Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan/Archive 2

Edit request on 17 November 2012
IANS Hindi Film Review has rated 4star to Jab Tak Hai Jaan. And quoting "Fall in Love with Love again!". Source-IANS Hindi Film Review, IANS Hindi Film Review Please insert in the (Section6 i.e. Critical Reception, Sub Section 6.2 i.e. INDIA) Professional Reviews Column with Review Scores. Please Edit it.

SUMITKRISHNAGUPTA (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First you have to provide a link and i dont know whether your reviews are from notable critics or not so, please consult {User:Secret of success}. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 November 2012
Jab Tak Hai Jaan` earns Rs.60.39 crore in four days <"http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/bollywood/jab-tak-hai-jaan-earns-rs-60-39-crore-in-four-days_122899.htm">

JAB TAK HAI JAAN EARNS WHOPPING RS 26 CRORES OVERSEAS<"http://www.deccanherald.com/videos/watch/2996/jab-tak-hai-jaan-earns.html">

59.177.75.73 (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just want the Conflicting reports section but it should be expanded.

India and Overseas critics review
Jab tak hai jaan mostly received positive reviews from critics in india.

The film garnered positive reviews from overseas critics as well.

Kindly note that it is written that it received mostly positive reviews from critics in india. so it would be wrong to say it received positive to mixed reviews as only 1 out of 15 reviews mentioned in the table here also gave less than 3 stars. its my humble request to pay attention to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceinside19 (talk • contribs)


 * Your references are blogs and reliable website reviewgang gave average rating as 6/10 here,5 is mixed and 7 is positive,then what is your opinion now.Dont consider viewers rating as some viewers are blind believers. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 November 2012
Dear

You said in yoyr answer that you only use boxofficeindia for bollywood collections then why you have used entertainment.oneindia.in for Talassh box office colection. Please refer to the following link you have used for Talassh. http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2012/aamir-talaash-7-days-first-week-collection-box-office-101763.html

If you can do so for Talassh you also update Jab Tak Hai Jaan collection to Rs 184.33 Crore for Jab Tak Hai Jaan as well. Please refer to the following link

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2012/jab-tak-hai-jaan-200-cr-collection-worldwide-box-office-101793.html

Update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.135.240 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Various Websites on Internet showing five days worldwide collection is 106 crores worldwide. Below are some boxoffice sites that are showing worldwide collections. Boxoffice is showing only Indian box office collections not showing worldwide collection. So I have given you few sites that are showing worldwide collection & all showing worldwide collection is 105 crores in 5 days.

<"http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/katrina-kaif/jab-tak-hai-jaan-crosses-100-cr-worldwide-5-days"> <"http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/jab-tak-hai-jaan-crosses-100-crores-at-the-worldwide-box-office/"> <"http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/boxoffice-collections.aspx?id=903"> <"http://boxofficeonline.in/jab-tak-hai-jaan-first-week-collection/"> <"http://boxofficeonline.in/jab-tak-hai-jaan-crossed-100-crores/"

120.56.164.150 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There will be definite edit warring and trouble begins if every user show their case with different websites thats why boxofficemojo for hollywood films and boxofficeindia for bollywood films.I hope you got it. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 November 2012
Luckycoolboy94 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - you haven't given any details of a proposed edit. Begoon &thinsp; talk 06:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

JTHJ enters Top 10 in the USA
JTHJ enters Top 10 in the USA. Please add this info. Source - http://moviecitynews.com/2012/11/the-weekend-report-19/ Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/bollywood/9690439/Bollywood-film-Jab-Tak-Hai-Jaan-makes-U.S-Top-10.html
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you! Vacation nine 17:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 November 2012
YASH CHOPRA’S “JAB TAK HAI JAAN”… A WORLDWIDE BLOCKBUSTER! JAB TAK HAI JAAN COLLECTS 122 CRORES WORLDWIDE IN 6 DAYS ALL INDIA NETT BOX OFFICE COLLECTION

Tuesday       15.23 Cr Wednesday   19.54 Cr Thursday       14.45 Cr Friday           11.17 Cr Saturday       10.38 Cr Sunday          9.96 Cr TOTAL INDIA 80.73 Cr

JAB TAK HAI JAAN COLLECTS 122 CRORES WORLDWIDE IN 6 DAYS

JAB TAK HAI JAAN opened worldwide on Diwali, 13th Nov 2012, to a tremendous response at the box office and has set several collection landmarks ever since.

