Talk:Thugs of Hindostan

Redirects
I found messed up redirects for this page. Can Somebody fix the redirects for/ to this page. I tried but couldn't fully do it. JPskylight (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my view, this article fails to meet the Notability criteria for films as it is unmade, and should be referred to only in the article about the novel - until at least filming starts and is reported in 3rd party sources.Parkywiki (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There is lot of third party reporting....from reliable and independent sources. Looks-photograghy is taking place. Filming is going to start soon. And there is lot of news coming out about it and people are trying to know about it. And as it has lot of content which can't be merged with any specific article, I think it deserves an independent article. JPskylight (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thugs of Hindostan
Cinematographer of Thugs of hindostan is "Manush Nandan" Vishal tawar (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on
re: your reversion of my change, where I removed the sloppily-formatted "Novel" from the based on template, your summary "I object this removal" doesn't properly articulate what your objection is, so really it would be your burden to explain that. But to entertain your unexplained reversion:
 * Look at how it resolves on the page. "Based on Novel Confessions of a Thug". Is that proper grammar, Harshrathod50? Is it?
 * I don't see any suggestion to add the type of work at Template:Infobox film.
 * I also don't see any suggestion to add the type of work at Template:Based on, nor do I see any unique parameter like type_of_work that would encourage the addition of the type of work in the template.
 * Nor do I see this formatting in common usage at articles like James and the Giant Peach (film), Christine (1983 film), Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film), etc. The place to indicate that it is based on a novel would be...wait for it...are you ready?...in the article body. The Infobox exists to briefly summarise points found elsewhere in the article. Understand now? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now this is justified. Actually, I regretted it after I undone your edit. By the way, you didn't answer on my talk page. Harsh Rathod   15:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Most expensive Bollywood film
A recent edit changed the description from the third most expensive to the most expensive Bollywood film, linking to List of most expensive Indian films, but that has this film as second to 2.0 (film) by a comfortable margin. Am I missing something?  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * this edit summary might answer your query, though, I am not very sure about the figure of 300 crore. As of 2.0, maybe the film is not being considered a 'Bollywood' production, though it is releasing in Hindi too. Thanks Vivek Ray (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Missed that, thank you. The conflict I was having was the linked page with 2.0 in the same section (well, in two sections).  It wasn't some run-of-the-mill IP making the edit, so I didn't feel any need to revert, just some confusion that I was hoping for enlightenment, which was provided.  Thank you!  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring over budget
This back-and-forth over budget circa 29 October 2018 (UTC) has become disruptive, and both of you could be blocked for violating our edit-warring policy. We settle all disputes through discussion on the talk page, not through edit-warring and snippy edit summaries. If either of you disagree with the current box office figure, start your discussion below, but leave the current version alone until a new consensus has been achieved. Note also that if there are differing estimates, it is sometimes appropriate to include a range value instead of an absolute value. Note also that we don't necessarily take the producers' reports as gospel, since they might have reasons to inflate or deflate financial figures, i.e. to make their profits seem higher. Let these tidbits of information influence your discussion below, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Summary of critical response
Re: these edits of mine, the salient issues are: 1) The critical response summary of "average to poor" does not reflect what the source says. The source, be it what it may as far as critical response aggregation goes, seems pretty clear that the general response was poor: "'Thugs of Hindostan' Receives Thumbs Down from Critics, Netizens" is the title. We do not get to decide of our own interpretation what the response was. 2) The album ratings template is for album ratings, not for critical response ratings. There is nothing at MOS:FILM that encourages this template, and most quality articles that are not about Indian films ignore the addition of critic ratings entirely, preferring that we use prose to highlight the pros and cons of critical response. Ant-Man, for example is a GA article about a non-Indian film, and there are no critic ratings. But because most Indian film contributors never interact with WikiProject Film, this meme has grown unchecked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, as I look through the edit history, I notice 's edit here noting that two sources give different opinions on the critical response. The wise thing here would be to present this information clearly and with context, a la "Media outlets differed on the reception of the film. The Quint described the response as poor, while International Business Times felt the response was mixed." I wouldn't use any sort of "average to poor" phrasing, as this is typically considered synthesis, which is a form of original research. Note also that "mixed to poor" phrasing is widely shunned by multiple WikiProjects. Critical response summaries can be a tricky area, because there are no generally accepted critical response aggregators for Indian films akin to Rotten Tomatoes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done as you suggested, Cyphoidbomb. Blacku22 (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@: Here, you added that the film received poor reviews, "but" media outlets are divided on the topic. I am afraid it makes no sense. Wikipedia reports media outlets and do not give one view more weight. From where are we getting the feeling that the film received poor reviews? I mean there are like many newspapers and 3 says the film gets negative reviews and another three says the film got mixed reviews then we need to respect both newspapers views and not give our own unsourced interpretation of the situation based on the 5-6 reviews in that section. In case we are not sure, the best thing would be to present the info directly to the readers and let them decide. I am sure you must be having some explanation, which I await. Thank u. Blacku22 (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi @: good that we can move the discussion here. Before I begin my argument, I would like to state that the IBT, International Business Times, who you earlier said had posted a 'mixed' reception, has now officially stated that the film has received "negative reviews" in a newer article. If you read the entire article, it goes on to emphasize the negative (not mixed) reception specifically from the critics: https://www.ibtimes.co.in/thugs-hindustan-review-roundup-taran-adarsh-others-call-it-big-disappointment-785055
 * So this illustrates my point as to why we should not rely on outlets themselves to aggregate reviews: 1) they may later retract or change their minds as the times change or more reviews come out, 2) their opinions differ amongst themselves anyway and 3) the people who write them are basically doing the same job as we are, just looking at the Reviews themselves and coming to a consensus. If they are just using general common sense as to the trends of the reviews of the film, why can't we?


