Talk:Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara!/Archive 1

Title Change to Once Upon ay Time in Mumbaai Dobaara!
Hey, can we change the title of the page to Once Upon ay Time in Mumbaai Dobaara! since the producer Ekta Kapoor has changed the film's title (due to numerologial reasons) to the title shown above. Evidence: zoomtv, as well as the infobox picture shown


 * ✅:Article name changed.--- $oHaM ❊ আড্ডা  08:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Bollywood or Indian?
Let's keep Indian cinema. :). At least that's the way it is in FA Kahaani

Bollywood/Indian Confusion
You wanted to see me??? Let's have a chat.

Okay, first of, you should know that I'm not here to mess up the article. In fact, I've been trying really hard to improve the quality of this article for the past few days. Take a look at the histroy page; all the IP addresses starting with the number 49 are mine. Furthermore, I respect in particular, the contributions you have made to the article. Now let's come to our little argument, 'Bollywood or Indian'. I disagree with you on the matter that Bollywood is an official term. Even the Wikipedia page related to Bollywood says that it is an informal term which is used to refer to the Hindi Film Industry of India. I am quite adamant, but not pushy. So, I will respect whatever choice you make on this matter.

Okay, so I noticed that you decided to go with 'Indian' with a background redirect to the page 'Bollywood'. I would like you to take a look at these two articles: Chennai Express, Hot Fuzz. Just hover over the demonyms mentioned in the first lines of the aforementioned articles and then decide whether you want to keep 'Bollywood' as the redirect, or 'Cinema of India', or just want to keep the word 'Indian' alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.12.207 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all thank you for responding so fast. Above all I want to clear that is a discussion to make the article better not an argument.

Now on the topic,

In Kahaani, a FA Indian cinema is considered with a link to Bollywood Article. I would like to keep bollywood as it refers to cinema of Mumbai, since this is a bollywood film.


 * --- $oHaM ❊ আড্ডা  03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding name of the article and female lead respectivley.
Hello and ,

I am starting this section in order to find a resolution regarding the names of the article and the female lead as recently I witnessed a near-3RR between two editors. Any editor committed for this article is appreciated to express their views.


 * Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara! (official name in accordance with the poster)


 * Once Upon a Time in Mumbai Dobaara! (disputed name in leading dailies and Industry sources)

Please provide the sources along with reasoning.

Over & Out $oHƎM ❊ আড্ডা 09:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Critical Reception of Soundtrack
plz enter critical reception of soundtrack..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.71.100 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ DONE DONE LONDON :)$oHƎM ❊ আড্ডা 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception
Hey, Kindly add the article of critical reception of the film, its almost 12 hrs of release and still no sign of the section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.65.223 (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thursday (15th August) Day 1 collections: approx 9cr (by BOI)) link: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5967&nCat= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.55.102 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ both, Working tearing my @ss out here.$oHƎM ❊ আড্ডা 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Nomination or Peer review
Hey all,

I just wanted you to know that am going to list it up for a GA review or should I opt for a peer review instead. I am still not sure since this is my first. Everyone (including IP's) are welcomed to weight in with their opinions. $oHƎM ❊ আড্ডা 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as y'all can't settle on a title I wouldn't do this. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * True. And after settling on the title, the first thing that needs to be done is the correct formatting of the references. Check out current Indian film FA's and GA's to see how they have been done. -- smaro jit  HD 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, just a correction you need to make. From source 64 in your article (koimoi.com), 14cr is the GROSS figure while 11.5cr is the net collections (the figure that should be in the page). Please correct the article and references. Cheers.
 * FTR we don't count Koimoi as Reputed Source as they have industry connections and are in contract with films to promote them. For example, Chennai Express had a marketing parter - DNA along with ETC. Boxoffice India is the source for Box Office Collections in Wikipedia.$oHƎM ❊ আড্ডা 09:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Smaro, I added all the citations clearly and checked other articles also. Can you suggest for example how I may improve it? For the title I opened a discussion but no one participated in it therefore I hold by the silence of other editors that the issue is resolved more so with the fact that the current name is in accordance with the same on the poster.$oHƎM ❊ আড্ডা 09:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, it'll be great if you request a copyedit first then a peer review and finally a GA review. The article needs a lot of work, especially the grammar. Regards, --Jionpedia  ✉  14:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jion, placed a request on your talk page instead of going to the Guild of Copy-Editors.   ☸    16:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another question - Is it ready for a GA Nom, aesthetically?   ☸    16:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at its current state, its a strong no (no offence to you, Soham).<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">Jionpedia <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"> ✉  07:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None Taken, Jion. As a matter of fact I do like critism till its constructive. The whole point of opening this sections is to draw out the short-comings of this article which may avoid my eye. Coming back to the point apart from the Copy editing issue, what are the other areas in which it is lagging. I will add production and rewrite the critical reception after my exams so excluding that. Thanks   ☸    10:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dropping the Idea . Dont have enough time to devote it to this as also lost interest. If anyone completes the work please feel free to do so and feels its enough for GA nominate it. Might reassume it later. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #6C0, -4px -4px 15px #F63;"> Sohambanerjee1998  16:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who the hell! I never give up, more so after watching the film.  Sohambanerjee1998  07:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Release section looks very short, I'd merge with reception Yes, it needs a copyedit before GAN.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blo, anything other than that?  Sohambanerjee1998  12:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is Flop capitalized? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blo, ✅ Done. Anything else?  Sohambanerjee1998  08:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As per the request for comment at my talk page I think the critical reception is fairly comprehensive. However, it is structured quite unconventionally by going through the comments critic by critic. It gives the impression of giving too much WP:WEIGHT to individual critics. Generally, what we are trying to do is summarize the overall critical reception, and we quote from critics that best sum up the commonly held view. If you take Skyfall (which is really well structured), for instance, the section first covers the overall impressions of the film; it then covers reviews of Daniel Craig and some other cast members before describing the directing and cinematography, and then finally covers the negative reception the film received. No undue emphasis is given to an individual critic. Remember, we are aiming to tell the reader what is good and bad about the film, not what individual critics think of it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will look into the matter.  Sohambanerjee1998  06:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Change in collections
Hey guys, just a correction you need to make. From source 62 in your article (koimoi.com), 14cr is the GROSS figure while 11.5cr is the net collections (the figure that should be in the page). Please correct the article and references. Cheers.

182.68.185.37 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How I should put this - nett means profit incurred after deducting taxes, wages etc. while gross means the total amount, FTR I haven't put the amount saying Koimoi - 14 crore, its the amount quoted by Tanuj Garg. Plus note that I included a range, 11-15 I guess. Thats the reason. Plus don't be offended for asking this who is your fav bollywood hero - is it SRK or Akshay?<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969">$oHƎM ❊ আড্ডা 09:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)