Requested move

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply



Singham (2011 film)Singham – The film is officially titled Singham and is the only film to be titled exactly like this, it needs so disambiguation! The original film is similarly titled as Singam, but the one additional letter clearly makes out the difference! A hatnote may be added at the top of both articles to prevent any kind of confusion! Johannes003 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

One letter certainly causes confusion. I propose to keep the title as it is. Secret of success (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Seems to be straightforward. There isn't any other film by the name of Singham, so disambiguation is not required. The hatnote is there in order to clear the confusion.---Managerarc talk 10:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Release

edit

"The film released in 1500 theatres worldwide." this line looks a little weird to me, first of all the numbers are measured through prints not theaters, besides I remember reading about prints figure in may be toi or ndtv but now I couldn't find it, can someone help.. Fanofbollywood (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is stated by the source. There is nothing we can do unless a direct contradicting source is found. Secret of success (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
That is what am saying, if a 'film' journalist doesn't even know that films are not measured in theaters/cinemas but in prints then I do not support that reference, anyway whatever everyone supports.Fanofbollywood (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi Fanofbollywood. Here's the TOI article you were looking for; "released on July 22, 2011 on 1500 prints, excluding the ones sent overseas." and I think, apart from the valid point you've made above, this one is more reliable than BOI anyway. Hope that helps. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Critical Reception

edit

I am just trying to understand in whats wrong in saying "The film garnered many positive reviews.." instead of "The film garnered a few positive reviews..". Is there any number defined for many and a few. I felt a few sounds like vandalizing the film and if I would've said "The film garnered mostly positive reviews..", it would look like an act of glorifying it. Keeping NPOV, I feel many sounds better. No hard feelings for anyone over here but am purely trying to understand how it works. What say?--ZoomTV (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

To be very honest, I think there shouldn't be a summary at the start of the reception section because it comes under WP:OR unless there is a reliable source which supports it. Otherwise, let the readers decide whether the film received positive or negative reviews.---Managerarc talk 10:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, it is because the mixed and negative reviews outnumber the positive response. So when you say many, it doesn't add the emphasis on the negative ones. So, a few is better and this has nothing to do with original research, oh man! Its just division of the different outcomes. Frankly, I feel that the Ready page's critical section also requires work if the rule applies for Singham. Plz note the point. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to stand by Managerarc here, besides as ZoomTV said, no one's keeping a count here, also there are so many other reviews/publications out there which are absolutely at par with Wikipedia's source quality guidelines and still haven't been added by us guys to this article, one such review can definitely be this one.Fanofbollywood (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Box office

edit

The film's actual gross is not getting released along with the net gross. I guess it will be released only after the film ends. Secret of success (Talk) 13:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dubicious gross figure of 150c

edit

The film's nett gross was around 90 crore during the release of Aarakshan. And it released in no more than 2000 screens worldwide, so how could the gross be 150c. I feel that this is dubicious as an exorbitant 60c could not have been retained by a bare 1500 theaters. I understand that HT is a reliable source, but still it needs verification. Secret of success (Talk) 16:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It might be the worldwide gross but the link does not indicate anything. On the other hand BOI is saying Singham's worldwide gross is expected to be 130 crore. HT is not a reliable source for box office figures, so I think we should stick with the domestic gross. What say? ---Managerarc talk 19:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
There is no such source which is reliable for only a particular type of info. HT is a daily newspaper and has a well developed wiki page which makes the status of the source unquestionable unless direct contradicting sources are found. An expected gross is nowhere near the verifiability of the published gross after significant screening of the film. If BOI releases the proper worldwide gross, we can have a discussion but for now I suggest we retain the 150 figure. Cheers! :) Secret of success (Talk) 13:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Box Office Gross

edit

This film's gross has been constantly decreasing instead of increasing. I understand that we cite only BoxOfficeIndia as a reliable source but other editors have been citing HT and IBNLive as reliable. Could please find out and update the Box office gross and request for a protection to prevent further vandalism. I could have done it myself but I cannot access BoxOfficeIndia for some reasons.--Msrag (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

BOI is indeed the standard site for Bollywood figures. But the HT one is definitely not reliable because it is information from the film's cast/crew. It is more like an SPS. In that link, they say that the "audience was not disappointed", but actually the film had a marginal drop in the second week compared to the first (somewhere around 50-15 crore nett) and the majority of the reviews the film received were negative. Hence, that one cannot be used. Regarding BOI/IBN (the IBN link says that the information was taken from Box office India), some vandals have changed the figure from 139-112. I have put the BOI link and changed it to 139 crore. X.One SOS 06:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

File:Singham character.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

edit
 

An image used in this article, File:Singham character.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Krishna Kumar Saharan and Kumar Saharan

edit

K 103.3.204.165 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply