our community standards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama is the crappiest of all sources and it is displayed well in the used language, which is undoubtly provocative at the least. At wikipedia there is a group of people who have political ideas like the guy from Bollywood Hungama, that's why it is "widely-supported" here without any objective reason. Bollywood Hungama would be spit on if it was considered as a source for a Hollywood article. The quality newspaper I quoted from is Indian Express, and if they report figures from primary sources, that makes themselves not primary sources, they are secondary. Get your facts straight.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You haven't edited a film article in four-and-a-half years. You're not in a position to decide of your own volition what is or isn't a reliable source. The Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia has long considered Bollywood Hungama acceptable, which is why it can be found on the list here. Sorry. And again, a quote from Rajnikanth is a primary source, even if that quote is filtered through a secondary source. If you read WP:PRIMARY, you'll note that interviews are considered primary sources, even though they normally are published by a secondary source. So, my facts are straight. And while you seem keen to deal in absolute financial figures, anybody familiar with the subject of Indian cinema knows that there are no absolute financial figures. So the smarter, more academic approach is to consider the variety of sources, which is what the range of 400-573 represents, because somewhere in there exists "truth". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I concede, that Rajnikanth statement is a primary source. However, I don't see why Bollywood Hungama is acceptable, just because a certain group of people say so. Just look at the list with red links. These red links all point to sites with high non-Bollywood content. If these red links are unreliable than Bollywood Hungama is certainly as well. Some of these red links are way more popular than Bollywood Hungama also. To prove my point here are youtube subscribers for Bollywood Hungama: 913K , Behindwoods.com (Red link): 2M , Indiaglitz (Red link): 2.4M Tamil alone. Obviously, the public relies more on these sites than Bollywood Hungama, but wikipedia with its biased editors is not. And if you believe that this unnamed source of the Bollywood Hungama "article" is not a primary source, why do you say that Rajnikanth is a primary source. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Subscribers doesn't matter to Wikipedia. But I like your point about unnamed source. Variety magazine is more reliable than Bollywood Hungama. they published there magazine cover about 2.0's bugdet. They mention about 75$ million dollar of film budget. Here is the magazine cover and main source (subscription needed). Which mean it is around 540-550 crore. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 03:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: It's not a legitimate argument that Variety is more authoritative than other Indian sources. Variety's expertise is in American, and perhaps some European financial details. We can't by default assume that the cachet of their name extends to Indian cinema, because we don't have many examples of their Indian data being superior to any other estimates in the wash. And as Betty notes below, there could be significant deviations in accuracy based on whatever currency conversions they're doing. Note also that we've made big mistakes as a group swallowing the claims made by people like Rob Cain, dazzled by his "contributor" status at super-popular-and-authoritative Forbes, when Forbes disclaims contributor material with the phrase "opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own".

