Jump to content

Talk:Dabangg 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

highonscore.com - The Score Magazine

[edit]

Is The Score Magazine really a source worth using for reviews? --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 December 2012

[edit]

Raja Sen's header for the Dabanng 2 review has been misquoted as "Dabangg 2 is more unwatchable than its predecessor.[52]".The correct one is "Raja Sen feels that Dabangg 2 is LESS UNWATCHABLE."Please see the link provided in the article as reference Naircanada (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Changed it to "was less unwatchable" per source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 December 2012

[edit]

Can i add more referral links and Critic reviews ? eg : Review by Vivin, https://twitter.com/14vivin/status/281816891071287296

Please suggest

BollywoodMovieReview (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Vivin Varghese Meleadan is not notable worth mentioning here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review Classification

[edit]

User 'Forgot To Put My Name' and I thought that the reviews, 11 of which are 2.5-0 stars and 3 are positive, were categorized as 'mostly negative' or 'predominantly negative'. Is the proper term mixed to negative or does predominantly negative work? Is there a guideline? I read through each of the reviews and they seem pretty negative to me. Can someone help? Please. I'm looking at Khiladi 786 reviews and they were better than Dabangg 2. And that film I know got a mixed to negative response. So if the reviews are worse now, shouldn't it be mostly negative? Someone, anyone, help! I don't know what to write. Ashermadan (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewgang.com have been updating combined average ratings but still not for Dabangg2.As far as i have seen, 4 out of 10 is mixed to negative.In the case of dabangg 2 ,it looks mostly 5 out of 10 as per 11 critics.In my opinion mixed to negative is appropriate.---zeeyanketu talk to me 15:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between "mixed to negative" and "negative to mixed"? I thought 5-3.5 was positive, 3-2.75ish were mixed depending on the review. And anything less than 2.5 - 2 and lower was negative. Is that right? What do you think? Ashermadan (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. Pleasant also says Mixed to Negative. I changed it to Mixed to Negative. I also added the two different TOI reviews. Thanks. I can't believe we finally reached a consensus. Maybe we should do that for JTHJ too! Ashermadan (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seesh! Couldn't believe that Dabangg 2's response could be that bad.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 17:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 17:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I honestly thought I'd be positive to mixed like Ek Tha Tiger or something. 2.5-2 reviews are definitely a shock. But then again, Arbaaz is a first time director who has no experience so I guess it wasn't such a shock. Oh well. Maybe Dabangg 3 will be better. Ashermadan (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 December 2012

[edit]

Flora Saini is called Asha Saini and she is listed on Wikipedia, however due to the discrepencies between her name it has not been linked to the Wiki entry on her. 59.93.240.171 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Wolfgang42 (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did great business!?

[edit]

"The film did great business in India but received mixed to negative reviews from critics there and negative reviews from critics overseas".

The above sentence and Ashermadan's bias about the film is laughable. The film has just opened. What does he mean by "did great business in India". And isn't it sufficient that the film "received mixed reviews from critics worldwide".

What's that "mixed to negative" stuff? It's either mixed or positive or negative. It's "mixed" here since 35% or so of reviews are positive. Fideliosr (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These things are not a problem.Boxoffice numbers and mean of total reviews are variable.They will be changed accordingly.No worries.---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fidelio, mixed to negative was decided in a consensus. I was advocating for negative. So maybe read the consensus then blurt out nonsense, ya? Also, where did you get 35% from? Only 14% of the reviews are positive. The rest are mixed and the majority are negative. That fairly falls into the negative category. So mixed to negative is a generous verdict. Again, it was a consensus, so please stop being a fanboy and abusing people. Ashermadan (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me nonsense is clearly a WP:PA. If you make further, you will be reported and blocked for the fourth time in your terrible history. What I'd said was about your evident biasness, not you, and wasn't a personal attack. Fideliosr (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it cool now,we need not to fight over these little things,At first,we have only to consider those sources which are not reliable or fails the WP:RS.There's no harm in "mixed to negative" verdict.Please explain why some of reviews you mentioned above are Non-reliable.Just asking because i wasn't encounter reviews from these sources before?Thanx---zeeyanketu talk to me 05:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section below. Ashermadan is trying to forcefully make it "only poor" reviews in overseas with bogus publications like PakWatan. First Post is included in India whereas it's overseas. Washington Radio and Daijiworld must be added as they're clearly RS. Fideliosr (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Positive/ Mixed Reviews to be added

[edit]

- http://www.washingtonbanglaradio.com/content/124590712-entertainment-chulbul-style-dabangg-2-wbri-movie-review by Washington Bangla Radio on Internet is a positive review

- http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=158756 by Daijiworld Media is 3 stars

- http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/movie-review-dabangg-2-should-have-been-titled-chulbul-pandey-565949.html by The First Post is 3 stars

Moreover, reviews from Now Running, The Film Street Journal, Manga Publishing and Pakistan Watan are evidently unnotable and they aren't even WP:RS. Should be promptly removed.