ALL INDIA NETT BOX OFFICE COLLECTION

Tuesday       15.23 Cr Wednesday   19.54 Cr Thursday       14.45 Cr Friday           11.17 Cr Saturday       10.38 Cr Sunday          9.96 Cr TOTAL INDIA 80.73 Cr

It is the highest first day collection ever for any film released on Laxmi Pooja day, even though it did not have a solo release.

It is also Shahrukh Khan's highest opening day figure, ahead of both RA.One and DON2, which had solo releases.

OVERSEAS

JAB TAK HAI JAAN takes the International Box Office by storm.

JTHJ recorded some mind boggling figures for the opening day (Tuesday) screenings on a limited overseas release, as the film opened in stages over 14th, 15th, and 16th November.

The film has had a tremendous response and the audience reactions have been extremely positive. What has been most touching is that everyone is sitting through the end credits as the film pays a tribute to Yash Chopra, which makes it even more special.

OVERSEAS GROSS BOX OFFICE COLLECTION

Tuesday       $1.30 Million Wednesday  $1.20 Million Thursday      $1.08 Million Friday          $1.35 Million Saturday      $1.52 Million Sunday         $1.13 Million TOTAL $ 7.58 Million TOTAL OVERSEAS 41.7 crores

This is the highest grossing weekend for any Bollywood film overseas! <"http://www.yashrajfilms.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=1d3cf0a4-a473-4513-ae21-2864f6464dd5">

Bharatpandey2007 (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Overseas figures are already added. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple opening records overseas
Source - http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/hindi/article/88404.html US - Opened at No. 5 on the US Box Office charts and the highest midweek and weekend grossing Bollywood Film ever

UK - Opened at No. 4 on the UK Box Office charts and the highest midweek and weekend grossing Bollywood Film ever.

Middle East - No. 1 at the Box Office and the highest midweek and weekend grossing Bollywood Film ever. The fastest ever in the Middle East for an Indian Film to reach the 2 Million Figure - in 5 days.

Australia - Opened at No. 2 on the Australia Box Office charts (limited release) and the highest opening Bollywood Film ever.

New Zealand - First Bollywood Film to open at No. 1, overtaking all Hollywood Films on Wednesday.

Germany - Opened at No. 7 on the German BO.

Pakistan - All time record of highest Opening Day collections for Film ever.

Singapore - All time record of highest Opening Bollywood Film ever.

Please add this data to the article.


 * Combined overseas figures are already added,It is difficult to accept variable figures from different websites.There will be only edit warring.We generally prefer Boxofficeindia.com for boxoffice figures. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 November 2012
The critics reviews have been mostly positive, not positive to mixed.

Simbola16 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Many critics have given less stars for the film. Example, Indian Express has given only 2.5 stars, Rediff has criticized the screenplay, and many more. That's why "positive to mixed" is apt. §§ §§ {T/C} 11:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2012
total worldwide collections: 179.80 cr nett See link to verify request: http://boxofficecapsule.com/boxoffice-collections.aspx

199.64.0.253 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌. Not a reliable source. §§ §§ {T/C} 03:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Jthj box office collection 17 days
Jthj Domestic box office - 116.5 crore Jthj overseas box office - 63.5 crore Jthj worldwide box office - 180 crore

By Analyst Taran Adarsh Written by Suresh Hussain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.96.75 (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To prove that the top one is real
URL http://buzzcinemas.com/2012/11/29/jab-tak-hai-jaan-17th-day-worldwide-box-office-collection-reports/.html Written by Suresh Hussain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.96.75 (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

17 days box office collection
100 crore in 17 days is fake n I checked in box office India is written something else. This link will show u the exact box office collection from day1 to day 17 here is the link http://m.oneindia.in/entertainment/bollywood/box-office/2012/jab-tak-hai-jaan-2nd-week-17-days-collection-box-office-101582.html This is just the domestic nett This is site is the same as box office India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.101.118 (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2012
The film is "hit" not "superhit" according to BoxOfficeIndia.com: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=earnings

So in the third paragraph it should be " Box Office India declared the film a "hit" in India"