 * As an aside, look at the Critical Reception section for other Hindi films'pages like Jab Tak Hai Jaan or Ek Tha Tiger.  They outright state that the film had either 'positive' or 'mixed' reviews.  They did not rely on a media aggregator, or media outlets' opinions as to what the reviews state- they just stated the trend outright themselves.  If they can do it there, with common sense and then back it up with the reviews, we should be able to do it here.


 * I feel like this is turning into a far bigger deal than it needs to be. Just by looking at the reviews themselves, and understanding the general tone of them, we should be able to come up with a consensus ourselves as to the overall reception of the film, and justify them based on listing the reviews themselves. This is how it is with MOST film articles, particularly Hindi ones, on Wikipedia. That is not being unbiased or interpreting it our own way - because for example if most reviewers give the film 1 to 2 stars (and I think that for Indian films, considering stars is valid because so many official Indian reviewers use it intentionally -i.e. Rajeev Masand, Raja Sen, etc), and only a handful give it more than that, it can be said within reason that the reception was poor. So we are objectively aggregating the reviews ourselves, within reason, and not interpreting it subjectively.  The question becomes, well, what is then considered 'poor?' Because 2.5 feels more average than poor.
 * Let me ask you this - would you be comfortable saying "Thugs of Hindostan received mostly positive reviews?" Probably not, because common sense and reading most of the reviews yourself you would know that there were NOT indeed positive.  You don't need a media outlet to tell you this, and the average contributor would be smart enough to figure this out.  You know that the general consensus is that the film got mostly poor but had some average and 1 or two positive reviews.  Since the community doesn't like to use 'mixed to poor,' we can rightly say "mostly poor," because takes into consideration the relatively few average-or-higher reviews.Rush922 (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, its for those very reasons adding a critical summary doesn't make sense to me. International Business Times states "Aamir Khan and Amitabh Bachchan starrer Thugs of Hindustan has received negative reviews and average ratings from critics like Taran Adarsh and others". They are not referring to the overall reception, but the opinion of selected critics whose opinions are usually respected. (Like the Top Reviewer status on Rotten Tomatoes). Aggregators like Firstpost, with articles written as recent as 4 hours ago, have termed the reception "mixed". Note that the Box Office India which you added here is boxofficeindia.co.in, which is considered unreliable at WP:ICTF, so I am removing that for now. It's boxofficeindia.com that is reliable. It should be recognized that we cannot aggregate other reviews on our own; it's the job of the journalists to do so, when we do it, it's simply synthesis. We cannot be sure we are counting every review the film received in its lifetime. Yes, I certainly wouldn't feel okay with "mostly positive reviews", but I certainly won't feel "mostly poor" is a better option either for those very arguments you have presented. The extra 'mostly' is simply a grammar clause and will be discounted for, it's like stating the film received poor reviews while we have newspapers and reliable sources which dispute this. The Ek Tha Tiger example you raised has a totally different summary in the body and the lead. The lead says it positive, while the body says it mixed. This is why I propose not summarizing the critical response, and instead using the aspects of production that were praised or the reverse in the lead, and detailing the conflict between media outlets in the body. Blacku22 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm..I think we are going to need a third-party reviewer or several different reviewers to weigh in on this, because I still disagree. Do you know how we can go about doing that?  Please let me know.


 * I know this isn't a primary source, but this tweet summarizes a lot of the major reviews as per star-rating: I think it's pretty obvious which way the reviews are leaning - https://twitter.com/abhi7hek_/status/1060475443902464001


 * You said the IBN article refers to only top critics, but that is not true at all - it doesn't specify this anywhere, you are only inferring that. It says Taran Adarsh and others- well yes, they do need to be critics.  The 'overall reception' DOES refer to the opinions of critics whose opinions are respected- otherwise we could just use any source, any person off the street, and get an 'overall reception,' but that would be flawed.  As per Wikipedia standards, the reviewers should themselves come from notable sources - i.e. respected critics.