Cain was in part responsible for publishing wild figures that were in line with the Kabali marketing, when the studio and marketing people were obviously floating out these giant figures that were demonstrably wrong because they obviously included pre-release sales like music and satellite rights. @ThaThinThaKiThaTha: You are kind to concede the point about Rajnikanth being a primary source. To your and Siddiq's concerns about the unnamed source, it is the traditional prerogative of the free press to protect its sources. That doesn't mean that the sources are primary, that doesn't mean that the sources are biased or trying to slam South Indian films, and it is fine to use them, unless someone uncovers proof that the sources are biased primary, or that there's something amiss with the information. Simply feeling that the numbers don't align with your particular perspective isn't sufficient to discard the data. And please remember that my approach was to present the reasonable range of information, from the 400 crore "something isn't right about the budget claims" figure to the 573 crore high end estimate. I never proposed an absolute other than outright discarding the claims made by Rajnikanth, who has previously promoted inflated financial figures. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: My point was not the count of subscriptions. My point was that movie goers prefer other sources to Bollywood Hungama, but wikipedia banned these more preferred sources. It is this low class media which creates claims like "2.0 is made in Hindi, Telugu, Tamil simultaniously", while the actual result is very different, but very expected. There are only a handful of actually reliable sources available for Indian movies, which is probably the source of all problems we face in wikipedia. Since Indian mass press is extraordinary prolific in producing just junk, we would expect, that wikipedia would be extra careful, but on the contrary they are very liberal when it comes to low quality HINDI film website sources of which Bollywood Hungama is certainly one. It feels also bad when proper journalist accounts are displayed in the same paragraph and get counter positions by these websites. It's disgusting. I see this everywhere in the Indian film related articles. "Unnamed sources" have really zero value in any Indian article, and I really want to understand what is the encyclopedic value of such claims.@Cyphoidbomb: The funny part is, that you can't demonstrate any evidence for any figure for Indian movies because of the lack of any official body for Indian box office numbers, but you still claim that it has been demonstrated. It makes zero sense to me and it looks like that you have been successfully fooled by Indian low quality media or you secretly support this pro-Hindi lobby on wikipedia. At least we Southies have the offical Indian film certificate, which can prove that the film is in Tamil, Telugu etc. If we had to rely on the low quality Hindi mass media, which are "reliable sources" according to the "Indian cinema task force" these would be all pure Hindi films, right? --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Comparing subscribers is not exactly a scientific experiment. For all we know IndiaGlitz has paid for subscriber bots. And a number doesn't tell us *why* more people might be interested in IndiaGlitz. Maybe the people just like to hear gossip. The funny part is, that you can't demonstrate any evidence for any figure for Indian movies because of the lack of any official body for Indian box office numbers, but you still claim that it has been demonstrated. It makes zero sense to me Well it makes zero sense to me either. What are you trying to say? I genuinely don't understand what your complaint/argument is here and I'm not sure how your comments that seem to be pro-Hindi paranoia are helpful in this discussion. Also, was it ever proven definitively that 2.0 was not shot in multiple languages? I'm not talking about the armchair detective work that some Anon tried to present in September on this page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because there is no Wikipedia article on Hindi nationalism doesn't mean, there is nothing like it. These people have nothing else to do as to bring all people under the Hindi umbrella, which is the curse of the country. Needless to say, that they equate Hindi nationalism with Indian nationalism (their version of it). What I want to say is that my argument is not really paranoia but the sad truth in wikipedia and they have a free ride here. There was never a prove that 2.0 was only shot in Tamil, but these newspapers, who have reported these lies have been proven to be unreliable sources. So will we take them down in wikipedia? I'm ready for it, are you? --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The value of the dollar has deviated between 63 and 75 rupees just in this year alone (which could mean the budget is as low as 470 crore), so Variety is not a good source for the rupee figure. Also, Bollywood Hungama is used as a source on thousands of articles so its reliability is an issue for the Indian cinema task force, and not subject to the whim of individual editors (unless they can demonstrate it is factually inaccurate). Template:Infobox film instructs to include a full budget range if the budget is not known for sure, which seems to be the case here because sources seem to be publishing estimates and not audited figures. Betty Logan (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I always like your input in matters such as these, Betty. You always have a unique perspective as well as interesting data. I wish you were around more in Indian cinema stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background: There are no official reporting agencies for budget or gross figures in Indian cinema. News outlets must rely on their proprietary methods for estimating these values, and sometimes outlets' values conflict.

Some reliable sources, including Times of India[1] have estimated this film's budget at ₹543 crore (₹5.43 billion). Another source generally considered reliable, Bollywood Hungama, has cast doubts on the high figures being reported, presenting a budget estimate of ₹400 crore (₹4 billion).[2]

Should we:

• Present the budget as ₹543 crore?
• Present the budget as a range between ₹400–543 crore?