Fideliosr (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


one of the strong oposition to dabang was raised by william nicholas gomes, the human rights activist - http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Dabangg-2-promotes-torture-William-Nicholas-Gomes/Article1-980212.aspx he wrote to national human rights commission of india -http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december232012/dbangg-2-wg.php its an extra ordinary moview even human rights figures are also talking about it , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.57.244 (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, they are RS. Newspapers are considered RS and Film Street Journal is a huge magazine in India. Like Filmfare. The Bangladesh Radio and whatnot you mentioned aren't RS. First post has been mentioned but there are two reviews from that source. Manga are the makers of Stardust, another huge magazine in India. Do some research. Also, Review Gang considers NOW RUNNING to be a major reviewer. All of the reviews are RS. I'm sorry if you don't like the verdict. I'm not the one writing the reviews. And as far as mixed to negative goes, Khiladi 786 recorded better reviews than Dabangg 2 and it was mixed to negative so we're being generous here. In my opinion it should be negative to extremely negative. But we had a consensus and mixed to negative was decided. Stop accusing me and just live with the fact that Dabangg 2 is a critical failure and most likely a box office failure. Ashermadan (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any idea what you are talking about. Most likely a box office failure? Even in its opening weekend, it has made reoords:

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5231&nCat=

And:

  • Washington Bangla Radio is one of the oldest legal online Bengali radio stations with a private test stream running from 2005.
  • The First Post is a major British magazine which was singled out for special commendation in the Best Editorial Team category of the 2007 Awards given by the Association of Online Publishers.
  • Daijiworld is a leading media company that has currently a daily viewer-ship of around 100,000 visitors from around 180 countries.

They all got Wiki entries about them. Fideliosr (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a box office failure because distributors bought it for 180 crore and they won't recover their investment. Maybe you should educate yourself on box office verdicts. And First Post exists. It's been added for days now. Even Indicine has a viewership of 100,000 but it's not an RS. I don't consider Daijiworld an RS. Get a consensus and if you get one we'll add the review. And Washington Bangala Radio doesn't have a proven track record of sharing reviews and whatnot. I don't consider it a good source either. First Post is fine and it was added days ago. Please find someone else to argue with as I really don't have time to argue with you about your fanboyism here. Ashermadan (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are two first post reviews. Maybe you should include the negative one instead of only talking about the positive one. Ashermadan (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of being a fanboy, alright. Actually you're the biggest SRK fanboy who's spreading negativity around here. More than 70 crore in just 4 days. Who are you to decide the verdict? Let's see what other experienced editors (not trolls like you) have to say about Washington Bangla Radio and Daijiworld. What about PakWatan. It isn't RS. Fideliosr (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am more objective than you. Please stop this. And Pak Watan is a LEADING PAKISTANI NEWSPAPER. Bollywood films are playing again in Pakistan and papers are reviewing them. Pak Watan always reviewed films before the ban and they are now doing it after the few years ban has been lifted. Read over the guidelines. I find this amusing. And Dabangg won't make 180 crore in India so it's a flop. Sorry. Accept it. Ashermadan (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No PakWatan is virtally unknown in Pakistan and obviously not a WP:RS. Leading English newspapers there are Dawn, The News, Daily Times, The Nation etc. Who are you to decide it's a flop. A fortuneteller? Fideliosr (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm a fortune teller. And PakWatan is part of the Dawn Group. You just dug your own grave and proved its RS. Also, even after adding the two reviews, the majority are still negative. The verdict won't change. Do what you want. This is just hilarious to me. Ashermadan (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. PakWatan ain't a part of Dawn Media Group but the Mediacom Group of Companies. See http://www.pakwatan.com/about.php and Dawn Group of Newspapers. Fideliosr (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now what? Please remove all the unnotable reviews like PakWatan. Fideliosr (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]