 * Another thing is, even the Wikipedia definion for synthesis allows for its usage as per common sense. Please see WP:NOTSYNTH. Synthesis refers to original research- i.e. "improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." But we are not implying ANY new conclusion, rather we are just summarizing the trend of what most of the individual reviewers themselves are leaning towards.  You say: "We cannot be sure we are counting every review the film received in its lifetime."  But that is the point - we don't need to.  Most of the major reviewers release their reviews on or before the film actually releases; this is intentional so people can know what they are getting into.  So we just need to read and understand the majority of them, not necessarily ALL of them.  I feel like you are trying to make exceptions and be all-inclusive so be fair, but in fact you are also being unfair by not allowing a general statement as to the reception to be made.  If you only accept that different outlets gave different responses to the reception itself, you are not accurately summarizing the reception of the film, but just that people were confused about it.  It makes much more sense to observe the reviews rationally and make a few general statements - which again is not synthesis as we are not arriving at any different conclusion.


 * And saying 'mostly' is not a grammar clause; it is not saying 'The film received poor reviews but there are reliable sources which disagree' - because we are saying that while MOST of them are poor (not all), there ARE some that disagree. As for the Ek Tha Tiger page, the discrepancy isn't important and can be changed with a little research- the important thing is that it is THERE; do you not take issue with the fact that it states outright that the reviews were positive (or mixed)?  I don't think only focusing on aspects of production is fair because there should be SOME kind of statement that summarizes the overall critical feel of the movie.  The reader should not have to minutely read every paragraph to figure out the jist of what is being said; they should be able to immediately understand if the reception was mostly positive, mixed, or negative - if we cannot reasonably admit something like this then we are dismissing a major point of film criticism.Rush922 (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, for that, we could start by calling those who have edited this article other than us using that U template and see what their thoughts on the subject are: @ and : What do you think?
 * I infer that the second IB article which you linked are only counting independent film reviewers critics: by critics that are respected, I meant those critics whose opinions alone are notable. Many newspapers hire their journalists, who may not have individual reliability, to write reviews. Notable sources do not necessarily mean notable critics, they can be unknown people writing officially for known reliable newspapers. These people IB Times quote are those critics whose tweets themselves have some reliable value. But they do not necessarily represent every review. And, oh, come on, that Twitter link is to a profile of someone unconfirmed! That isn't aggregation suited for Wikipedia.
 * We are implying a new conclusion! A, B, C, and D reviewers did not like a film, E and F somewhat liked a film while G, H and I found the film mixed. This does not suggest that the film was received negatively as a whole, which is what we are doing. Even if we include some reviews which we think represent the entirity of reviews, we cannot possibly represent all major reviewers. There are perhaps more than hundreds of reliable film critics/newspapers in India and it's virtually impossible to track every single one of them. Without knowing what the excluded reviews contain, we cannot suggest a conclusion. And why India, there are others overseas like the Guardian. We cannot observe the reviews rationally without representing every review. It's a theory called confirmation bias, we look for what we think is true.
 * "because we are saying that while MOST of them are poor (not all), there ARE some that disagree": This is exactly our dispute here. We don't know if the film received what kind of reviews. (Common sense aside since I explained above it is not feasible). It isn't the reviews which disagree on whether the film recieved mixed or negative reviews, it is reliable Indian newspaper publications who are aggregating the reviews to reach the conclusion that are in disagreement. We can't do this, we aren't a source. If we say most reviews were "poor", then we have sources that state the reviews were overall "mixed", and vice-versa. In this confusion, it is necessary to list both opinions systematically. Yes, the reader should be able to do so, but only if all sources agree on a definition. The reader can be prseented with both contrasting aggregatings. It's what is done most of the time on Wikipedia since Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion of its own. If other reliable sources differ in opinion, Wikipedia isn't the place to resolve their dispute. On Hollywood film articles, it's usually normal to list Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and ComScore. What's the harm in doing a similar thing with newspaper aggregators for Indian films? Blacku22 (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll point out that we are not required to publish a summary of critical response. If sources vary on the language and we can't agree on how to present the content, there is always the option to omit the content and just toss two fingers up at lousy Indian journalists. Seriously, though, this is one of the reasons why I don't think we should be using individual journalists' opinions on critical response. They are as subject to confirmation bias (or any other form of bias, or $$$ payouts) as anybody else. At least sources like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes seem dispassionate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "I don't think we should be using individual journalists' opinions on critical response" Exactly my point! Why go to new outlets who aggregate the reviews themselves, as they can be biased and differ between themselves.  Common sense should be able to tell the average contibutor the overall reception of the film's reviews.
 * I would also like to call a few others for their opinion: @,, . Rush922 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are not using the aggregations, then the other option would be to not say any summary about the critical response. We ourselves certainly cannot use our common sense, as you have pointed out can be done, as we are also humans prone to this bias, and that is synthetic research, against Wikipedia guidelines. I am not opposed to this alternative, either, of not publishing a summary of critical response. Blacku22 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are other pages of Indian films which do use a 'mostly positive' or other generalizing statement, even without backup from any aggregator: Chandralekha (1948 film), Mughal-e-Azam, Agneepath (2012 film), Don (2006 Hindi film), Dil Dhadakne Do, etc. Check out the portal WP:INCINE for more examples.