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm against the inclusion of the Bollywood Hungama source. I don't think that this highly questionable source, which some claim to use a propriety way of reporting box office figures (I would like to have a source for that claim), which themselves claim to use unnamed sources for their figures, should have any space in an encyclopedia. In the previous discussion you have cited the example of Kabali, where "reliable sources" reported 200 crores pre-theatrical income, but the film producers denied the claim. This is exactly the problem. There are "professional" film analysts claiming this and that, and after all we have to rely on the producers word to get correct figures. In such an unprofessional box office environment like India, it's the only way to gather information. At the end of the day getting box office numbers in India is like getting advice from an astrologer. The best source is the producer himself, any commentary on such figures is pure POV speculation and hence unencyclopedic. The most reliable box office numbers come directly from public companies. Such revenues reports are primary sources but well accepted as reliable figures in all wikipedia article.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I support as present budget as ₹543 crore. Because range budget will confuse the viewers. The Bollywood Hungama source is from an unnamed source which is close to the film. But I believe in the official source that claim by director Shankar as 75 million dollar = 543 crore. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 19:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support ₹400–543 crore and inclusion of the Bollywood Hungama source for three primary reasons:
  1. As I stated just above, Bollywood Hungama is used on thousands of articles so it obviously has wide acceptance as a source on Indian film articles. If there is a problem with it then that's a topic problem not an article problem, and it should be taken up WP:RS/N. I don't accept the argument that getting their information from an "unnamed source" makes it unreliable in this instance because most reliable news sources collate their information from primary sources that would not be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards.
  2. While the producer's numbers are clearly important they are complicated by the fact Variety reported the figure in American dollars which means the rupee figure could vary by 200 crore (₹470–560 crore) depending on the conversion rate, so the dollar figure isn't particularly helpful in any case. In fact, relying on the producer's figures alone strengthens the case for a range.
  3. The reality is nobody seems to know how much this film has cost. There are a lot of estimates flying around. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of spreading misinformation. On the subject of budgets Template:Infobox_film instructs "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."

