Talk:Antim: The Final Truth

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Buzurg

After Jai ho its time for Success Film Buzurg which is based on Jai's Story. Starring Disha Patani, Ali Fazal, Pulkit Samrat, Tabu, Naman Jain. 106.215.128.141 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast:

Salman Khan as Buzurg Sahab Lalchi
Disha Patani as Sakheesha Denny
Ali Fazal as Patel Baba Ram
Mukul Dev 106.215.128.141 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A

Shbd 103.79.170.60 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long plot

{{long plot}} Please note that the Wikipedia Project Film guidelines WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words. The plot section of this article is more than 800 words.

The information at WP:STREAMLINE might be helpful to editors who want to write a more concise plot summary. (Article was locked when I wrote this comment.) -- 109.78.202.228 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello, @77Survivor and @Vaitheeswran! I have this article page on my watchlist, and I noticed that the two of you are currently engaging in what appears to be an edit war. Even if you prefer your own revision of the page, having a content dispute in this manner is highly discouraged by this Wikipedia policy. Rather than using edit summaries to carry out the dispute, the solution shall be to discuss your changes in this talk page and come to a consensus on what content shall remain, be rewritten, or be removed from the article. Please see WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS for further information on the matter.

With regards to how Antim's commercial performance shall be described in Wikipedia's voice, I would like you both to consider LakersLad887's assessment here: Different sites are quoting different verdicts and the authencity of those verdicts can't be trusted, and this film technically isn't a commercial failure if we consider satellite rights and ott rights. So better leave the verdict ambiguous unless there is a consensus on it. The neutral POV and original research policies tell us that expressions like "commercial success" or "failure" must be attributed to existing reliable sources that explicitly make the description; if no such sources exist, then the claim is original research. Cf MOS:WORDSTOWATCH and MOS:PUFFERY.

With all that in mind, I hope the two of you can take it from here. Please make sure to be civil in discussions and always assume good faith. Thank you!

‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 05:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know where I was going wrong. It can work as a reality check, and I apologize if I broke any rules. However, I'd like to justify my actions (not the three-revert rule, but the reason behind it) by stating the following:

1- Some users were constantly changing the verdict and budget despite the reference stating the film was a commercial failure and its original budget and collections.
2-Vaitheeswran was constantly changing the budget and verdict too, but they also changed the Box Office India link to some "Bollywood Fever" page which doesn't exist. They mentioned the film was a semi-hit, but the URL they retained (the one I am basing my edits on) clearly says it flopped. So there was the contradiction. I hence changed it.
3- They also stated "due to the success of the film..." and added the two interviews where the first doesn't mention the film is a success and only plans are mentioned about a prequel/sequel whatever is based on Khan's character, and the second one is, well the film's official streaming partner's page and undoubtedly it will mention the film as a success, so it didn't sit well.

Let's hear Vaitheeswran out as well if they have something to say. (77Survivor (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for the initiation, @Troubled.elias! To add to elias' comments, please also look at WP:ICTF and WP:ICTFFAQ for further notes about Indian films during the discussion to reach a consensus. — DaxServer (t · c) 09:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaitheeswran has reverted my edits again. What am I supposed to do now? Let that vandal continue with breaking the three-revert rule while I am held back by the rules the other party isn't following? I'm waiting for this to be greenlit. (77Survivor (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@77Survivor: I've reverted their edits and reported Vaitheeswran at EW noticeboard. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]