Talk:PK (film)

Dont delete,ample RS have been provided

P.K.(2014 film) been provided ample reliable sources like Hindustan Times,India Today,TOI etc.Even Rajkumar Hirani has also said he is making this film and shooting will begin mid-2013.There is no uniformity and consistency on Bollywood upcomg film. Like Happy New Year (2013 film) has no sources or references,but no one cares about that. Like that so many films article are on wikipedia. Abhinavname (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Add the other poster

I know that the first revealed poster was controversial, but it's still valid promotional material, so I think it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.191.123 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Location

Local Belgian media reports that the movie has been recorded in the city of Bruges (Belgium) for the first 15 minutes. Source in Dutch: http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/922/Nieuws/article/detail/2141251/2014/12/04/Kan-Brugge-toeristen-lokken-met-Bollywoodfilm.dhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.244.22 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My material was not copyrighted!

I wrote the whole plot summary for PK taking out time, revising. This whole took me an hour and then they say it is copyrighted and I maybe banned from editing. My 1 hour hard work is a waste? And they claim it to be someone else' work. Please add it, I have written it myself. I don't know how to reply to that edit ban message. Please help! I wrote it fully myself. They should have checked it first. My whole 1 hour hard work for Wikipedia in waste. I could have done a better work rather but I chose to contribute to wikipedia for 1 long hour and now they say it was copyrighted? Please help!

Regards.

Kashisharora11 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2014

In the plot summary, please change "After hearing this, Sarfaraz gives PK his device back." to "After hearing this, Tapasvi gives PK his device back." because Tapasvi is the one who challenges PK, not Sarfaraz. Arramees (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [1]. I haven't seen the film, but will AGF and make the change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

There are some mistakes in the article Pk(2014) and it only has a very brief and incomplete description . So please allow me to edit it.

Sanjay921 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the place to request changes in protection level. You can either file a request a WP:RFPP or ask Eustress, the protecting administrator. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it correct to say the PK character was inspired from Abraham Kovoor?

The article includes a statement: // Aamir Khan’s character as PK is inspired from a real life character Abraham Kovoor//

That claim is based on just one source article which had mooted that the movie character PK was inspired by the renowned rationalist and atheist Abraham Kovoor. There is no claim or evidence shown in that source article that the writer behind the movie story or the movie maker Rajkumar Hirani having said that the inspiration was from Abraham Kovoor.

I wish to point out that this conclusion in that source article is incorrect and so not valid.

Abraham Kovoor was not only a rationalist but also an atheist throughout his adult life openly known to public. Even after his death his body was donated to the Colombo Medical College as per his wishes and there were no religious funeral ceremonies held by the family.

The PK character in the movie on the other hand, after learning about the gods, the beliefs and the ways of religions in earth starts appealing to each gods for recovering his "remote control" because he took the words of some that only gods can help him. Along the way he gets frustrated, becomes very critical of the gods for not helping him and starts seriously questioning their genuineness. But eventually (in a climatic confrontation with the crooked god-man on live TV) he tearfully and elegantly confesses his belief or faith that the creator of all the universe as the real almighty and that it is only human agents who have created false gods, religions and divisions among people.

The only commonality with Kovoor's life I see is that both had battled in their own ways to expose false god-men. But surely PK does not subscribe to atheism at all and so its an invalid judgement that the character was inspired from Kovoor. (K. Sethu) கா. சேது (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the fact that you disagree with a statement made by the source doesn't mean that your opinion trumps the source. If you'd like to call into question the reliability of the source, that's fine, and you can do that at WP:RSN, but there appear to be a number of sources that make similar claims, although I haven't looked too closely into the facts to figure out who originated the statement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Could PK be inspired from P K Mahanandia's life? Emailsson 22:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why BOI and domestic box office totals only?

Hi Arjann, with regard to this edit, I'm curious why we are only using Box Office India totals, which so far seem to be limited to domestic gross. Though I understand there are significant problems with overzealous Bollywood box office figures that we have to watch out for, 1) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film, which prefers worldwide gross in Template:Infobox film, 2) Other sources, like Deadline, are reporting bigger numbers. Where can I read the consensus discussion that resulted in the decision to stick only with BOI? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That was why his edit was reverted. -Sahir 03:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly we are not only using BOI, but it is one of the sources that is considered better than most.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: : Always stick to official sources rather than websites which either manipulate figures or borrow the figures from the official source. Koimoi gives accurate figures as far as my encounter tallying the numbers on both sides is concerned. As per current trends, the film is still in the market and its collections are varying. Box Office India will give you the most precise worldwide gross but one needs to hold on. At this moment it will be not satisfactory to put the worldwide gross because several websites report incorrect figures. One of the reliable source I saw says 324 cr other says 401 cr. Which one to believe? Read this discussion on Box Office India. Arjann (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:V / WP:NPOV - when multiple reliable sources report different things, we report that the reliable sources are reporting different things. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue of who is better(BOI or Koimoi). But there are no problems for this film, since Rentrak has officially worked for this film. PK's official figures by Rentrak is closer to Koimoi figures. Hence i trust Koimoi only for this film. Hoping for Rentrak to speed up its operations & computerize almost all theatres to get accurate figures. Jackthomas321 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason why computerizing every theatre should be done is, because we all know every big movie except Aamir movie have inflated BO figures. Especially Srk movies. Now srk will manipulate the figures like never before to break this film's record. He manipulated 40 crore for Chennai Express & much more for HNY. Till everything becomes computerized, srk will continue playing this puppet game. I feel pity for those who buy those BO figures. Because they will go to cinemas thinking 'Oh, its earning a lot. It may be good movie. Lets go.' That's exactly what happened for 'Happy new year' film. They were all betrayed. Jackthomas321 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Again when there are multiple reliable sources reporting different aspects, we report that the reliable sources are giving different views, we dont pick the one that we most agree with and ignore the others. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015