 * I completely disagree with the fact that summarizing most reviews for a film would be considered synthetic research. We have no more bias than any of the journalists themselves who write opinions on critical response, anyway. We are not drawing any separate conclusions of our own, nor are we adding our own bias by making any separate statements.  Don't forget that CyphoidBomb himself edited it to read 'generally poor reviews.'  This is one of those times where letter-of-the-law, as per Wikipedia guidelines, should give way to some common sense.Rush922 (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Letter and spirit of the law does not apply in the case of original research. No original research to be done on Wikipedia, without any exceptions.
 * Fine.
 * In Chandralekha, "Despite the film's positive reviews and good box-office performance, it was unable to recover its large production costs;[14]"
 * In Mughal-e-Azam, "Mughal-e-Azam received almost universal acclaim from Indian critics; every aspect of the film was praised.[93]"
 * Agneepath was promoted to GA in 2012. Wikipedia's quality standards have surely improved from that time. Besides, you have this (although RT can't always be used for Indian films).
 * Don's manual aggregation mentions it received positive reviews, while an online source can confirm or any film buff can tell you that this was not the case, the film had actually recieved mixed reviews. Notice the wording- "generally well-recieved". The reception section contains cherrypicked reviews without accounting for all of them. In fact, even among those reviews, two are positive, two are mixed and one is negative. Demonstrates my point exactly.
 * In Dil Dhadakne Do, "The film received positive reviews, receiving praise for the cast performances, humour, cinematography, costumes and direction, but it received criticism for its running time and climax.[73]"
 * So, your point being? You have been going around in circles without trying to acknowledge what I have raised. Per WP:OR, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."


 * And as I have demonstrated above,
 * "We are implying a new conclusion! A, B, C, and D reviewers did not like a film, E and F somewhat liked a film while G, H and I found the film mixed. We are trying to imply the film received negative reviews, a conclusion not mentioned in any of the sources."


 * I rest my case. Blacku22 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:OR page itself says: "Rewriting source material in your own words, while substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research." Which is exactly what we are doing.  We are retaining the general meaning of the reviews and summarizing them.  There is no new conclusion because even if reviewers E and F somewhat liked a film, they are in the minority and therefore if we say 'Mostly negative reviews," they will still be accounted for.
 * It goes on to state in WP:CALC that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." By 'calcuation' here we are using the term 'Generally' in reference to the majority of reviews that are negatively skewed; we are calculating, or summarizing, them together in a routine manner.
 * Further, WP:VERIFYOR states: "In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." This is exactly why you don't need to account for the varying differences of news outlets as to the film's reception.  They will differ anyway, and we can't research all points of view.  But we CAN look at how most of the reviews are skewing and see what the majority think.
 * It goes on to say: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents."
 * So if most of the reviewers did indeed review the film negatively, which we ourselves can objectively read and see (easy for Hindi films due to the star rating), we should be not only able to state it but we can back it up with excepts of those reviews. The minority who gave mixed or positive reviews can also be stated, but it should be noted that they are not in the majority. Again, keep in mind that news outlets' opinions on critical responses, are NOT the responses themselves; what they think about how positively/negatively a film is received should have no real weight, the actual reviews themselves should.
 * I don't know why you referenced that Chandralekha statement; whether or not it recouped its production costs have nothing to do with its critical reception. In any case, that statement is in the lead paragraph - even so, it does not differ from the one in the Critical Reception section, which says the same thing.
 * Not sure of the points you are refuting with Mughal-e-Azam and Agneepath; just because it was promoted in 2012 doesn't mean the practice used then can't be used now. As for Don, the reference you linked has nothing to do with Don, perhaps you meant some other one? Rush922 (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeez, you are bringing the same topic again and again.
 * This is exactly what we are doing when summarizing reviews. This policy does not apply in the case of summarizing many reviews together, as in aggregating them, for we do not know if the reviews are representative, and the lead sentence of the policy suffices the counter this.
 * WP:CALC applies to arithmetic problems and matters of common sense like calculating a person's age based on the birthday. It does not include summarizing reviews in verbatose form.
 * As VERIFYOR states, we are presenting different opinions of reliable sources. In this case, we do not know what is the majority, so we state the source of these opinions. X, Y, and Z say A, while B, C, and D say E. No majority or minority required for a film review when sources do not indicate so. No, we can't look at the reviews and determine the skewing. That, my friend, is OR.
 * Do we have a source that states they are in majority or minority, or do we have to rely on our eyesight? If its the latter, then it is again OR.
 * The source for Chandralekha mentions that the film got positive reviews (the aggregation) but was unable to initially recoup the budget. So, the fact that the film received positive reviews remains sourced, not like the case here.
 * Agneepath's status can easily be verified using sources. Its just that no one bothered to do so. Then there's also WP:OSE. The quality standards for all article on Wikipedia have indeed gone up from 2012 till 2018. As for Don, by your same logic, 2 positive reviews, 2 mixed reviews, and a negative review doesn't suggest the overall reception is "well-received". I meant to post a source which I found and states the film got mixed reviews, but I can't find it now. It was in Hindustan Times, I think.