Given all of the above it seems impossible to narrow the budget down to a single figure. All the sources seem to agree the figure is above ₹400 crore and all the estimates seem to top out in the mid-500s so a range is the approach most consistent with the data and our guidelines. If more concrete information comes along later on the situation can be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Present as range TBD - Indian cinema financial details are notoriously unreliable, to the point where in 2013, Times of India felt it had to discontinue its box office column because they were feeling pressure from filmmakers to report inflated, record-breaking box office figures. Not surprisingly, here we are at another Indian film, with reports of a record-breaking budget. The one thing we know about Indian film financials is that there are no absolutes. Any reported figure is a guess, and any figure that comes directly from producers (or in the case of the 600 crore figure, from lead actor Rajnikanth) should be considered with great scrutiny, because films are promoted through these spectacle-style figures, as detailed in the TOI article linked. Since Bollywood Hungama, a usually-considered-reliable source, has gone out of their way to express doubts about the high figures, that speaks louder to me than the figures tossed out by the director as Siddiqsazzad001 and ThaThinThaKiThaTha seem to want to swallow. ThaThin's claims "The best source is the producer himself" and "The most reliable box office numbers come directly from public companies" is totally inaccurate as indicated by the TOI article, and demonstrates little understanding of the way Indian cinema figures work. (See Kabali and the fiasco caused when some news outlets swallowed the demonstrably incorrect box office figures. ThaThin's invocation of the phrase "POV speculation" seems to conflating Wikipedia policy with secondary source editorial policy, and their sudden appearance in this discussion after 4.5 years of silence is very perplexing. The most prudent approach is the present the content in the form of a range, although now that I know that the 543 crore figure came from the director, I don't think that it should be included in the range, and whatever the last lower estimate is, should be used instead, although I'm not clear on what that value is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support range: That seems to be the most clever option here. Even this film's predecessor Enthiran follows a similar format. I think the last lowest estimate after 543 crore is somewhere around 500 crore as per the Box Office India estimate. Regardless, it seems that the film would be the most expensive in India after Thugs of Hindostan's 300 crore. RajFilmBuff (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, it can't be ascertained the ₹543 crore figure is from Shankar's interview, so that would be the lowest estimate. Shankar had given the figure of $75 milion, which can be anywhere as there will be a difference of ₹200 crore between the extreme estimates, depending on the exchange rate (as shown above). What complicates this is the producer is British, and the visual effects were provided by an American studio, so they might have actually paid for the film in US$ [I can't think of any reason why an Indian director would give the budget in dollars]. In that case, a range seems to be the best solution (once again). Even if I just happen to be overthinking and there was nothing of this sort, common sense would declare we use a range in case of any scenario. RajFilmBuff (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• What's your problem with me coming back after 4 years? I'm not a film maker, I'm not even remotely living or working in India. There is nothing that you have to worry about my persona. Which TOI article indicates, that figures from public companies are prone to problems? I checked your links and there is no indication for that. It seems like you are trying to defend Bollywood Hungama as a "reliable source" blindly believing in its reliabilty because disruptive people use it on wikipedia.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're fixated on here. There is corruption in the industry, which I've established clearly, and we don't typically swallow information from primary sources when the content is controversial. Budget and gross figures are controversial pieces of information in a corrupt industry, and when there is a range of uncertainty, the range should be presented with proper context. Seems simple and academically honest. Surely you're not moving the goalposts for me to have to prove that public companies in India manipulate their figures, right? "It seems like you are trying to defend Bollywood Hungama as a "reliable source" blindly believing in its reliabilty because disruptive people use it on wikipedia." ← This doesn't make one iota of sense. I'm defending Bollywood Hungama because disruptive people use it? Huh? What does that even mean. I don't need to "defend" Bollywood Hungama. It is a widely accepted source at Wikipedia. Period. If you have a problem with the source, you are free to pursue whatever discussion you wish to pursue about it at WT:ICTF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is an article from a "reliable source", which questions Bollywood Hungama figures directly. But you think, just because wikipedia "Bollywood nationalists" push these figures it becomes reliable? Laughable. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that article has almost no knowledge on the figures. Box Office India majorly presents nett gross, gross after deducting taxes. They only list the final gross after the films have completed their run. When a new film releases, we use Bollywood Hungama since they use gross without tax subtraction. This is what is used on Wikipedia, the gross you see in info boxes, etc. When we take this into account, the figures are very similar, with sometimes exact numbers. Just because Bollywood Hungama exposed a wrong figure, no need to diss the entire website for your personal preference. 2.51.19.70 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama is a fraud like all other websites of the genre. I have actually calculated the difference, and your fake justification makes no sense. Did you even check the numbers? This is from my excel calc sheet (it took me 1 min) From top to bottom: 15.41%, 8.55%, 7.68%, 22.08%, 28.21%, 15.94%, 16.07%. Busted! --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of making no sense, "just because wikipedia 'Bollywood nationalists' push these figures it becomes reliable?" is another nonsensical argument that relies heavily on a false premise, that there are "Bollywood nationalists" whatever the hell that is, who "push these figures" whatever that is supposed to mean. Please, person who sprang out of the ether to start analyzing this film, please show us ample evidence of this Bollywood nationalist menace, so that we can give your analysis the consideration it deserves. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what is nonsensical about my term "Bollywood nationalists". Nationalism is not only limited to politically defined regions - there is cultural nationalism as well. I also don't know what is nonsensical about "push these figures" ? Cultural nationalists obviously try to create an environment where their culture is displayed as superior to other cultures. Your beloved Bollywood Hungama source uses exactly the language of a cultural nationalist. Example: "The apprehension now is one of mass acceptability in the North. Rajinikanth, undoubtedly the King of the South, has a poor market in the Hindi belt. His last film Kaala was very poorly received in North India." Now when we look at indifferent sources, which talk about Rajnikanths market in the North: Link1 Link2. Funny related commentary from the source: "Kabali earned 28 crores of North Indian theaters alone. Of course, Vijay Singh is a very happy man. We wonder who spread the news of Kabali Hindi version not doing well at the box office!" Still into the wikipedia editors are all innocent sheep game? --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Kabali=/=Kaala. Maybe they are right, they are a reliable source. 2.51.19.70 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: @Cyphoidbomb: I think ThaThinThaKiThaTha may have a point about false negativity of the film, and Rajinikanth in particular. As Box Office India notes, "The negativity was pretty clear on Thursday evening when these 12 and 13 crorre GROSS numbers from Tamil Nadu started to do the rounds. But at the end of the day you may have some takers for this sort of rubbish but in the wider picture its just some sort of agenda or limited knowledge of box office numbers", "This film has a lot of negativity in the South and it mainly seems to be coming from the Tamil film industry or people linked to that industry when in truth it is THE film of that industry and should be the pride of that industry," and "The other reason for the agenda could be the hero Rajnikant". It does not necessarily have to be related to the budget issue, though. RajFilmBuff (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly the same tune used as the other source from Bollywood Hungama. Totally made up fake story about lack of support of 2.0 in Tamil Nadu, when in reality it's breaking all records there: [3] --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Actually, it was Box Office India which exposed that the other reports were fake stories, the Box Office India article was not fake. In fact, it called 2.0 "what Sholay was to Hindi cinema" and Rajinikanth as "this guy has dominated that industry for 38 years now and it can be pretty much said it will never find such a megastar again. In fact maybe the industry can attempt to make a film at the level of 2.0 again in time but the stardom of Rajnikant in Tamil cinema will not be repeated". Thats not insulting at all. RajFilmBuff (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean the story regarding Rajinikanth, but the story, that the Tamil society is not supporting 2.0 due to "negativity" such as "This film has a lot of negativity in the South and it mainly seems to be coming from the Tamil film industry or people linked to that industry when in truth it is THE film of that industry and should be the pride of that industry." This is the single stupidest statement in that source. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really, it actually states previously, "you may have some takers for this sort of rubbish", which signifies that the majority saw through the rumours, while "some people within the Tamil industry" are opposing it. I think they are suggesting political opponents of Rajinikanth. Anyway, the figures seem pretty accurate. RajFilmBuff (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no "negativity" from the Tamil industry. Show me a rs source, which talks about Tamil film makers creating a controversy here.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Who knows, anyway, that part does not warrant inclusion. RajFilmBuff (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The director shankar himself had said in a interview in a leading channel that the budget is around 450 crores.. Harin0905 (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robot 2.0