Section 6) Criticism I don't think it should be called that (Criticism), either break it into 2 sections one critical reception and the second criticism for each of the 2 paragraphs Or rename section to Reception

Its called Criticism but reviews in the first paragraph are giving mostly positive feedback, only the second paragraph is actually Criticism of the film. Stammewar (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Done by this edit Cannolis (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed the plot summary

I'm sorry I had to change the plot summary to do justice to the story. Anyway, your hard work is appreciated.
Please include the original writer of the film's story, not only the screen writers.
Thanks and regards,
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No Controversy section?

There are massive protests, burning of posters occurred against this film. The controversy is in hike making headlines across national newspapers still there is no separate section or detailed information about this issue on the article? Why? --27.34.84.55 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

27.34.84.55 Probably because people such as yourself aren't adding one. Wikipedia is run by volunteers who are regular people like you. If you think the section is worth adding, add it. Please be sure to provide reliable sources and present the content in a neutral point of view. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Love Jihad controversy

I don't know why I am not able to edit this page . There is no controversy section for love jihad . It's necessary http://www.deccanherald.com/content/449522/pk-supports-love-jihad-hindu.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Saffron-outfits-disrupt-PK-shows-again/articleshow/45697488.cms

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-pk-controversy-aamir-khan-film-sparks-outrage-in-several-indian-cities-2047859

http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/pk-controversies-added-media-coverage-brings-more-audience-feels-subhash-ghai/article1-1303358.aspx

http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/why-boyycottpk-makes-no-sense-at-all/article1-1299098.aspx

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/CM-waived-tax-on-PK-to-woo-Muslim-voters-Bajrang-Dal/articleshow/45719679.cms

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/02/bollywood-film-pk-hindu-nationalist-protests-india-aamir-khan

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-on-pk-movie-controversy/article6745645.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frost The World (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not going to put it in as a "controversy" section". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the sources are not reliable ? I am not asking to use the exact heading or words . But it's related to the article and something can be added to the article . So many references can't be ignored . If I want I can put more references from news websites. Frost The World (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If other movies can have sub section , not having any controversy section is not right , considering the truth Frost The World (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can help to establish the scale of the protests, that would be helpful. In this article's photo I see about 20 people, some of whom are smiling. We already have a mention of two groups who were involved in pro-Hindu protests in the Critical reception section. Per WP:UNDUE it is not Wikipedia's aim to give unnecessary weight or voice to fringe groups. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the magnitude of protests http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Protest-against-PK-escalates-theatres-in-Gujarat-vandalised/articleshow/45685893.cms

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/theatres-vandalized-as-anti-pk-protests-spread-642048

and here is online protest

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/pk-leads-to-twitter-battle/articleshow/45614740.cms

http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/aamir-khans-pk-leads-to-twitter-battle/Frost The World (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Support from Government, Chief ministers, film & famous personalities