 * It really is tiresome and time-wasting to be debating the same points over and over when it's amply demonstrated otherwise. Blacku22 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, this is getting tiresome. I read your text above, but I'm not going to comment since I would largely be reiterating what I already stated before. Instead, I'm going to call for a RfC (Request for Comments) for others' responses below.Rush922 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarification of my comment above: I absolutely do not think that we editors should be able to use our own analysis skills to summarise critical response. We are not critical response aggregators. I just meant that I personally prefer to avoid using individual journalists' opinions of overall critical response, because I find it as faulty as using our own opinions. Other editors don't have a problem with it, though. Some of the arguments above about calculations and summarising sources are misinterpretations of the guidelines' meanings. If a reviewer goes on a lengthy diatribe about the quality of a film, you don't have to quote the diatribe, you can simply write "Ms. X liked the film." That's OK. But when you cherrypick reviews and count stars and perform calculations to convert a 3/4 star review to 5 star system, then tally up the figures, we're seriously deep in Original Research territory. I still think that if there is a difference of opinion among the sources, we should avoid using a simple summary and explain that various sources differ in opinion. MOS:FILM says "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources" ... "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." There is a dispute, so what makes sense is to quote the sources directly. "Source X described the film's response as '___', Source Y described the response as '___'." But again, we are not obligated to include any sort of summary of critical response. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC
Question: Should we summarize the reviews for this film as "generally poor/negative" in both the Critical Reception section and lead of this article? Rush922 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Background: This film, Thugs of Hindostan, was released yesterday. However, u|Blacku22 and I, u|Rush922 cannot agree on whether or not it is appropriate to use the terminology "generally poor reviews" to summarize the film's critical reception.  We have both discussed our reasoning at length, above.  I think it should be fine to use it because objectively speaking, most of the Indian Critics gave the film either 2 stars or less; since the Star rating system is highly used among Indian critics, I think it's unwise to dismiss this.  If an objective reader alone should look at most of the reviews alone, I think they would indeed agree that most of them are negatively skewed for this film.
 * Of course, ratings aren't everything, but they do summarize the sentiments of the reviewer; here is a small list of critics' ratings for his film, that someone tweeted, as it reflects the mostly poor reviews: https://twitter.com/abhi7hek_/status/1060475443902464001
 * But u|Blacku22 asserts that we cannot summarize them that way because that would be synthesis and against Wikipedia guidelines. Blacku22 says that we should get news' outlets referencing to state whether a film has generally positive or negative reviews; he noted that since some sources say the film got negative reviews, but others outlets say the reception was mixed, we cannot for ourselves outright state either. But I think this doesn't make sense, since news outlets may not make up their minds and agree anyway, they may always differ.  Instead of looking at what outlets think of the reviews, we should look to the reviews themselves and reasonably assess them. Even though Hindi films don't have strong aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, it doesn't mean we should rely on news outlets to aggregate them as they may be biased.
 * So I think we, the contributors, should be able to use reason and common sense in stating if a film has 'generally negative reviews' or not. I don't think it counts as synthesis because we are not really creating any new original research, merely summarizing- and it is common practice among many film articles (both Hindi and even English) to state such terminology, i.e. "generally positive reviews," or "mixed," "poor," etc - they state it as a leading statement and then clarify with reviewers' excerpts.  And finally, this has been a general practice for many years with many different film articles- it makes no sense to exclude this film from it. Rush922 (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your brief and neutral statement? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies; this is my first time doing this and I didn't understand the formatting. Will read your link and edit this accordingly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rush922 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The initial question didn't reflect our actual query, so I have edited it., please do check if you have any objection. Blacku22 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Checked it, agreed but just tweaked it a little.Rush922 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated your tweak in the Request for Comment page. Just so that there isn't any confusion, my assertion was not against summarizing reviews, but against aggregating them to reach a conclusion such as 'generally poor reviews', especially when some sources are not in favour of this synthesis. Hope this clears that up. Blacku22 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Do-over?. Good-faith attempt, but an RfC proposal should be as neutral as possible, which typically means as succinct as possible. We should try to avoid editorialising in our proposals. If background is warranted, we should try to be brief. We should also try to include as many options as we think are warranted, so that people can "!vote" (which is just fancy formatting for "vote, but not actually vote, because Wikipedia is not a democracy." I'd recommend you pull the  from the RfC and maybe close the discussion on procedural grounds. You can try again after that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Okay, I will do that. Thanks for the information.  I will take this RfC down now, and a bit later I will reintroduce it as per your recommendation. Rush922 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * (Edit: I have found that the earlier outlets who posted 'mixed reviews' have all posted new articles saying 'negative' - it is nearly unanimous. Please see my talk with Blacku22 below.  I may also post this on your talk page if needed.) Here is a second go, below; haven't published it yet as it needs to be finished (i.e. adding examples). I tried to make it more neutral and succinct in bullet points.  