139.190.140.12 (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

✅ Plea$ant 1623  ✉  14:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Status
The film has done excellent bussiness in overseas as it is usual for SRK and with a budget of around 50 cr ,finally it reached a figure of 100 cr in domestic market in struggling way.I am just wondering how can YRF and other trade analyst called it a worldwide blockbuster.I do not remove it from article myself because i do not want edit warring.Is yash raj website considered reliable?Please discuss about this issue. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it is very disappointing at local box office. And what is meant by "other analysts"? It should be "However, according to its production company Yash Raj Films, the film was a "worldwide blockbuster." --139.190.140.12 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Other analysts are Komal Nahta and Taran Adarsh. The figures used in the Yash Raj Films report are theirs if you actually read it. And yes, the two are considered RS according to Wikipedia guidelines. The WW blockbuster and Conflicting reports were added because Box Office India is giving various reports about BO collections. Here they said the film grossed 91 crore in 10 days but in another article they say differently: www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5134&nCat. This was discussed with editor Besharamsun, Meryam90, sonataca and another contributor named Jitesh and then added. Based on Wikipedia guidelines, the majority wants this section so it will stay. Thanks for understanding. Ashermadan (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * why trust only boi when all trade analyst and sites are saying it crossed 120 cr after its third weekend.what gives boi more credibility?are all these trade analyst(who make a living out of it),yrf,and other trade sites wrong or biased? must go with the majority sites and trade analyst,mention the boi figures in conflicting report and mention majority figures in main report -rahul ghosal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.219.9 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with the above comment, however want the Conflicting reports section but it should be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueindiangrit (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, there should be a section that talks about Conflicting reports because BOI is also flip-flopping over collections. They've never done that before for any other film. I'll expand on the section and include the references above. Thanks! Ashermadan (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * BoxOfficeIndia has changed JTHJ collections page at least 3 times (those I have noticed, could be more) which is not the norm with any other movie. BOI looks to be shady because no one seems answerable. All other trade experts have had a similar and constant figures for the collections and were drastically different from BOI's figures. I feel this lack of transparency by BOI should be taken into account and should not be taken as the sole source for movie earnings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.99.180 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. BOI data has changed so other sources should be mentioned. Ashermadan (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually there is a ~5% difference is collections reported by Taran and Komal and Box Office India. Recent examples are Barfi!, even Ek Tha Tiger and Talaash. The biggest difference recorded so far is 8% which occurred during film Bodyguard's collections. For JTHJ this is the first time that BOI changed their data a number of times. The difference in collections reported by BOI and Taran/Komal is roughly 20%. 20% is not in the margin for error. Something these severe should be reported and have a special conflicting reports section. Ashermadan (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the heck is going on but I want to stop it, because it is edit warring and the article will come back to full protection. Plea$ant 1623  ✉  15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully protect the page then. Everyone agrees that the article should remain as is and the conflicting reports section is important. But zeeyanketu keeps on creating an edit war. He is the only one who is against it and like 6 people are in favor for it. Please tell him to stop reverting the edits as he has violated the 3 RR rule many times. Ashermadan (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Jineshparekh (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)I have a pretty straight opinion. Nett collection of a film reported only by the respective distribution studio should be considered because it the most correct. The reason is simple. The figures reported by the respective distribution studio are subject to statutory audits. The distribution studio reports the nett collection, which is the share it gets from ticket collections at box office, but after deduction of entertainment tax, to media. Hence, any over-reporting results in higher payment of entertainment tax and higher tax deduction at source (TDS). The concurrent statutory auditor of the studio is supposed to publish such over-reporting in his/her audit observation if the corresponding tax liabilities are not adhered to and paid by the distribution studio.

Besides, What is the credibility of Box Office India to question the collection reported by the distributor. Are they even aware of the subsequent tax implication on such over-reporting as they always claim about any film? BOI, except for publishing the collection on its own website, has no credibility whatsoever. For the collection report of BOI to be even considered for debate, one needs to be aware of the mechanism being adopted by BOI to find out collections from theater across India. The collection figures reported by BOI are not subject to any statutory audit. Hence, they can report what they wish to unlike the distribution studio.

in case of Jab Tak Hai Jaan, the film has collected Rs. 1.21 billion at the end of three weeks run, as reported by Yash Raj Films Limited. This is the most correct reporting. The film is a world wide block buster as declared by the offical distribution studio.