It does not matter official or unofficial, Wikipedia gives liberty to write any fact as long as it can be found in news sources and verified. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50:I would like to say it does matter, since majority of the news sites simply call the film 2.0. The only website that calls it Robot 2 is the International Business Times (IBT). See this, and try searching for "robot 2" on Google along with the " " 's (speech marks). It shows that Robot 2 isn't a common term at all, and appears in less than 10 IBT articles. RajFilmBuff (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have one more solid argument to back my claim and it is when we google the term "Robot 2" and click/tap on News option in navigation, it brings quiet a useful amount of results. So the term "Robot 2" is of importance here. You say it's an unofficial name that was used by Hindi-speaking areas informally and that Robot 2 isn't a common English name for it. I say, isn't IBT foreign wrt India? Why is it calling 2.0 as Robot 2? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits require consensus among editors. I doubt you will get a consensus for this edit, since we already know the official name of the movie and the common practice is to not mention any alternative unofficial working titles.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Please provide me with any WP policy where what you claiming is written. This is reckless, look I found another source calling 2.0 as Robot 2. Please understand that nobody will support me, nobody did, I always walk alone. So please don't play the consensus card with me, I will seriously fail here. I have pretty fairly understandable claims with me. They are: The given 3 sources saying Robot 2. The Google search for Robot 2. The English and Hindi regions are much more bigger than Southern India and both of them call this film Robot 2. So why are you people ignoring reality? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Read: Wikipedia:Consensus. I know your comment aims at provoking south Indians, hence I don't really wonder, why you always "walk alone" ;-) --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Its International Business Times India, with the .co.in domain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) does not mention anything about working titles. Are we writing also known as Thalapathy64 (which is the working title for one of actor Vijay's films, with each film known as Thalapathy and the film number in his filmography)? Somewhat same, albeit unrelated logic here. Like I said, just one newspaper calling a film by an alt title does not mean that term is common, that too in just two article pieces. The Times Now source you provided is in Hindi, obviously catering to a Hindi audience, which substantiates my point earlier, which you quoted. We are English Wikipedia, not Hindi Wikipedia. When we search for "Robot 2", of course, many results appear, but out of those, only 5 mention the title (and that too for a film with this much media attention), and all are IBT. Google has its own algorithm for linking things together (Spider web). They do not suggest a notable title. According to WP:N, many sources from one newspaper is counted as one source. In fact, all your sources, (Including the Hindi ones) say "Robot 2.O", not Robot 2, leaving your claim practically unsourced. Wikipedia works by consensus. Please be a bit more polite, dude (assuming you are male). Telling someone they are ignoring reality is just going to make them angry with you, and even if your claim has logic, they might not necessarily support you. RajFilmBuff (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this an argument at all? Why are you confusing the talk page stalkers. Also Robot 2.0 is not a working title. Don't say that you are assuming it that way. Oops! Next time when I undo, I will add Robot 2.0. Thanks for pointing that out. Wait, if Robot 2 was wrong name then you could have yourself reverted it back to Robot 2.0. Also remember that my claim has still got two sources and different ones. Still, none of your above explanations nullify the fact that the film is indeed known as Robot 2.0. I am at disadvantage here since I can't read Tamil/Telugu. If I did then I would have had sources in those languages too. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 14:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Robot 2.0, Robot 2 etc. are all just made up unofficial titles. They have never been official working titles of the film. If we hadn't a context in the content body, we wouldn't even know, that they mean this film. So why would you want to include this here? It makes no sense.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't get your first point regarding talk page stalkers. Robot 2 was a working title given by the media (ie. unofficial) when it was announced that Shankar was working on a sequel to Enthiran (dubbed in Hindi as Robot). No assumptions there. You should not be undoing next time per WP:BRD; when a discussion is going on, participate in it, and gain consensus for your edit. No, I am not going to add Robot 2.0 as an alternate name. I never stated it was a correct or common name; I simply pointed out that the sources you are putting forward to show "Robot 2" is a correct name do not mention it at all. Robot 2.0 only appears in one English-language newspaper, the International Business Times (India). Your claim may have two sources, but it only has one English-language source, the other is Hindi; per WP:UE, Wikipedia cares about only common names in English. I don't need to nullify it is not known as Robot 2.0, you need to prove that it is known by that title in English, which you haven't, with only one newspaper as a source. And that appears to be the only source that exists. For a subject that is currently trending, one result is in no way demonstrative of a common name, using common sense. As for your last sentence, I have already shown you above you need to prove Robot 2.0 is a common name in English, not Hindi/Tamil/Telugu or any other language. Besides, there exists no online source in these languages using the title as they should have shown up in the above source which also revealed the single Hindi result. RajFilmBuff (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I disagree that "Robot 2" should, by default, be included. There might be an argument to include if it was an official working title, but there would never be a requirement to include that. And a lot of media outlets give films nicknames. "Indy 2" for "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", etc. The Hollywood trades like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are big on this, but efforts by trade publications to save column space, or to speculate on a title, or to name it something better than "Untitled 2018 Rajinikanth's Next" doesn't mean that the nickname belongs in the article by default. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the list of more sources in plain English (because this is English Wikipedia) which further strengthen my claim:

• Robot 2.0 broke all records on box office on opening day: [1]
• She tweeted, "A film with such a huge magnitude with a strong message, Robot 2.0 releases today... [4]
• Robot 2.0, produced by Subaskaran and Lyca Productions, will release across India on November 29 in 3D & 2D. [3]
• South superstar Rajnikanth and Bollywood megastar Akshay Kumar starrer 2.0 which is also famous as ‘Robot 2.0’ was released on 29 November 2018. [4]
• Problems are aplenty for Rajinikanth-Akshay Kumar’s latest movie, 2.0 (also known as Enthiran 2.0 or Robot 2.0) despite the film’s good box office collection. [5]
• And so on...

@RajFilmBuff: You say Robot 2.0 only appears in one English-language newspaper, the International Business Times (India) and has one English-language source and that appears to be the only source that exists. I ask, did you google the term Robot 2.0? Please always do your homework before making such claims because "reputation is better kept than recovered." -Dr. Phil
@Cyphoidbomb: The film is completely made in India so please keep Hollywood logic(s) out of here.
@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: You say: If we hadn't a context in the content body, we wouldn't even know, that they mean this film. I'm only assuming that you did perform proofreading (Truth I don't know.). I ask did you read all the available sources carefully while writing content for this article or just cherry-picked a handful of them which were larger in terms of words? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's see,

1. First source is just a headline on a Times Now article.
2. Second source is a tweet quoted by a reliable publication.
3. Primarily uses 2.0 except for the last sentence, also Times Now.
4. Unreliable source.
5. Unreliable source. As a side note, why are they dissing Wikipedia?

