Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan

Contested merger
I would like to contest this merger on the basis that the nom's rationale were incorrect. Makhamakhi claimed that all the awards were non-notable, while they have received extensive media coverage and have Wikipedia articles. Further, their rationale mentions that the film has won only 7 awards, which is incorrect; the film received 33 awards for over 69 nominations, all of which are sourced in the awards list. Also, there are other categories too that have Wikipedia articles, it just wasn't linked in the awards list. The size of the parent article is quite large to warrant a fork. Further, many other Indian award lists that have featured status have lesser number of awards and smaller parent articles, a case of WP:OSE. Request your participation here. King Prithviraj II (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping recieved, thinking about it. As I was more interested in deletion at the time, I would like to hear what Ace and Atlantic have to say. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  16:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As the AfD closer, I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the Ping. I originally supported deletion of the page, and although I would do so again I accept the merger, an outcome that in my opinion is hardly "incorrect." I note that the English Wikipedia pages for films such as City Lights, Citizen Kane, Casablanca (film), The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (film), Roshomon, Psycho (1960 film), The Godfather, and Taxi Driver, all of which are quite large, include sections that explicitly list honors/awards/accolades. None of those films, to my knowledge, have stand-alone pages that list their many accolades. Because those and many, many other illustrious films - far too many to list here - are so presented on the English Wikipedia, and because those films are, and will likely always be, of significantly greater interest, impact and stature than Jab Tak Hai Jaan for the majority of English Wikipedia readers (and that is certainly not meant as a slight to the latter film), I do not see any compelling reasons or justifications for treating JTHJ differently. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite the large size of the film articles mentioned above, they haven't received as many awards to warrant a WP:SPLIT. I repeat, this film has received 33 awards from over 69 nominations, while the highest I can count among those articles is 34 nominations. This award list satisfies the criteria for a fork. The average Wikipedia reader is an English speaker; it doesn't mean we should give precedence to English topics per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I have demonstrated that there is no differential treatment in my rationale; in fact, merging this article is in itself differential treatment. King Prithviraj II (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there are award lists on English-language films with lesser number of awards, like Deadpool. This article has a prose of 67 KB, while the awards article has a prose of 17 KB, which gives a total of 84 KB; this puts it between Almost certainly should be divided and Probably should be divided per WP:SPLIT. I intend to further expand the parent article with an analysis section, which will take the size even further. King Prithviraj II (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your opinion? King Prithviraj II (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are still very much as in the AfD - a merge would be fine apart from the size of the resulting article. I think having List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan split off as a separate article is better. --Michig (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Have no objections to a seperate article but do not have a strong opinion either way, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Box office sources
removed the BOI source, and replaced it with. They've been told, as a condition of unblocking, that they should not do this, but should open a discussion about the relative reliability of sources and how we should present them. Since, despite promising to discuss rather than removing existing sources unilaterally like this, they seem to have no intention of actually starting any discussions, I'm opening this one, and inviting them to it. Thanks. -- Begoon 10:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if there's a range of opinion on the film's gross from reliable sources, that range should be presented. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)