I have added "Support" for the film from the nation including "Government, politicians, film & other famous personalities." here and later toned down to a few lines here without even adding a separate SUPPORT section which i did in the first edit. But User:Krimuk90 keeps on deleting it stating that "when we don't have quotes from the fundamentalists why have quotes from the supporters." The "Support" addition is must, since The WIKI article clearly mentions various views & as well as the cases filed against the film. The people who filed the cases are worthless people(vested interests). Everyone including media channels know that. Yet, the user is trying to highlight the opinions of those petty people. So, the user cares about those people low-life vested interests, and ignores very important people of the nation like public, Government, various politicians, Big Film personalities & even some religious gurus. The article clearly includes the views of vested interests "All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front to ban its release saying it promoted nudity and vulgarity" and also "Activists of the The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal protested against certain scenes in the film, which they considered to be hurtful to the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against the film for the same." Only to counter this, the government, Chief ministers, film & famous personalities came out in support for the film. They even made the film-tax free. But User:Krimuk90 keeps deleting the SUPPORT addition which proves that he's against the film. My point is.. since views of unimportant people are added in the article, then the views of most important people who are supporting it must be added too. There are many hindu BJP groups, some organistions who are supporting the film. But i haven't added those. I have added only the views of most important people(Chief ministers,..). If I was wiki moderator, i wouldn't even add controversies since they are just created by vested interests which everyone know. Chief ministers, some spiritual gurus, film personalities themselves said that these controversies are rubbish. They are vested interests. Since the film exposes the fraud people, they are trying to attack the film". Check the sources. User:Jackthomas321 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jackthomas321: I would be very careful throwing around accusations if I were you, as you should be discussing content, not editors. There are any number of reasons why someone might reasonably remove content without them being part of a conspiracy. Based on the first quote you provided, "when we don't have quotes from the fundamentalists why have quotes from the supporters", that sounds like a basic neutral point of view argument. That is, "if we're not going to present a balanced perspective, why include quotes from one side of the fence?" Our job is to present a neutral perspective on any subject, not only one perspective. If you disagree with the representation of balance in the article, that's fine, you can calmly and rationally bring it up on the talk page, but posting a SHOUTING SUBJECT HEADER accusing other editors of being paid to promote extremist ideologies, is not constructive. Looking at the contribution in this edit (your example) I think it is overly promotional. We have a large sub-section Support without any attempt to provided balanced content in the same general area. If this content is to exist, it seems intuitive to balance it with the negative, e.g. "The film received criticism from XYZ groups for being disrespectful to the Hindu faith, etc, etc, yet some lawmakers praised the film for exposing rampant problems with fraud in religion, and gave the film tax exempt status to encourage greater viewership, blah blah blah." Group A says this, Group B says this. Neutral. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the section in question, but there is still more to be done. We have two sentences on the people complaining about the film, then the rest of the paragraph is chock full of all the people who love it. There are presently about five different, lengthy quotes from these people. That is not a proper balance, which only emphasizes that Krimuk90's concern was appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Why should there be a balance, when there is no balance on the issue? Few groups are trying to attack because their frauds are exposed in the film. Whereas the rest of the nation is supporting the film. The ratio is like 1:10,000. Apart from the sources i gave, one has to just see the record collections it gained to further stamp that everyone is praising it. Are you telling me that 1 person on the wrong side is equal to the 10,000 people on the right side. There is no balance at all. The statements given by the governments, chief-ministers, hindu religious gurus, & whole lot others proves that this controversy is rubbish. If one does a simple search on twitter, facebook, youtube, one can see that everybody loves the film. Moreover nobody(including me) is trying to promote the film by adding support section. If that was the case, many would have tried to add "support" section long ago when the controversy erupted. The film had already done all the box-office business it could do. It has already attained no.1 status. There is nothing more it can do. I am just trying to put the facts on this page. Just like the film tried to help people of india at large, i am doing my part in showing the truth to the people whoever visits this Wiki page. I am tired of protecting this page from vested interests. Hoping that, wiki moderators will step in to do their part. Jackthomas321 17:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you are not from India, you have no idea of how many indians are being cheated by the frauds. Almost every indian is cheated by these blind-faiths and numerous crimes take place due to it. Almost all GENOCIDES start on religious matters. Films like "1947 Earth" and "Bombay" show that. But there is also mass-murder & many human crimes(like rape,slavery...) in villages based on caste and religion which do not appear in media. People don't realize how big a problem it is. Since the film did a great job in trying to help indians, i felt it is my duty to protect the film in whatever way i can. Its high time for more films to come out on social-issues. If PK is not protected, then nobody will ever try to make a good-film fearing backlash. If we don't protect the right thing, wrong will rule and nobody can stop the crimes on humans. There are directly visible genocides in the middle-east based on the religious matters. One should never promote bad stuff on the same level of the right stuff. It becomes the root cause of all crimes. Jackthomas321 18:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jackthomas321:, There should be a balance, because barring a few exceptions, Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. It is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Not sure how to make that clearer. And though I understand your passionate argument, Wikipedia isn't the place to "protect" films, and providing a balance of viewpoints isn't going to damage the movie. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and content should be presented in an encyclopedic fashion. If the film was intended to be a commentary against fraud in religion and superstition, or if there are recurring themes related to that subject, that certainly has a place in the article, if it can be properly sourced to scholars, fellow filmmakers, and so on (i.e. no personal interpretation, soapboxing, or original research, etc.) This is all covered in WP:FILMPLOT. Once we start getting into accolades and criticism, all of which represents opinions, we need to provide sufficient balance, and listing excessive, long quotes, isn't particularly helpful to achieving balance. For instance, the American film Citizen Kane is largely considered one of the best movies in American film history. It holds a 100% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Yet in the Contemporary responses section, editors have presented a balance of opinion including praise, middle-of-the-road reviews, and negative reception. I don't think there is anything wrong with listing a few government officials who are in praise of the film, but I think we should pick shorter quotations overall, and use fewer of them, especially if multiple people are basically saying the same thing. Something along the lines of this makes more sense to me:

"Pro-Hindu groups A & B protested the film, arguing that it depicts Hindus negatively. Group B stated, '(quote goes here)'.^[1] However some government officials including C, D, E and F praised the film for raising social awareness of issues related to fraud in religion, and harmful superstitious practices like (example goes here), which have caused numerous instances of social unrest in India between 2012 and 2014, including (examples goes here).^[2][3][4] Official F said, '(quote goes here)',^[5] a sentiment echoed by Official E, who remarked '(quote goes here)'.^[6]" These officials have granted PK tax-exempt status in order to encourage more of their constituents to see the film.^[7]