 * Yup, that's why I mentioned it. I'm glad you think the conflicting report section showing other figures that are available is correct. Especially when BOI is providing one figure on one page and another figure on another. The YRF WW blockbuster status has also been included. Thanks. Ashermadan (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous figures given by boxofficeindia are estimates and around figure while latter it gave exact territorial breakdown which was exact one.It is an obvious thing and boxofficeindia give figures in more precise manner than any other website that's why it is most reliable among all.And at last you Ashermadan cowardly poisoned others users ears against me.Is that correct as it is not an arena,Do it in civil manner.Why dont you dare to discuss with me or other experienced users. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm done with this. The edit stays as the majority agrees. Ashermadan (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your english is quite weak too as you have difficulty in reading and understanding.I post some previous links ,, blocked twice here and poisoned others users ears without any valid reasons here, bogus warnings and threats here & here.These are for admin's and other user so they can better decide who is really uncivil. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, enough is enough. Both of you, stop this. Plea$ant 1623  ✉  18:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The conflicting reports must stay. Just the reason that(and i quote zeeyanketu) "boxofficeindia give figures in more precise manner than any other website that's why it is most reliable among all" is too illogical and naive to be taken seriously. BOI is a privately owned website, with no official stature. So, in case conflicting reports appear, they must be mentioned. I agree with ashermadan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An0nim0sity (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The higher a producer quotes his collections, the more tax he/she will have to pay. Therefore no logic would say that a producer or production house exaggerates its earnings!Even BOI states in its About Us section that figures could wary! So are we to believe the producers, or some arbitrary entity whose origins are not even known. Just few mail address's in Contact Us without any registered office, what level of authenticity does it say about the site? I feel BOI should be totally out of reckoning and could very well be deemed an illogical site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.99.180 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continued
Following a discussion few years back a consensus was made to use boxofficeindia as a reliable source for boxoffice figures of Bollywood films at wikipedia and we found it in every good article.As far as i have seen it is the only website which give results in algorithmic way although estimated figures are given earlier and exact figures updated latter on.It took time but never failed as usual for any good website and it is obvious that 10 different websites give different figures and then only break the stability of article.What is the need to add conflicting reports as there no need for it as i think.So,I want views of only experience users here so there will be no edit warring regarding this.Thankx ---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The need to have a conflicting reports section arises when there are significant differences in figures reported by other sources like Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahta and Box Office India. The reports by the different sources and Box Office India usually vary only by a small percentage, 5% or less in cases like Ek Tha Tiger and Barfi! and this has been consistent for many years. However, if you look at the Singham page, there is debate whether or not the film crossed 100 crore or did not as Box Office India says it didn't but other sources say it barely did. Jab Tak Hai Jaan is another example where the difference in the figures is too great to ignore. The figures reported by Box Office India and Taran/Komal are 20% apart. This significant difference has caused many people, including myself, to question why the reports can vary this much. 5% or so is understandable but 20% is not. Hence the section was added. Last year, other sources than Box Office India were used for films Ra.One and Don 2 because Box Office India forgot to report the collections of the film in Tamil and Telugu languages and did not provide data for around 200-300 screens in India. Taking all of this into account, including views from "less experienced" editors, the conflicting reports section was added and should remain there. -Ashermadan

While everyone here agrees to keep Box Office India for the Bollywood box office, users like AsherMadan has a history of pushing his agenda on SRK films. Wants to make everything fanboyish. Something like "It will collect more if Yash Raj Films decide to release it in other markets" is barely encyclopedic. Has a long history as we all know. Repeat, the consensus is to keep Box Office India time and again. --139.190.140.12 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment is from the source. I didn't insert it, your friend or sockpuppet Zeku did. Also, Koimoi is not Komal's website. Why are you making things up? ETC Bollywood is Komal's television channel. -Ashermadan
 * Are you aware of basic Wikipedia policies like WP:AGF? You accuse established editors of sockpuppetry. You also bite newcomers and label them as trolls and inexperienced. See WP:BITE. Komal just left Koimoi in 2012 and he's been the website's main editor for years. --115.42.65.162 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very invalid point made by Ashermadan. According to Box Office India, Ek Tha Tiger made 186 crore. According to Komal Nahta it made 198 crore. There is a difference of 12 crore: http://www.koimoi.com/koimoi-bollywood-box-office-top-10-2012-movies/ According to Taran Adarsh's Bollywood Hungama it even made 200 crore: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/features/type/view/id/4005 --139.190.140.12 (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you take the percentages, it still adds up to around 5-8% difference, not 20%. I have a valid point. And I know your real username is GSK.  -Ashermadan