Admittedly it's not brief visually but people can read the points fairly easily I think.  I find it hard to narrow it down further as to be fair to both viewpoints we need to reasonably elaborate on the arguments.  What do you think?  Please make suggestions or even correct it yourself if you like. ThanksRush922 (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just checked Rotten Tomatoes, and the film has a 10% rating and 4.1/10 avg score; out of 10 reviews, 9 were 'rotten.' Since this is a Review Aggregator site, let me know if this changes your opinion any- if it does, then we may not need to go through with the RfC. In that regard, as per Cyphoidbomb's recommendation, I made a second iteration of the RfC below; look through it and see if it agrees with you.Rush922 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes is not really practical in the case of Indian films. 10 reviews certainly cannot be counted as aggregation. See Review aggregators for more details. An example would be the Indian film Sanju, which has a 50% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but in reality received close tocritical acclaim. I can independently list many positive reviews from reliable sources for this film, many from this article itself, but since they aren't published in either the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia, won't count towards the final result in RT. Slightly tweaked the arguments for the second RfC, and added more outcomes for !voting. Blacku22 (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Fair enough. But now, I believe I have enough information to make my case valid and hopefully we can come to an agreement here and not need to go through an RfC. Please consider the following: the outlets you say gave 'mixed' reviews, as listed in the Critical Reception section, are: International Business Times, News International, Times Now, Firstpost, and India Today (The original Times Now article I removed, as it was about Katrina Kaif's appearance- a superficial celebrity article and not one about the critical reception, it only mentioned 'mixed reviews' in one sentence in passing and didn't really discuss it).  It appears now that all 5 have released new articles almost unanimously stating that the film got negative (not mixed) reviews:
 * | International Business Times
 * "Amitabh Bachchan is not pleased with the extremely negative reviews of Thugs Of Hindostan both from critics and audience alike....Though the film received negative reviews, moviegoers appreciated Amitabh Bachchan's role....Despite getting negative reviews, Thugs Of Hindostan smashed all records by earning Rs 52.25 crore"
 * | News International
 * "The big budget film, also starring Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan, Katrina Kaif and Fatima Sana Shaikh, seems to be a box office success  but a critical failure...once again the result is mixed, leaning towards really bad... However, the movie got a big thumbs down from the critics. Reviewers have panned it for being boring and forgettable."
 * (Note: It is true that it also says "the result is mixed" - but that sentence does not specifically apply to critics' reviews. It explicitly goes on to say it 'Got a big thumbs down from critics' and that reviewers have 'Panned it' - so it's verdict is pretty clear that the reviews are negative.)
 * | Firspost
 * "The film was panned by the critics but some reviews remained appreciative of Khan's efforts in bringing Firangi alive on screen."
 * | India Today
 * "On its second day, Thugs Of Hindostan continued to mint money, despite being unanimously panned by critics...Thugs Of Hindostan, which has Aamir and Amitabh sharing screen space for the first time, was one of the most anticipated films of 2018 but it turned out to be a damp squib, if the reviews are anything to go by."
 * | Times Now
 * "Perhaps, this drop is a result of negative reviews and word of mouth publicity orelse the dip wouldn't have been so massive, a 45 percent dip in numbers to be precise...On one side the numbers are great but on the other side the critics are equally disappointed and are calling out the film. Do you think negative reviews are reason why the numbers have dropped so drastically on the second day?"
 * So I think it is fairly clear that these newer articles, released by the same 5 outlets you sourced earlier as calling reception "mixed," are now nearly unanimous in calling it "negative." Hopefully we can come to an agreement that we can say "mostly negative reviews?" I hope you do not negate this by finding some other outlet that calls it mixed - it is clear to me now that MOST of the outlets are calling it negative.  It is unfair to require the approval of each and every outlet and dismiss the general consensus based on one disagreeing article.  Please let me know what you think, thanks. Rush922 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced - the 4 references which I provided are not representative of all voices of dissent. I excluded many sources such as Filmfare here. Besides, those outlets still continue to publish articles written by other authors which term the reception as "mixed". And new outlets as recent as 2 hours still continue, with other sources, to term the response mixed. The quoted IB Times article terms the sum of both critic and audience reviews alike as extremely negative. Do note that "to pan" means "to criticize" and doesn't necessarily indicate aggregation, and the Times Now source does not mention critics' response as negative, they state "critics are equally disappointed and are calling out the film" which may indicate that the reviews weren't up to expectations, but this doesn't necessarily mean negative. Even with aggregation, you cannot state that a "majority" have voiced a similar opinion without accounting for all reviews, and doesn't seem as crystal clear as you put it. Blacku22 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That Filmfare link you posted itself says: "The film received a thumbs-down from the critics as well as the audience." A thumbs-down is negative! This is getting ridiculous. What is it going to take to satisfy you? If you want ALL voices to be heard, you are going to be waiting forever because as I said above there is always going to be someone who either doesn't agree or will phrase things in an ambiguous way.  After a certain point, we must learn to read in between the lines.  You posted these original 5 sources as saying they were mixed; two days later and all of them have stated they were negative.  That makes all 9 sources we have listed in the Critical Reception Section, as calling it 'Negative.' And yet you are STILL not allowing a summary to be drawn for the sake of All- God knows how many- news outlets to come into unison?  This is foolish and quite frankly, abandoning reason at this point.  The Wikipedia Guidelines, I'm sure, are not meant to be this rote and stifling.