And so forth. Also, for the record, there are no "moderators" per se. We have administrators who tend to matters like blocking vandals, protecting articles from IP users and non-autoconfirmed users, etc., but it is not their job to monitor every edit that gets made to an article. That's why we have regular editors and discussion pages. So far there is no reason for administrators to be involved in this article unless they happen to be interested in the subject and wish to contribute. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Political conspiracy is something I never thought I would be accused of, but well, I guess that's something off my bucket-list! Anyway, thanks Cyphoidbomb, and yes, your version definitely makes more sense. I am not going to revert the user's additions anymore, so I would request some other kind editor to make the changes. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why the Senior BJP leader LK Advani's comment is removed from the article? His remarks about the film definitely belongs here. I have added it back so please do not remove it again. Also, please, tell the reason for excluding personality like SRK's support while his rivalry with Aamir Khan is widely known. This is not about always balancing but weights should be given in proportion to their prominence (pls also read: balancing aspects) and I have not included every bollywood personalities support.Srikanlohs (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the above discussion? I think it's pretty clear why additional comments were removed--there are too many of them. We are not here to catalog every kind word ever said about the movie and I proposed a fairly reasonable framework for the content that should be included so that the pros and cons are adequately balanced. So if for some reason you want "the Senior BJP leader LK Advani's" comment to be reinstated, which politician's comment would you like to remove instead? And if you think Shah Rukh's comment is worth including, what actor/filmmaker's comment would you propose to remove to make room for it? Additionally when your edit is reverted, you must get WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating it. Please read WP:BRD. Your re-addition of this content will be reverted since we are not yet all in agreement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by too many of them? Its about the significance and not about numbers. I think I have already stated that clearly. While prominent figures like LK Advani's remark is noteworthy hence, if you continue to revert then I think we should seek the DRN. Srikanlohs (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, you should read WP:UNDUE while some pro-BJP gorup supporters are against the film, LK Advani's remarks definitely count here. Srikanlohs (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There are two sentences about pro Hindu extremist groups, then a giant paragraph of effusive praise for the film from people who aren't even film critics, yet you're citing WP:UNDUE. Why exactly do the opinions of government officials hold any more weight than those of Hindu extremist groups? What makes them any more noteworthy? Because they were elected to office? And you seem to be ignoring the fact that we are not here to promote the film or to contravene WP:NPOV by presenting an imbalanced perspective. Please note my Citizen Kane example above. Surely there is some negative attention the film has received? And if not, how many examples of praise do we need? Further, if you're so familiar with Wikipedia editing that with 87 edits under your belt you can toss around WP:UNDUE, you should also be familiar with WP:BRD, which requires you to achieve consensus after your bold change has been reverted, and you're probably aware that DRN isn't the first step to resolving a difference of opinion, particularly not after a scant two volleys in a discussion. I will also point out that Krimuk90 seemed to agree with my proposal above for a more compact section, and the other editor has been indefinitely blocked for behavior unbecoming a Wikipedia editor. So again, you have no consensus for the addition of your preferred content, without proposing the removal of other content. I don't particularly care if Advani's comment goes in, but again, who's comment should be removed? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all yes office holders do carry weights and nowhere NPOV tells to focus on numbers for balancing rather the WP:BALANCE itself states that "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.". I think the protest section should be expanded too. Please, comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks for the BRD but I think you're familiar with Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" too and why we need to remove a comment to enter another? What is your rationale please? Srikanlohs (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fun reply, but while office holders are "notable", as your NPOL link establishes, their opinions on films aren't necessarily "noteWORTHY" or relevant. They are no more experts on films than anybody else with an opinion. If David Cameron likes Django, is it worth mentioning? Why? Because it adds cachet to the film? That's promotion. The Swami's input might be a more balanced response to the Pro-Hindu protests, but I don't see the value of including a half-dozen quotations from various government leaders, and then from filmmakers and actors on top of that. It's puffery. And it's in a section on Critical response, that is intended for balanced analysis of film critic response. So, do we cut the pro-Hindu protest content and then the politician/filmmaker/actor content in favor of balanced reviews? I don't have a problem with that. Side note: WP:DRNC is an essay, not a guideline or policy. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, however, and you should be adhering to that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

RS?

Can we consider this source as reliable? Can we add info from this source? - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 15:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

NO. That interview is fake. It didn't happen. Jackthomas321 9 January 2015 19:45 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate the interview is "fake" but it is not a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If Aamir Khan gave interview, then trust me, it would appear atleast in thousand websites(all over the media)(especially after the controversy). After searching google, i noticed that it is only there in that website. So, its fake. Jackthomas321

This looks like an argument from silence logical fallacy. The fact that something did not happen, i.e. the appearance of the interview in many other publications, doesn't prove that the interview didn't happen. Although TRPoD's general note that the source is unreliable carries more weight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

He is right , I read an article that Aamir is irked about his fake interview in a Pakistani website . These pakistani websites does these things to improve their popularity . http://www.dawn.com/news/1156745

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-aamir-khan-sends-legal-notice-to-pakistani-websites-over-fake-interview-2051909

http://www.hindustantimes.com/tabloid/aamir-khan-sends-notice-to-pak-websites-over-fake-interview/article1-1305984.aspx

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aamir-khan-sends-notice-to-pakistan-websites-over-fake-interview/1/412953.html