When you are trying to demonstrate that a title is notable but are unable to really find any substantial amount of articles using the title you mentioned, it certainly isn't convincing that the title should be used as an alternate. Don't blame me, the Google News search for "Robot 2" didn't throw up any of these results at that time. Some of the articles were published at a later date. It really isn't strengthening your claim when even now, you have only been able to show IBT India and Times Now as sources using the alternate title. If it really were a highly used alternate title, there should be some hundred instances of the term in reliable sources. There's nothing like the 'Hollywood logic' here as its pretty universal for publications to historically shorten (or lengthen, as is the case here) the title for clarity as demonstrated when even Indian films such as My Name is Khan (called MNIK) and Baahubali 2: The Conclusion (called BB2) had shortened titles, but none of their articles mention the term as alternate names. RajFilmBuff (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are more:

• 1 (One more solid source)
• 2
• 3
• 4
• And so on

There are more but I'm curious what excuses you will come out about these sources. I'll post more after your next reply. You shouldn't reply for what is not intended for you. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC) @RajFilmBuff: I think now I have two (business and economic times) independent, unique, reliable and trustworthy sources in my favour. Is this sufficient or more is required? What is the end date of this discussion? Will it ever end? This name is neither a nickname (as explained by Cyphoidbomb) nor working-title (which is completely different) or abbreviation as you explained. It is just that this film is also known as Robot 2.0, that is all. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We only mention real film titles. See WP:FILMLEAD.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

2, 3 and 4 are unreliable. You are proving my point again and again. There exists only a small number of sources that call the film as Robot 2.0. It is evident you are struggling to find real-world article mentions of the title. Robot 2.0 is a nickname for disambiguating the film from the digit 2; Robot 2 was an unofficial media jargon working title. Also, as ThaThinThaKiThaTha notes above, from WP:FILMLEAD, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. For other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE". And WP:LEADSENTENCE tells you nothing about unofficial names. Are we saying Avengers 4, or we saying the official name, Avengers: Endgame, in our article? I hope the point is clear to you, or else it would seem you are just unwilling to WP:LISTEN. RajFilmBuff (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The use of "also known as" should be reserved for alternative official titles. For example: The US film The Mighty Ducks is known as The Champions in Australia. Zootopia is known as Zootropolis in the UK. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@RajFilmBuff: First you said there is no threshold amount of sources and when I provide them you change to there are so little sources. It is not that I am not willing to listen but it you people who aren't willing to compromise. Not a single one of you said let's put it somewhere else in the article. I want to put it somewhere else in the article. Since the fact is backed up with sources, it is significant. Is it okay? Now let's see what more excuses you people have. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No threshold amount of sources = little sources. I don't know where it can be put somewhere else in the article. Certainly not plot, cast, music, release and reception. That only leaves production, and that again brings up whether to put it in development, casting or filming. I am not sure if an unofficial name for the film could, or should, be put anywhere in the article, if not the lead, but that's something for others to decide. RajFilmBuff (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to work on a project like wikipedia. We usually don't write about fact finding processes. We write about facts reported by newspapers. When we write about fact finding processes, then the topic under consideration is in a disputed state. So in our case, 2.0 is the undisputed title, and we report this fact providing secondary sources and that's it. When we talk about disputed topics such as "the earth is being round", then we write about this dispute including its various viewpoints. This is my last attempt to rescue you from your loneliness.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this type of practice okay? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What? "Genuinely"? Why are we giving readers an assurance of something? I don't see the point of this content even if the "genuinely" were fixed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Zee Biz is not a reliable source for worldwide box office collections of 2.0

Zee Biz is not a reliable source for worldwide box office collections of 2.0. A trade website data is needed. times of india quote figures of Box Office India. that can be used .
https://www.zeebiz.com/india/photo-gallery-20-box-office-collection-worldwide-total-till-now-bollywood-hindi-kollywood-chennai-earnings-rs-800-crore-rajinikanth-76254

the worldwide figures of 2.0 is no where touching even Rs 700 crore. its in Rs 665-670 crore range.

Extended content
https://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=4533 https://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=4535 2.0 worldwide collections breakdown Territories Collections breakdown India ₹5.18 billion Domestic nett ₹4.09 billion Hindi version ₹1.82 billion Tamil and Telugu versions ₹2.27 billion Overseas US$19 million (₹1.47 billion) Worldwide ₹6.7 billion References

--Insaafbarua (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no rule that only trade websites should be used. If there is a question about the validity of the reference, or if there is such a disparity throughout printed media as to cast doubt on the accuracy of zeebiz's content (a slideshow), then those things can be discussed. But there is no rule that only a trade website can be used. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

For the time being have updated source from Business Today article which reflects same box office numbers. Audit Guy (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 2.0 earned more than 800cr Anurag Anand 1815131 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

49.14.105.242 (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)