Talk:Mohenjo Daro (film)

Contested deletion
This page should be speedily deleted because it is about a future film that has not started even shooting. Vishwavijay (film) was deleted when it had started shooting. It was deleted because it was a future film. And this also is a future film,not a past film. It fails to meet WP:NFF --59.89.140.221 (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This page should be speedily deleted. Same was done with my article,but is not done here because it belongs to great personalities. Either delete it or restore Vishwavijay (film) otherwise no one will believe Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superheroprashast (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article you created was not originally speedy deleted. It was deleted after a discussion at WP:AFD.  Then when you recreated it, it was speedy deleted.  If you feel this article should be deleted, follow the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO.  -- GB fan 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The obvious though sarcastic answer would be for you to get great personalities involved in your film. No, really. Wikipedia is only for things that are already notable, with consensus about what that term technically means in the context of the wikipedia project. DMacks (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical accuracy
Although, in this Wiki article it says the film makers spoke to various archaeologists, however, I recall watching a TV documentary on Mohenjo Daro, they mentioned all the rooms of equal size, so people had equality. They also said there appeared to be two water storage areas. One for rainwater and the other being water from the Indus. It is unclear why they kept the waters separate. Nor did they find any weapons, suggesting this was a peaceful society. They also found provisions for toilets, yet one scholar claimed the irony of people who lived near by today live by open sewers.

There is a lot we don't know about people who lived in Mohenjo Daro, however, we do know they were sophisticated civilisation. They had a form of writting, which has not been deciphered. We don't know why the people perished....

The end of the movie people find Ganga... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.166.182 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Budget
This source indicates the film's budget including publicity and advertising is 115 crore. When we are talking about the film's "budget" we're typically talking about the film's production budget, which rarely includes stuff like publicity and advertising. We should be circumspect about this value. Also, the same source is bringing up the satellite and music rights income, so we should be aware of only using sources that have excluded these values, because when we speak about gross, we're talking about the money brought in from ticket sales, not from every revenue stream. There was a huge headache about this mistake at Kabali (film). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Pointless wikilink
In this edit I removed a wikilink to 21st century BC. Seems pointless. I don't see how it expands our comprehension of this fictional story to know about other real things that happened around this time. Also, we don't link to years or dates, so I don't get why we're doing it for a century. If the film were set in 1967, we wouldn't arbitrarily point editors to 1967. has added this twice without explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Historical discrepancies"
Hello people! There's a new issue in the page which has been brought to our attention by. This edit is the subject. We should discuss the following -
 * If the sources attributed to the content added are reliable or not?
 * Is the content written in a neutral point of view?

Best, Nairspecht   (talk)   (work)  07:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Source is not reliable and the quote is too long. Previous content was much better than this.-   Managerarc   ™ talk  02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources for Budget and B.O.
The sources/citations cited in the "Budget" and "Box Office" sections in Infobox are not reliable. References 5 & 6 are tabloid reports which are speculative as is evident by their headlines which themselves contain a "?", these aren't reliable source either. References 3 & 4 are are also speculative and should not be used either as they are just conjecturing numbers even before the film's release. Reference 8 does not link to any article and the search for the headline does not provide one.

These citations/references should be replaced by a reliable source such as Box Office India, an example of this can be taken from the GA of Edge of Tomorrow which cites Box Office Mojo. Box Office India is a reliable source and has been cited and referenced multiple times on Wikipedia as well as elsewhere too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.48.110.63 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But see the Reliable Sources noticeboard discussion here. Perhaps you should re-open the discussion at that Noticeboard.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, but we should still remove references 4, 5, 6 & 8. References 5 & 6 are clearly speculating and are just adding clutter in the list of references. Reference 4 is just a copy of 3 and reference 8 does not link to any article and a search for its headline does not lead to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.48.110.63 (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)