How can you easily said anyone vandal,troll and sockpuppet.That means you dont even know the exact meaning of these.You have a terrible history of edit warring and you were blocked twice too.Only boxofficemojo has been used for Hollywood films as Boxofficeindia for Bollywood.It cannot be changed for you.Not a single experienced user might be agree with you.It will be removed by further discusson. ---zeeyanketu  talk to me 03:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No it won't. The majority of people who have commented agree with me. You are the only one opposing it. You wont even find 10 people who agree with you. And I do believe GSK is your sockpuppet and have lodged a complaint. Keep trying. The majority opinion wins. Ashermadan (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly,These independent trade analysts are not reliable as they do not belong to any reliable news agencies or newspapers and it is according to wikipedia guidelines.Newspapers are giving figures which i am not saying are incorrect they are near around too and i have already said there was a consensus made for boxofficeindia,its not my personal website and i am not going to earn money from it.Seconly,Most of the users who are agree with you have no experience regarding this and i suspect some of them are your sockpuppets(forgive me if i am wrong).Boxofficeindia check stats and flow of growth of collection and then change it accordingly and reporting users is not a fun until you have strong case.Aggression is not needed here.You may write whatever you think but please be cool.We are not fighting,just discussing.Good luck ---zeeyanketu talk to me 16:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works by building logical consensus, not by casting dumb agree/disagree votes. See WP:VOTE. You seem to know nothing about policies and guidelines. Again you're assuming bad faith and insulting zeeyanketu depsite being warned twice. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not related to any of these discussions, nor do I operate any sockpuppets. Do not connect my name with false accusations based on little to no evidence. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know how Wikipedia works random IP address 139.190.171.30. Thus we are having this discussion and so far all editors who have commented who are not nameless but established like Abhinavname agree with me. Based on this, the page will stay. And I apologize to GSK, I guess the IP address was just some random person harassing me. I am not calling for BOI figures to be removed, I'm just calling for the addition of a conflicting reports/controversy section because the difference between BOI numbers and numbers from other sources is around 20%. Usually it's 5% or even less so there is no need for such a section. Plus, BOI deleted a lot of articles and data. There is a reason to question this. -Ashermadan


 * Abhinavname is not an established editor,just two days old,BOI never deleted anything,you may see them from typing previous serial numbers in url.Thanks ---zeeyanketu talk to me 05:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, only two days old. Distorting facts is all you can do Ashermadan. And you're still ignorant, there's nothing wrong editing with an IP. See WP:IP. A lot to learn Ashermadan - a lot to learn. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * why only Jab tak hai jaan ,all are concentrating.Even Son of Sardaar india nett figures are varying by 16-17 crores.See this link:

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/919/date/2012-12-07 Son of sardaar nett grossed 105.03 crores. And Taran adarsh tweetsis a genuine sources.It has more than 2 lakhs followers on twitter,He takes data from production houses.,Even Ajay Devgan tweeted on Guru purnima day,Nov28,2012 Evening 4 PM that Son of Sardaar crossed 100 crores in india nett. you can check his tweet.some exceeptions can be made in wikipedia if Box Office India is changing its figures 3-4 times. this doesn't happens ,but basically after Golmaal 3it is changing drastically for these diwali releases. See these links: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/youdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5133&nCat= changed 75 cr to 69 cr for 10 days in india

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/youdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5139&nCat=

So please have conflicting reports in Son Of Sardaar also User talk:Abhinavname 05:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2012
I think the sentence below is very inaccurate:

However, Yash Raj Films and independent trade analysts called the film a "worldwide blockbuster."

It only uses one cite that goes to the producers of the film Yash Raj who claims so. It does NOT cite any other sources for "independent trade analysts" who called the film "worldwide blockbuster". And claims from producers isn't even third-party independent data as we all know. It should be changed to:

However, the production company Yash Raj Films claimed that the film was a "worldwide blockbuster."