No matter what Fideo thinks, I still wish him and all of you a Merry Christmas. Have fun! We'll continue this conversation after I get back from break. Ashermadan (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office (Domestic & Overseas)

[edit]

Along with the Domestic box Office The Overseas business of an Indian Film is very Important to be mentioned and previously it is mentioned in all the Films. Why in Dabangg 2 it is ignored? I have no full access to do it so if someone has plz do mention the Overseas business of Dabangg. Thanks. (Dr. Shahid Alam)(Talk to Me) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the infobox would be left blank until the film is out of box office. However, the "Box office" section should be updated, both "Overseas" and "India":
Please comment. Fideliosr (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chulbul pandey

[edit]

plz can there be a another page for the character chulbul pandey, as he is very loved and well received by the audeince and critics and also he is one of the reasons behind salmans rise to stardom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.39.12 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending accolades

[edit]

Aren't the pending nominations WP:CRYSTAL so they just don't qualify as being encyclopedic? Hence they must be removed until the announcement is made... I'd like to ask one of the finest admins around here, Qwyrxian, and other fellow editors about that. Much appreciated. Fideliosr (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, because the nominations have actually been announced. In other words, the fact that the movie has been nominated is a verifiable fact which has already happened; whether or not it wins is a matter of speculation. It is regular practice to add award nominations to an article. However, you may want to consider whether it is WP:UNDUE to have a separate section only for 1 award, particularly given the nature of that award. Personally, I think a whole table for one award is unnecessary, and the information could be better conveyed in prose in the reception section. But others may disagree on the formatting, so you can discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 January 2013

[edit]

116.203.88.35 (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC) gross= 147 cr[reply]

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this figure. Thanks Forgot to put name 09:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 January 2013

[edit]

Dabangg 2 has taken its overseas total to around $8.25 million in 17 days.[1] 180.215.23.236 (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done changed 9.50 million to 8.25 million USD. Forgot to put name 08:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ BOI Trade Network. "Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network". Box Office India. Retrieved Wednesday 9th January 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Edit request on 15 January 2013

[edit]

The film should finish at around US$ 9 million plus and would became the third biggest overseas hit of 2012 behind Jab Tak Hai Jaan and Ek Tha Tiger, both of which earned the 'blockbuster' status overseas.}}.[1] 121.241.176.226 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Addition will be done only after completion,not based on predictions.---zeeyanketu talk to me 12:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ BOI Trade Network. "Top overseas Grosser 2012". Box Office India. Retrieved 5 January 2013.

Edit request on 18 January 2013

[edit]

US$9.1 million(57 crore). 9.1 million is not 57 crore. please correct it.

121.241.176.226 (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film Fail Awards

[edit]

Film Fail Awards are a reliable source as a panel of esteemed critics decided them. Golden Kela, Ghanta, Zee, Screen and Filmfare all had public voting and are considered reliable sources. As long as they're talked about in the media and are affiliated with reliable sources like Rajeev Masand (CNN-IBN), Anirudhha Guha (DNA India), Baradwaj Rangan (The Hindu), Mihir Fadnavis (Mid-Day), Raja Sen (Rediff), and Rituparna Chatterjee (CNN-IBN) it's RS. Look here: http://filmfailawards.com/jury/ . We had this discussion during the Ghantas and Kela debate and this was decided. Film Fail awards have more credibility than the Kelas which Zee supported and which aren't even affiliated with any critic and also have public voting. You cannot be the judge of what is RS, we have to abide by Wikipedia rules. Zee did not bother to read the jury section or even open the about section. Even Rajeev Masand, one of the top critics in India, is talking about them. Look here: https://twitter.com/RajeevMasand/status/294085421967765506 . Other editors will agree with me because this is exactly the same as the discussion we had during the Ghanta and Kela debate. Ashermadan (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we agree they're reliable (and please add them, of course), frankly why do you have to spend all your life adding negative awards to films of certain actors and positive one to some others? And besides that, making unreferenced claims like "Komal and Taran calling a film worldwide blockbuster" and "rights sold for 150 crores so it's a flop". I admit that your editing skills have improved significantly over the years but you don't have to do this, you know. Sincerely, Fideliosr (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you have to constantly abuse editors on Wikipedia? Do you have something beneficial to add to this discussion or are you merely being uncivil again? Ashermadan (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dabangg 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dabangg_2&oldid=1236982472"