Jackthomas321 , Cyphoidbomb (talk) , TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom . Simply following Wiki rules and traditions is not enough , please search the internet to learn the truth . It took me only few seconds to google search and get the links. CosmicEmperor (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@CosmicEmperor: I don't understand the point of your admonishment. Rahat asked if the source was reliable. TRPOD said that it was not. I agreed. Wiki rules and traditions pretty much resolved the entire matter and none of us used this fake article as a reference. Now on a tangent, JackThomas said that the article was fake, and he was right, but the logic he was using to explain why it was fake, was illogical. If he'd provided the links that you did, that would have clarified his argument, but it doesn't really matter, since we'd already determined the source to be sketchy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Attempts of Deleting Records

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I will try my best to be as polite as possible. Why are you deleting records again and again. You called it "Meaningless Fancruft". Well, you insulted Niloferqureshi (by calling his additions as fancruft). He took the time to add those records again after u deleted. Let me tell you that 'You & your attempts of deletions are meaningless." Who are you to decide "Second week" and "third week" records are less important than first week records. There are 100s of articles written on 2nd & 3rd week records in India. Google this.. PK second week. Box Office India & others daily update BO & write articles on whether its beating 2nd & 3rd week records. They are MUCH MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than 1st week records for Indian films. Only the 2nd week & 3rd week collections describe whether the film is good/bad liked/disliked. All big films break 1st week records movie after movie just based on star power irrespective of the film being good or bad. Only a quality film makes good 2nd & 3rd week collections. It took 6 years to break 3rd week records of 3 idiots. That shows the quality of 3 idiots. Every new movie has record 1st week collections. Only 2nd & 3rd week records describe whether people liked the film or not. They may not be important to u. But they are important to Indians. Let me break it to u, people who visit this page are 99.9% Indians. People who have interest in knowing 1st week records are also interested in 2nd & 3rd week records. People who have no interest in 2nd & 3rd week have no interest in 1st week or any other record for that matter. They show the film's worth. Note: The same records are on Dhoom 3 Records Wiki page for over a year now. Jackthomas321 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If nothing noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, I don't see the value of listing the collections. What will be of historic note is presumably the first week's take, and the worldwide gross. There's no clear reason to list every week's performance simply because it gets reported. If this is so important to Indians, they can read about this information at the relevant news website. Encyclopedias summarize the most important aspects of a subject, we don't memorialize all aspects of the subject. That's what books are for. And, this is a global encyclopedia, not the Indian Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:I don't buy a thing you said. Because the same records are on wikipedia Dhoom 3 Records for over a year now. And the table over there is twice as large. Nobody is a fool here. Dhoom 3 Records are edited by everyone very often (almost twice a week). And Yet nobody has deleted the records for over a year. But people are hell bent on trying to delete records of this film every day. Jackthomas321 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The fact that a problem exists elsewhere doesn't legitimize the inclusion of excessive statistics in this article. I bet there are lots of articles that use absurd "Blockbuster Status" language, but that doesn't mean it has any academic value. And I made a similar argument to what I posted above in January 2014 at Talk:Drishyam because editors kept adding semi-daily content that is historically meaningless. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Nobody cares about week by week updates except for fanboiz. Simply having a source does not mean that content is appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