139.190.140.12 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This matter is being disputed right now. As it is settled more sources from Komal and Taran will be added. Thanks! Ashermadan (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You couldn't just add uncited claims like that. There's no evidence that "independent trade analysts called the film a worldwide blockbuster". It must be removed now. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

y not go by boxofficeindia.co.in figure?they r also a ccredible site,boxoffice india changed the collection 3 times ,and their data differs from all the other data given by other sites and trade analysits who more or less agree on their data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.139.144 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many times and with the same consensus to use BoxOfficeIndia.com only. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What about Son of Sardaar and singham.Both are in 100-crore club by many sites and reliable sources
What about Son of Sardaar and singham.???? Both are in 100-crore club by many sites and reliable sources.conflicting reports should be here also. See hese links: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/919/date/2012-12-07 http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/917/date/2012-11-30 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-30/box-office/35484121_1_crore-mark-ajay-devgn-ffilms-ashwni-dhir http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/son-of-sardaar-beats-bol-bachchan-grabs-7th-position-in-koimoi-top-10-india-box-office-2012/ http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=299099&subcatg=&keyword=bollywood&nid=299099 http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/movies/son-of-sardar-crosses-rs-100-crore-mark-in-india_123621.htm http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/son-of-sardaar-enters-100-crore-club/1/235423.html

Many sources such Taran Adarsh ,Times of India,Bollywood Hungama, Zee news,NDTV,Koimoi, etc. have stated that Son of Sardaar crossed 100 crore (US$18.2 million) nett.gross in India in 16 days.But Box Office India has stated only 88 cr(original 105 cr) for Son of Sardaar and 102 crore(origibal 120 cr) for Jab Tak Hai Jaan,after 3 weeks run in India.See this link: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5178&nCat= Also BOI downgraded the verdict on JTHJ in india from "superhit" to hit" see this link: http://boxofficeindia.com/boxdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5136&nCat= and then it removed this page content. No trade magazine or website except Box Office India is giving wrong estimates early on,and deleting that page content. Please add conflicitng reports section on Son of sardaar and singham.Even for Barfi ,BOI has given only 106 cr(original its 120 cr )

I rember this Eid Day,on August 20,2012, Just n the evening when Taran Adarsh tweeted 100 cr nett. for Ek tha Tiger in 5 days,all New channels like Aaj Tak,Zee News,CNN-IBN and trade magazines statrted giving news of 100 cr for ETT from 4 pm in evening,while BOI has stated it crossed in 6 days. The difference in BOI and other sources(all these give same figures) is now growing from 5 cr to 13 cr and now its 18 cr fro JTHJ and SOS. Abhinavname (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

even ibtimes.com saying domestic collection 120 crore http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/413753/20121211/jab-tak-hai-jaan-box-office-collection.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.128.11 (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on Dec. 9: Unprotect the page, by moving the box office stuff elsewhere
I suggest to move almost all of the '''8. Box Office''' section to a new distinct Wikipedia page entitled: Jab Tak Hai Jaan (box office),

(just as is done with section 7. Soundtrack : Main article: Jab Tak Hai Jaan (soundtrack)).

That new JTHJ box office page would get Full protection, to stop edit warring between users, but those users, mainly interested in the film gross, could still continue the discussion about box-office figures on the "Talk" page of that new dedicated page.

Doing so would allow unprotecting the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page, so that users could resume contributing to the content, which is all Wikipedia is about. Bernarddb (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A note from an admin—this is not really an option. While splitting articles can be done, we would never do it simply to make a page unprotected, given that the other page would need to be protected anyway. "Box office" should be a small section (really, no more than a few lines, unless this is some sort of record setting film), and would not be justified to be in a separate article. You need to work through the dispute here, using dispute resolution as necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, Thanks. I agree, butI am not interested in the 2 competing studios' or their fans' battle here about how successful moneywise their own film is, so will not contribute to the resolution of that endless dispute (Look, most of this lengthy "Talk" page here is filled by that!). I have no box-office info to help, anyway.