 * And you are incorrect in assuming that 'panned' only means criticized - why would an article say 'Critics criticized' a movie? That is redundant and doesn't make sense. "Panned," as referring to film reviews, is socially accepted to mean "criticized heavily to a point of accepting its' negativity." That's indeed why when people use the phrase "the movie was panned by critics," they mean it was negatively received. Please learn to use some common sense and stop being so technical.
 * And it does indicate aggregation, as they clearly state that critics panned it: (Firstpost)- "The film was panned by the critics but some reviews remained appreciative"  - the fact that is has to say BUT some reviews were appreciative hints that "panned" has a negative connotation. (India Today)- " being unanimously panned by critics" - unianimously means ALL!
 * The Times' Now review doesn't outright say it's negative? That is exactly what it says!: "Perhaps, this drop is a result of negative reviews..."  I think you really are grasping at straws here, trying to create arguments out of technicalities and not using reason.Rush922 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have since compiled a Google Doc, listing the mixed and negative reviews (see below). No less than 18 expressly said "negative reviews," while only 1- the Zee News article you listed - wrote Mixed. If you find any more that say Mixed, save the links and perhaps we can add them to this document.Rush922 (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jy_pRRGfoVtv8jNWN1CY6KnZFeJDeePtj6V9_aeI26Y/edit?usp=sharingRush922 (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like the newspapers have indeed reached a consensus now. I would find generally negative reviews more superior to "generally poor reviews". This has my support now. Blacku22 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that is a relief! How many words both of us have typed up to now just for the freedom to type 3 small ones. I was hoping you would be able to see the sense in it at some point. I will go ahead and edit the article. One more thing- if you are a guy, I hope your wife doesn't ever cheat on you and have a baby - because you'd need 18 different paternity tests to prove the baby's yours! :) Rush922 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's something I won't look forward to, indeed. 😃 Blacku22 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC - 2

 * Background:
 * As this film has recently released, certain users are unsure as to whether the term "generally poor reviews" would be acceptable to use as an opening statement to summarize review reception. The two main advocates for each option have already discussed their points of view at length in previous comments above, which you can read at your leisure. To summarize their reasoning:
 * Arguments FOR saying "generally poor reviews"


 * On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 10% rating (4.1/10 avg) - from 10 reviews, 9 were Rotten. The star-rating system is widely used among many Indian Film Critics, especially the top newspapers, so it should not be quickly dismissed; Many critics have given this film between a 1 to 2 star rating, rarely going above 2.5 stars (see examples)
 * Saying 'generally poor reviews' would not be considered synthesis, as contributors are not arriving at their own separate conclusions but merely presenting the given information by summarizing review reception.
 * The term "Generally" or "Mostly" includes the fact that not all reviewers rated the film poorly, and that a few did give medium or positive ratings. The term "mixed reception" does not accurately reflect the fact that many reviews were skewed negatively.
 * Many film pages use such terminology (see examples); this one should be no different
 * Arguments AGAINST saying "generally poor reviews"

Rush922 (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We should let readers judge the overall reception for themselves via reading the rest of the Critical Reception section, and not need to state a summarizing statement if an agreement cannot be found among sources. Also, Rotten Tomatoes needn't be practical in the case of foreign films.
 * Instead of judging for ourselves, as we as contributors as prone to bias, we should rely on reliable sources. Media outlets themselves have not uniformly agreed that critical reception was poor. Some say 'poor,' while others say 'mixed," (see examples);
 * As per WP:OR, aggregating the reviews to reach a consensus such as "generally poor reviews" would be considered synthesis, as not all sources are in agreement on this.
 * Even if many film pages have used such terminology in the past, standards may have updated since then and we don't have to apply them to this page.

In light of the above, should we: Blacku22 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Summarize the reviews for this film as generally poor or negative in both the Critical reception section and lead of this article?
 * Present both varying opinions of media outlets as prose for the readers to see for themselves?
 * Not present any summary of the critical response, and simply summarize what critics felt about each aspect of production, since we have no obligation to do so?

Box Office Figures: Net Vs Gross
As per your | clarification request, we can discuss the issue here. I personally have only been using whatever term other users had already written out. As in, I have preference for neither and can go with whatever is acceptable. But looking at most of the sources, they only type out the number (i.e. 123 crore) and don't specify either Net or Gross - although since they are rough estimates anyway (and I'm guessing trade reports get their numbers directly from distributors/agents, who only count the cash they get and probably don't deduct tax) - they probably are gross figures in any case. So we can simply do that in the article as well - leave out net figures in general and assume Sources are talking gross, unless they specify otherwise. As for use of the word 'gross,' as a verb, according to both Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com, you're right that it refers specifically to income before any tax or other deductions - and not just any income received- so it would indeed not make sense to say "the film grossed 123 crore net." Rush922(talk) 17:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears Maestro2016 has added net and gross figures for clarification in both the lead and the infobox; but this seems unnecessary to me. Rush922(talk) 17:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But we don't have gross figures, do we? All the sources are obtaining info from Box Office India, whose reports mention nett. Strangely, Bollywood Hungama has stopped reporting gross figures. Blacku22 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's interesting. The sources I've been looking at have been quoting trade analyst Taran Adarsh, who never specified in his Tweets whether collections were Net or Gross.  For example, see this Indian Express article, another from Times Now News, or this one from Business Today.  None of the 3 mention Box Office India or net/gross specifically, they just say "xyz crores".