First & foremost, you guys need to understand that i don't buy a thing. Wikipedia Avatar Records Page. It has all kinds of records on that page. @TheRedPenOfDoom:, Nobody cares about weekend records right? It shows 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th weekends records & all other crappy records includung (January weekend, Fastest to reach $600 million, Main contributor to the biggest aggregated weekend of all time, Largest gross on New Year day, Highest-grossing CGI star movie, Highest-grossing paraplegic film, Highest-grossing environmentalist movie,Reached $1 billion sales outside US and Canada in 28 day, First movie in history to reach $2 billion worldwide,.. & many many many more". That page has so many records mentioned that it puts you two into shame for trying to delete records on this page. Jackthomas321 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of crappy fancruft articles that need to be cleaned up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:Delete those first before you come here to delete. There is a dedicated page for Avatar Records for 5 years now on wikipedia. So many WIKIs regular editors, moderators & administrators have allowed Avatar Records & records on several other movie pages. But you are trying to delete here again & again. Its a fact that Corruption exists everywhere. You people are paid to do such illegal acts. Never ever give me that 'Wikipedia is encyclopedia or notes on historic importance' crap. Its just like every other website with corrupted regular editors. Jackthomas321 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack, if you accuse someone of being "paid to do" "illegal acts" again without some tangible evidence, I will take you to WP:ANI. Stop wagging your angry little finger at everybody. And deleting content is not "illegal". I was actually inclined to seriously consider your point with regard to Avatar--not that "List of records broken" article (because that is an apples-to-oranges comparison), rather the box office content that appears in the main article, but you make it extraordinarily difficult to do so when you keep yelling at people. If it is your uncontrollable nature to yell and accuse people of corruption, then it the uncontrollable nature of other editors to ignore you and dismiss your complaints. If you expect other editors to be open-minded and consider your perspective, then don't yell at them. This is stuff we learn in Kindergarten. Don't they have after-school specials in India? Your argument "delete those first before you come here to delete" is not realistic. This is an unfolding article, where Avatar has been established for a number of years. As I said in my first response, "If nothing noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, I don't see the value of listing the collections." If, however, something noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, then it's probably reasonable to consider including it. There are always a few things on my mind when dealing with Bollywood articles: 1) We are not here to promote the film or make it look attractive. 2) Since you like to talk about corruption, as you must know, there is rampant corruption with box office figures. This is a messy obstacle if we're going to compare PK to films that are mired in this box office corruption. Somehow we will have to work around this problem. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I am not here for a conversation with any wiki editor. What i am doing on this Talk Page is, "I am directly accusing the person who is deleting the records, because he has done the wrong thing (twice)." What PK achieved in a country is what Avatar achieved in the world because english is global language. success ratio of both films is same. Forget Avatar. My point is, some of Wikis main editors are corrupted/biased/have hidden agendas. Thats my accusation. PROOF: Forget Avatar. I'll prove it based on Indian films. Like so many MAIN/HEAD EDITORS like you& others are checking this page on a daily basis, they checked Dhoom 3 page same way 1 year ago, but they allowed all records over there. Dhoom3 page is still being checked by main editors once a week. For 1 whole year, all MAIN EDITORS had no problem with records of that page. But they have problem in showing the same records of PK. Mind u, Dhoom3 Records table is twice as large. Coming to your comment. Regarding your Corruption in BO figurescomment, u don't need to tell a smarter person than u about it. I mentioned on this page itself yesterday. Take a look. Aamir Khan is the only popular actor in India who has been pushing the industry for accuracy on BO figures. His films are as clean & pure as color white. I don't care about other actors or their films. Regarding your If you accuse someone ... without evidence, I will take you to WP:ANI comment, Do it right now coz I am still accusing TheRedPenOfDoom of wrong-doing. Regarding This is stuff we learn in Kindergarten, may be u learned to be a polite coward when something wrong is happening. I react like a Man to wrong people. When something is wrong, a Real Man gets angry whereas a coward behaves polite. Regarding wagging your angry little finger, It might appear like little finger for u based on my comments on internet, but it actually would be a hard punch on his face if the wrong person is in front of me & making such silly arguments. I know ur response will be "I am telling admin to block user Jack". I don't give a shit. I've been blocked before. I will never stop punching wrong people. Being blocked/unblocked makes no difference in my mind, because I am happy & at peace knowing that 'i am on the right side.' I have made my points in my previous comments. I will not reply on this topic anymore. Jackthomas321 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are not here to work with other editors, you are in the wrong place- we are here to collaborate with other editors to create an encyclopedia (see the note at the top of every page "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributedby anyone". If you dont want to collaborate, start your own fanpage website off Wikipedia and you can primp and fluff all of the movies you want to. In addition, if what you are doing here is "I am directly accusing" you are also in the wrong place. This page is to discuss article content - accusations must be supported by actual evidence and made in the appropriate forum WP:ANI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:we are here to collaborate with other editors This sentence is the joke of the day. I will tell u the meaning of "not co-operating/dictatorship' which is exactly u guys are doing. A User added completely valid stuff on the article, u named it 'fancruft' & deleted it. When he added again, u named it 'fancruft' & deleted again. Then when i am brought up the issue here on this talk page, you & Cyphoidbomb are giving me the most silliest excuses imaginable for 'why we will not add it.' This is the meaning of 'not co-operating'. Bottomline is.. wiki editors do not allow certain things to be added if it doesn't meet their agendas. Just noticed Cyphoidbomb response on Admin's page, that's another joke. Her response further proves my claims. The topic of discussion here is deleting records for no reason. In her response, she talked about the way i talked several months ago for which i have already been blocked before. Now, instead of adding those records, you guys are talking about it would be punch on his face if someone makes such silly arguments with me This further proves that, "you guys have no intention in doing the right thing" & u resort to meaningless comments & excuses. Jackthomas321 (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb indicated that this issue may merit further discussion.

While i think it might be appropriate to note in text that these rolling records, I dont see them as actual worthy "records" . "He holds the record for putting the most white marbles in his mouth." " He holds the record for holding the most black marbles in his mouth" Particularly when the counting of the marbles has always been iffy at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The crux of my comment was that I'd initially misinterpreted what Jackthomas321 was proposing, and by the time I understood what his point was, we had a new focus, his irrational rage, to attend to. My first response, "If nothing noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, I don't see the value of listing the collections" was predicated on the incorrect assumption that Jack was proposing the inclusion of non-noteworthy second and third week gross figures. In hindsight, if these values were record breaking, as Jack was arguing, then it would be reasonable for us to discuss their inclusion, particularly if similar content was found to be noteworthy in an article like Avatar (2009 film). However we know a few facts: Bollywood box office figures are historically not trustworthy. There has long been an agenda to promote each new film's records, 100 crore club, box office wins, etc. PK is the first film to use Rentrak, a system that is intended to accurately measure PK's audience. So if this is the first film to use an accurate measurement system, how then can we laypeople reasonably compare these measurements against decades of inaccurate measurements? And there are other factors to consider as well when we start drooling over box office records: Although Avatar broke a lot of records, in the long term, these records mean very little. For example, this is a list of US box office gross totals adjusted for inflation. Gone With the Wind grossed more in real dollars than Avatar did. Ticket prices have gone up, population has increased, currencies inflate and deflate, etc. I think a smarter approach is to wait for history to decide how record-breaking these films are instead of relying on potentially corrupt sources that update their data from week to week--we are not a breaking news source and we are not here to promote films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Swami Agnivesh