Meanwhile, the Article page itself is half-dead, as people can no longer contribute. All that for a "small section" that should be of a few lines only... Bernarddb (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

the film crossed 100 crores in just six days.please make a note of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.55.174 (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2012
According to BOI, the film has now earned 102 crores:

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5178&nCat=

So please change the sentence to:

While Box Office India stated that the film made around INR102 crore

139.190.171.30 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See this link: JTHJ nett grossed ₹ 120 crore+ in india http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/919/date/2012-12-07 A gap of 18 crore And y only concentrating on JTHJ,even Son of Sardaar ,Barfi and ETT domestic nett gross in india is given 13-16 cr less by Box Office India.Exceptions can be made by including Bollywood Hungama and Koimoi figures. It will look weird to movie buff and people who are loving Bollywood films trade nad their collections,that when they browse these films article on Wikipedia,it willl show data in india less than 15 cr.When all 6-7 sources like Times of India,aaj Tak,Zee News, NDTV,Bollywood Hungama,Koimoi,Taran Adarsh,Komal Nahta etc. are giving same exact figures and BOI is giving different(first its giving wrong estimate,and then sometimes, deleting that page content when u want to see that page) BOI has downgraded verdict on Jab Tak Hai Jaan in india from Superhit to hit .Can u believe,Why it is giving wrong estimates then early on. Taran Adarsh take nett gross figures from production houses, but BOI takes from exibitors,distributors and multiplexes.that y when calculating worldwide gross figures,Box Office India can give entertainment tax. But stilll in worldwide gross also,BOI doesnot include tamil and telugu version gross.

Abhinavname (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The early figures are only estimates and near around.Updating exact figures take time dear.If it didnot update figures of other version(telugu,tamil etc) then you are welcome to add them from any reliable sources at the end of section's. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you ever noticed that BOI is almost always first to give box office opening figures for Bollywood films. Koimoi and Indiafm follows with increasing numbers (mostly in the range of 2-3 crores). JTHJ grossed only 102 crore in India according to BOI. Get over it already. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

boi has changed their data for jthj 3 times..its reports r varrying from other reliable sites and trade analysts by a huge margin who r more or less consistent among thmeselves,boxofficeindia.co.in also gives 120 cr as 3 week collection of jthj so boi is not trustworthy anymore and majority report should be mentioned in main article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.222.67 (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What's wrong in deleting page content and change figures when you get near accurate figures from fresh counting and reports.I suggest you to explore all the boxoffice websites from scratch.No other website gives you regional and territorial breakdown figure of Bollywood films other than Boxofficeindia.com ---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

nope boxofficeindia.co.in gives day by day territrorial breakdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.80.20 (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Boxofficeindia.co.in does not qualify as a WP:RS. Period. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Sandstein  16:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at ad hoc mediation
Alright, this issue is plaguing a number of different articles, and keeps coming up all of the time. First of all, 139.190.171.30 (or anyone else), please point me to the specific discussion in which it was determined that Boxoffice India is not a reliable source. Looking at the site, the Wikipedia article about the site, and other info, they appear to meet wP:RS, but if previous discussions established that they are not (ideally, discussions at a central location, like WP:RS or WT:INB), then I will understand.

Second, could somebody please explain to me why the hell this matters? WP:NOTNEWS says that we are not a newspaper. We do not need to have week-by-week updates of the amount of money made by the film. In fact, I could make a strong argument that we shouldn't include any box office numbers until the film is out of the theaters, except if a secondary source like a newspaper or TV news program actually commented on it. It is not within our mission to be looking for instant updates from these box office tracking sites on a day-by-day basis. No harm whatsoever is done if Wikipedia's numbers are inaccurate for a few days. And now that I look at the article, I'd like a justification for the entire Box office section. As a general rule, Wikipedia does not report on "Week one, they made this, Week 2, they made this." etc. We should have particularly noteworthy info (i.e., that which is discussed in significant news stories), and a final total. So, it seems like there's a really easy way to solve this controversy: cut out almost the entire section. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that BoxOfficeIndia.com is a fully-established WP:RS but BoxOfficeIndia.co.in is merely it's replica and obviously nota reliable source. Here 117.227.80.20 demanded to use co.in without any consensus. Thanks. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Btw I completely agree with your suggestion of removing the entire section until the lifetime collections of the film are made public by BoxOfficeIndia.com. Thanks again. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am agree too. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have an opinion about removing the entire box office section until such time as the film is no longer at the box office? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
Please add the accolades section List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan into the article after box office. Add = = Accolades = = and link this page to the main article. The award season has started and Jab Tak Hai Jaan has won some awards. -Ashermadan