 * I did find one from LiveMint.com that used Box Office India's number, but in the article it still never mentions net or gross.
 * So it seems like only BOI articles (at least, from what I've seen) actually specify net, and that most sources do not. That puts something of a burden on us because we should only put Net or Gross if the source explicitly states so; otherwise we risk displaying wrong info, correct?  And if we are keen on specifying, then we would always have to check on BOI alone and not mind what other sources say.  That seems a bit extreme and unfair, because I feel that other qualified analysts like Taran Adarsh are equally valid sources and if they put out information, we shouldn't discount them just because they don't put Net or Gross.
 * One solution is that since many sources do not specify Net or Gross, we simply don't have to either - that relieves us of any burden of responsibility, and we are still giving as accurate a number as the source allows. If we DO run into numbers that specify one or the other, then we can report it- provided that we also specify it as we input it. The issue is that it can lead to something like what the last sentence of the lead paragraph currently says: In its opening weekend, it collected ₹123 crore nett in India,[4] and US$6.4 million (₹46.66 crore) gross overseas.  For me personally, I am not bothered by it that much; the calculation method may be inconsistent, but as long as we specify it, the average reader might not have a problem with it because they they probably can figure out that both are valid ways to report figures. Rush922(talk) 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The initial one is a bad idea. Most Indian trade financials are concerned with nett, not gross. We know the opening record of 52 crore is nett in India from both Box Office India (which mentions a 50 crore nett opening without counting dubbed versions) and Adarsh's first tweet, which mentions nett. Adarsh's later tweet adds Day 1- 52 crore + Day 2- 28 + Day 3- 22 or something along those lines, so it can easily be verified that he's adding the nett figures (Maestro2016's message below has the link) as it would make no sense for a trade analyst who knows his job to add a nett figure to a gross figure ; WP:COMMONSENSE applies. All newspapers are either getting the figures from Taran Adarsh or Box Office India, there isn't much independent research. If you see, all their opening figures are either 50 crore (without dubs from Box Office India) or 52 crore (from Adarsh or Bollywood Hungama, including dubs). Also, MOS:FILM recommends using worldwide gross when available, which is usually about 1.5x of the nett since GST was implemented + overseas gross (not suggesting we do that, since that's analysis.) In case we don't have gross figures, add the nett figures and mention that it is nett. Otherwise it's just plain misleading. Personally, I think this is fine the way it is now. Blacku22 (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've recently added a reliable source (Mid Day) specifying that the 123cr figure is nett. Also, Taran Adarsh actually did specify that his numbers are nett here. He specifically says the 52cr opening number is nett. His subsequent tweets don't mention nett or gross, but he's clearly implying nett, since he references that same 52cr number in a later tweet here. Almost all of Adarsh's tweets report nett for the domestic market and gross for the overseas market. I honestly don't remember him ever reporting domestic gross figures. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As it stands, on the article page someone has put the box office gross as 211.98 crore, using Bollywood Hungama's BO page for the move. But I take issue with that number for a reason - for more information please see : This query I added on Cyphoidbomb's talk page
 * As you can see, another Bollywood Hungama article published today uses Rs.204.51 cr, and the International Business Times also published today (using Taran Adarsh's calculations) Rs 202.38 crore gross. These numbers are both closer to each other, and are significantly lower than the 211 crore estimate.  A 7 crore difference is significant.
 * So I am going to update the BO collections as a range; RS 202.38 - 211.98 crore. Cyphoidbomb mentioned in answer to my query on his page that on the talk page of the 2.0 film was an RfC that determined that if there are conflicting gross reports, we can provide a estimated range.  So that seems a reasonable way to go. Rush922(talk) 15:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, a range would be best, but do note that the IB Times article is problematic as compared to both Bollywood Hungama articles-how does IB Times get the gross total for 123 crore nett in India as 155 crore when Bollywood Hungama mentions 157 crore gross for a nett of 123 crore? Since IB attributes its information to Adarsh/Hungama, we can consider the latter more reliable. So the range should ideally be between 204-211 crore. Of course, that isn't much of a difference or a really pressing issue, and the film financials are almost sure to change tomorrow considering it is still running. I think the primary difference is because the higher BH source is using estimates for today's gross (as apprx), while the other BH source is only using confirmed sources, ie. figures till yesterday. Blacku22 (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Budget
Sir, regarding this edit, I think the BOI source always seem to bloat budget values. I wonder whether they are including print, marketing costs as well. Bolly Hungama on the other hand were clear about the actual filming cost. See - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See the recent discussion at WT:ICTF. Yes, you are right, BOI adds print and advertising in, which is insanely stupid since that's not what anybody around the globe considers to be "budget". Budget = cost of making a film, as you know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much sir. I saw it a few hours ago and removed it from this article. I wonder whether BOI gross values are reliable.? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Face-grin.svg - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)