Please, state rationale for removing such a reformist like Swami Agnivesh's comment[2] from the page? Srikanlohs (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Because everyone has an opinion about movies, but we only include subject matter experts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2015

Box Office Collection : 635 Crore, 102.3 Millions USD http://www.koimoi.com/box-office-verdict-bollywoods-top-worldwide-grossers/ 117.228.6.251 (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done It appears this change was made by Arjunk6. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible sequel

With respect to the recent back and forth [3][4] over "Possible sequel", I don't particularly see the need to devote a section to something that hasn't been confirmed. Surely given the opportunity to talk about a possible sequel, any actor across the globe would do so, and would speak favorably of it, because actors like to work. If the standard for "possible sequel" is simple chatter, I think our standards are too low, because everything hypothetical scenario could be incorporated as a "possible this-or-that". Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, thanks for bringing it to talk. Yes, it hasn't been confirmed, and so we use possible. If it hasn't been confirmed, we can simply say so with sources. It does not necessarily deserve an exclusion. With sources like NDTV, The Times of India, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, the section should not face such problem. Besides, an user's placing it in the Marketing section poses a logical fallacy. The marketing section deals with PK whereas the contested content deals with the possible sequel of PK. These two are not same. -AsceticRosé 15:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think it warrants inclusion; it's vapor. The film has an ambiguous ending (from what I can tell), and actors are speculating. I think it only warrants inclusion if and when there is a concrete announcement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion and certainly a complete section is WP:UNDUE weight to speculation and gossip of a promotional nature. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

Rs 642 crore = 104 million please correct it imediately Ricky8741 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

In the plot of PK, jaggu started working as a reporter after she came to india. That wasn't specified in the plot.People who read this will be clueless as to why tapashree talked about jaggu during the interview (It was because she was a reported who was hosting the interview).And also PK absorbs jaggu's memory not during the interview but before bhairon singh's death. Rushiil (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done make more corrections if you want. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Done –Davey2010^Talk 05:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Genre

IMDB and rottentomatoes both mention the genre as fantasy , comedy and drama . if some editors are more experienced , then they don't have special power to edit according to their will.

IMDB calls it as Comedy | Drama | Fantasy -

Rotten Tomatoes mentiones the genre as Drama , Science Fiction & Fantasy , Comedy

Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,610 bytes) (+123)‎ . . (Don't need wikilinks for common concepts. Don't need to capitalize Comedy. Got a source for "fantasy" as a genre? From what I know of the film it is intended to be satirical, and it is directly observable as a comedy, though I've added ref.)

Still they think the movie is not fantasy . Not my view but a movie about alien can't be fantasy ????

He added bollywoodhungama as a source

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frost The World (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Frost The World:, from what I am aware per WP:RS/IMDB and from my understanding of WP:RS, we don't consider IMDb, or Wikia, or BollywoodMDB or discussion forums or rumor mills or any other user-contributed site (including Wikipedia itself) as a suitable reference, because these are not considered reliable sources. Genre is subjective. Just because *you* consider it a fantasy doesn't mean that it satisfies the criteria of being a fantasy in film. However, since RottenTomatoes is generally considered a reliable source, and you've found a sub page at RT that supports Fantasy, I'm happy to yield on the matter with the following important note: if you had provided reliable sources initially, as is your burden, this entire questioning scenario would probably have been averted. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is best that the genre remain what reliable sources like newspapers call it, for most of them (including Raju Hirani) call it a satirical film. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Some films are obviously comedies and don't require any real interpretation (or sourcing) to draw that conclusion. But to one person "fantasy" means unicorns and wizards, and to another person it means aliens, so in these more interpretive areas we should rely on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frost The World:, I forgot to address one of your other objections, where you write: "lots of movies summarize critical response—This is an "other stuff exists" argument. Lots of articles have misspellings—does that mean we shouldn't fix misspelling? Some articles have excessively long plot summaries—shouldn't we cut those down? Summaries of critical response are not warmly received by WikiProject Film, because they tend to constitute synthesis and it is far too tempting for editors to find five positive reviews of a movie they liked and say, "Look, five positive responses means the response was unanimous—critics loved it!" In film and television articles we tend to rely on critical response aggregators like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes to make the call, and the preferred way to communicate that information is: Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 114 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 55 as positive and 59 as negative. Of the 114 reviews, it determined a rating average of 5.4 out of 10. As of December 27, 2014 the website had assigned the film a score of 48%. These aggregators are not always in agreement, however, which tends to suggest that our personal evaluations of critical response would be equally as subjective and problematic. (Prior discussions: 1, 2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyphoidbomb (talk • contribs) 30 January 2015

I am aware that Alien belongs to Science Fiction but I can't write according to my wish . Unfortunately IMDB mentions the genre as Fantasy . You think :: for me alien is fantasy and for others witches , wizards and dragons are fantasy @Cyphoidbomb:Frost The World (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have previously mentioned, per WP:RS/IMDB, IMDb is not considered a reliable source, because it is user-contributed, just like Wikia, Wikipedia, BollywoodMDB, etc. So for our purposes here, it is entirely irrelevant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: If Rotten Tomatoes mentions the genre as Drama , Science Fiction & Fantasy , Comedy then what is the problem , [[Rotten Tomatoes does not separate Fantasy and Sci-Fi . They put them in one category