Merger proposal
Recently zeeyanketu put a WP:PROD on List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan. However, since zeeyanketu was recommending that information be added to this article, the correct procedure is to request a merger, not a deletion. As such, I have declined that deletion request and am starting up the merger discussion. Here is a copy of zeeyanketu's prod rationale:

Please note that I personally am expressing no opinion on the matter; I'm merely fixing the procedural deficiency. Other editors should comment below about whether or not they think the content should be merged or remain as a separate article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The awards season just started. This list will go on for like 2-3 pages. We had the same problem with Ra.One. There were just too many awards and we had to make a new page just to accommodate them. A separate page should exist, I'll improve on it when I have time over the weekend. Ashermadan (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it will be expanded with reasonable content in coming 3-4 days then it will have a chance to remain as a separate article.As far as we have seen ,atleast 10 accolades from different distributors are required to make separate article for any film.Thanx for cooperation. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 04:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By the end of this month it'll have 10 different accolades. There's an awards show each week from now on till the end of January. Why not leave it? Why do we have to do the work twice? Merge the page, then take it out again? Just leave the page and in a few days it'll be filled up. Ashermadan (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, Ashermadan, how can you know that it will get nominated for other awards shows? Has information already been released? If not, Wikipedia doesn't deal in predictions. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, you don't have to politically & theoretically correct. Be practically right instead. Keep the list separate. Let it work the way workers find it easy. When it becomes crowded here, you would come and vote demerge and leave it on others to do the actual job. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually information has been released. The Star Screen awards are being held on January 6 and according to sources 'Barfi!' and 'Jab Tak Hai Jaan' lead the pack in nominations. Though individual ones aren't out yet. Star officials have tweeted about this too and posted it on social network sites. Plus, it's Bollywood, all big films are nominated like 10 times. Ashermadan (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Let keep it simple,merge it after three days unless it will be expanded to some extant where it will looked satisfactory. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong with it now? Its satisfactory for me even if its not for you. I know that it will expand in due time and hence would be a waste of time and efforts then. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just proposed it and give reasons for that.Prediction is not needed here.It is obvious that every article will be expanded latter.Does that mean we create another even before inserting in the main article.Its better to merge it and creating user already make a request regarding this above.Anyway if you are satisfied with this,It's better we close this issue as there is no benefit of discussion anymore. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to make this so hard? Be practical. It will obviously be expanded in the coming weeks. Are you trying just to pick a fight with me again just like you did before which still hasn't reached a consensus? If that's the case, I vote against the merger. The individual page should stay. Ashermadan (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We never fight actually just lost temper sometimes and i forgot that too and it is not fair to call anyone as troll many times amongst others as you did before.Despite hot discussions i never did the same and one thing,predictions are not good reasons.If you are possessive about this separate article,you are welcome to expand it.Good luck ---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

One small note: merger discussions are never closed for at least a week, and many run for up to a month. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan into Jab Tak Hai Jaan per PROD rationale because the list is not reasonably long. Why the list warrants a duplicate article for the awards? Anyone should have done the merge boldly and redirected to main article, but the main article is fully protected. Merging seems the most appropriate option here. I think the lead of the list is directly copied from the main article which is wrong per Copying within Wikipedia because the creator didn't tell that they had copied the lead from the main article. 4 awards and 8 nominations doesn't warrant duplicate article and the list is not going to expand significantly and is a permanent stub. Thanks! Forgot to put name (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge back to the main article. It's been hardly a month since the release of the film and having a separate page for just two awards at this stage would be meaningless. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - Merge: Per above. Not sufficient stuff for a unique page. Fideliosr (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

jab tak hai jaan grossed 100 crores worldwide in just six days.please make a note of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.55.174 (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge: I agree with Venesatry. We can always create an award article when necessary but at this stage it's meaningless to have a separate article. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * * Merge: per above comments. It is too early to talk about it.Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  11:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

May I know now what is the consensus? Forgot to put name (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not a major contributor of the article, so please wait.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  06:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Time to merge now. It's normally one week's time. Or a neutral editor should advise. See WP:MERGE. Fideliosr (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is unprotected, so can we merge now?<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  13:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course - according to the consensus. Fideliosr (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merged: to main article.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammar Error
I can't edit this page but the sentence "Sukanya Verma of Rediff described the film as an "an elegant, harmless entertainer for most part" and praised the visuals, acting and music." should not have two "an". Thanks Exadrid (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)