And @Kailash29792: most Indian directors don't reveal about movie plot before the release of the movie due to obvious reasons .The links are before the release of the movie . After the release of the movie people found that Aamir Khan plays an Alien who comes in a Space-Ship and searches for his Lost switch , without which he can't go back to his planet . The Alien can read people's minds and even watch the memory as a Visual. you can read the movie plot if you want.

actual Genre of this movie would be Sci-Fi Comedy . And there is no political thing in this movie , It's about Religion and Fake God-men , Religious practices. I hope Religion and Politics are two different things @Kailash29792:

And since @Cyphoidbomb: , you accept Rotten Tomatoes as reliable . And also trust newspaper source , in these articles you will find that PK is mentioned as Science Fiction . take a look Entertaining blend of social satire, sci-fi and comedy

Part comedy, part drama, PK opts to share its genre specification with science fiction Frost The World (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The only problem I have is that you brought up IMDb as a source again yesterday; I yielded on the Fantasy genre days ago. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The genre is becoming too big . It should be Sci-Fi Comedy only CosmicEmperor (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Separate article for list of awards ?

Here. Is it really worth it? I would suggest merging. Tigraan (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed even major Hollywood Blockbuster's do not have a separate page for awards.... Merge and speedy delete.._Gremlin^SA 14:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

POV editing with regard to box office gross

There appears to be a recent flurry of interest in box office gross totals, from some IP users, for example in these edits and this edit where a needlessly hostile user [5] at 117.196.167.238 swaps out a reference from International Business Times dated 28 February 2015 with a sloppy Q&A "article" at Box Office India from 18 February. Another IP (who I assume is the same person based on their needlessly hostile edit summary here) again replaces the more recent International Business Times article with an outdated Q&A "article". I don't particularly care what the gross total is except for what can be currently and reliably sourced. If the IPs have a problem with the International Business Times, they can take it up at Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard or open a discussion at the Indian cinema task force page. Currently though, the community appears to consider International Business Times a reliable source. The poorly-explained swap-out of these sources looks an awful lot like POV editing to me. For these reasons, I am restoring the content until such time as a local consensus can be established by less hostile users. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Cassette recorder

Mentioned details (model) of the cassette recorder because it is an integral part of the film.-Polytope4d (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Polytope4d, how is the model number of the cassette recorder an integral part of the film? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey I didn't say that about the model number; I meant the cassette recorder.-Polytope4d (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You absolutely said that. "Mentioned details (model) of the cassette recorder because it is an integral part of the film." If the model of the cassette recorder is not an integral part of the film, it should be omitted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2015

182.186.21.28 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Plot

I've attempted to improve the plot of this movie, by shortening unimportant details and adding missing info.

• I added a few details, such as how PK practices every Indian religion in search of "God" and still does not find him.

• I also added one of the punchlines of the climatic confrontation between PK and Tapasvi, "PK says the "God that created us all" is the only one we should believe in, and that the other "duplicate Gods" are created by man.".

• I also corrected various details that were wrong, such as PK attempting to grab hands before meeting Bhairon. In the movie, PK decides to learn language only after meeting him.

• Even this sentence "After massive public appeals, Tapasvi is forced to come into the studio" is not exactly correct. Tapasvi decides to come on air, the "public appeals" are only in the form of hate mail received by Tapasvi. The general public does not appeal Tapasvi to come on-air.

I hope no one has any objection with this. If you do, add your comments below. Currently the plot is 650 words, close to the Wikipedia requirement of 400-700 words.

Regards, Pradeep Kulkarni (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016

US$100 Million is 677 Crores, not 630 Crores. Please change this as soon as possible. 101.190.233.113 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done read the references - e.g. this one Exchange rates change all the time - we use the figures quoted at the time. - Arjayay (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Ad Nitant Shrivastava in the Cast section he played as a Hindu Saint Ns harmony (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: That doesn't sound like a noteworthy role. Can you please explain why it should be noted? Wikipedia is not IMDb. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Worldwide Gross of PK : Rs 743 crore

Worldwide Gross of PK from Two sources: 743 crore first source:
http://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=2914
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion has hit 1000 crore GROSS Worldwide box office in ten days. The film had gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore a few days back. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide but now with its China run it can go over 900 crore but its not catching Bahubali - The Conclusion.

second source:
http://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=2904
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion which has smashed all box office records has also taken the Worldwide crown in just six days. The film has gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore with business close to 800 crore. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide. PK at 743 crore and Dangal at 702 crore.
PK was released in Hindi only

The worldwide gross should be changed from 792 to 743 --Rashkeqamar (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

miscellaneous questions

What is so unfortunate about the name "Jagat Janini"?

The attack is later declared by Tapasvi's group to be stated as protecting their Gods.

Didn't Tapasvi say that it was Muslims? Or was he speaking of something else?

In PK, Khan played nine avatars

By "avatars", the linked article seems to mean costumes, PK's multiple sets of stolen clothing. Is this detail worth keeping?

What does Ek Tha Talli mean? —Tamfang (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Peekay(film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Peekay(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § Peekay(film) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)