Talk:Dangal (2016 film)

Estimates

@Maestro2016 and Bangalore102: While I am not going to dispute those figures, I would only write here that the source being used for "Forbes" is not written by staff, it is just an opinion piece. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This is true, and since it's self-published it falls under WP:SPS. It does appear that Rob Cain could be considered an expert though, assuming his bio on the page is correct. It should not be attributed to Forbes though (nor should anything from forbes.com/sites/*), but only to the person writing it. It shouldn't even be XYZ on Forbes, because it's not Forbes, just a hosted blog. Ravensfire (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion which suggests treating anything from forbes.com/sites as WP:SPS and the authors must meet the criteria there before including. This may be a good question for RSN to see if Cain meets the criteria to be used as a SPS. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-published source is how it will be treated as. Cain needs a lot more than that to become an RS. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue with Dangal gross is that None of the sources substantiate Rs. 2112 Cr gross.Adding box office numbers from various sources does not conform to "Routine calculations" specified in WP:CALC. It is not a "meaningful reflection of the sources". Further it deviates from WP:SYN WP. Overall the table calculations and Rs. 2,112 figures are not supported — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and that is possibly true. Apart from credibility of provided link, there is another issue now. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summaries, the box office numbers do not come from multiple different sources, but all come from the same single source: Rob Cain. Therefore, it falls under WP:CALC, and does not violate WP:SYNTH. Regarding the issue of whether Rob Cain himself is credible, his bio given at Forbes would indicate that he's an expert in the field. Maestro2016 (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's where this all falls apart: Assuming Rob Cain is an expert in his field, when did he become the *only* voice in the field? Indian film articles looooove to find the highest gross and parade that around as indisputable fact, but Indian film gross figures are as trustworthy as a Craigslist babysitter. When we find ourselves in a field of disparate opinions, it's more reasonable to look to the various opinions before drawing set-in-stone conclusions. What do *most* sources say, vs. what does *one* source say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Most reliable sources I've seen agree that it crossed 2000 crore, but don't give a final amount beyond that. It's only from adding up Rob Cain's regional numbers that we arrive at a final figure. Maestro2016 (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to introduce those sources to us? Supporting the same estimate that is provided by Cain. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean sources that state that it grossed over 2000 crore? Some examples include this, this, this, this, and this. Or do you mean the 2100 crore figure? That figure is the result of adding up Rob Cain's up-to-date numbers. Maestro2016 (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Since it appears the consensus here seems to be against adding up Rob Cain's numbers (which would be over 2100 crore), I think I'll just change the total worldwide gross back to 2000 crore. Maestro2016 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I would wait till @Bangalore102: comments on this. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Given how long this edit-war has been going on, I really, really hoped that editors would have shown some patience before making edits and get a consensus on what the specific change would be. I have requested full protection of the article to force that discussion and actual consensus to be formed. I would also suggest an interested party take the question about Rob Cain to the reliable source noticeboard, and possibly the ICTF as well to get some additional views on using Cain as a source, how to attribute, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Maestro2016 is currently blocked so you can take your request back. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple sources quoting varying figures for Dangal worldwide. Some sources state that it is over Rs. 2000 crors whereas production sources state that Dangal didn’t gross Rs. 2000 crores. Production sources stated that it grossed only Rs. 1,864 which is quoted by many reliable sources in India such as: https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170704/jsp/frontpage/story_160126.jsp http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/aamir-khan-dangal-has-not-earned-rs-2000-crore-worldwide-4733757/ https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/has-aamir-khans-dangal-really-made-2-000-crore-dont-celebrate-just-yet-1720035 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/dangal-total-box-office-collection-aamir-khan-china/1/993249.html

Very clearly Rob Cain’s estimates are personal as it is mentioned on the site that “Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own”. Even Rob’s source doesn’t state the exact final figures. Further, according to WP:SPS, self-published media are largely not acceptable as sources. It adds further that even if the source is from an expert and is published in a third party publication, we have to exercise caution when using such sources.

Dangal figures need both Indian and foreign box office numbers. Indian domestic box office figures are reliably estimated by boxofficeindia.com and bollywoodhungama.com whereas they need to depend on foreign sites for overseas figures.

Given the fact that there is contradicting information about the gross figures and that there are no conclusive figures, it is better state that the gross figures are between Rs. 1,864 to Rs. 2,000 crores till some reliable sources state the figures conclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Those sources are problematic for several reasons. Firstly, the sources only refer to a "representative" without actually specifying who this "representative" is, which is basically like someone claiming an "insider" said something in a gossip tabloid. Secondly, even if we could identify it as someone from the production team, that would make it a WP:PRIMARY source, which are usually considered unreliable, especially if it's from producers. Thirdly, the first source doesn't specify whether it's gross or nett; if anything, the fact that it gave the India collection as 387 crore (the film's domestic nett) in its tally would indicate that it's referring to nett rather than gross. And finally, and most importantly, the sources are outdated, from the start of July, when the film was still running in China and Taiwan, and didn't release yet in Hong Kong (where the film is still running in theaters even now). For up-to-date gross figures, only recent sources from the last few months should be used. And recent sources seem to be in agreement that it crossed 2000 crore.

Regarding Rob Cain, WP:SPS notes that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The question comes down to whether Cain himself qualifies as a reliable expert source in the field, which his Forbes bio would indicate that he is, but that's up to the community at WP:ICTF or WP:RSN to determine.

Maestro2016 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, no one is treating Rob Cain as WP:RS except you, that's why we don't have to open a discussion on WP:RSN. Although some discussion can be made on WP:ICTF regarding the dispute of Dangal's gross. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

My brief comment about WP:RSN and WP:ICTF above was more-or-less just reiterating what Ravensfire had already said above regarding Rob Cain. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please refer "WP:PRIMARY": It states that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care". If Dangal gross figures were published by production sources and only on their own websites, this could not have been a reliable source. However, this is not the case.In the case of Dangal the production sources are "reputably published" by many reputed sources.So these sources can't be ruled out as per WP:PRIMARY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:ICTFFAQ states "we should avoid primary sources for controversial content like film finances." Furthermore, we don't know if it's a primary source to begin with, since the alleged "representative" has not been named. Either way, it is not reliable, in addition to being outdated. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just as a thing to consider, newspaper sources don't need to be named. There is a longstanding tradition of reporter/source confidentiality as I'm sure you know. That said, circumspection is usually fine, provided we're not selectively applying it without reason. I'll also note that there might be times when a primary source could be useful, like if a lot of sources are saying, "Film X crossed 2000 crore!!" and the director comes in to downplay the hype. That happened recently, but I can't remember which film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Oh, I happened to glance up and saw that it might have been this film... Interesting... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

However, the source is outdated. At the start of July, it was still running in China and Taiwan, and didn't release in Hong Kong. More recent up-to-date sources would be preferable. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition, another point I raised above: "the first source doesn't specify whether it's gross or nett; if anything, the fact that it gave the India collection as 387 crore (the film's domestic nett) in its tally would indicate that it's referring to nett rather than gross." Maestro2016 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify regarding the discussion on primary and secondary sources in the context of Wikipedia, we need to define what qualifies as a primary source and and secondary source for a Wikipedia article. WP:SECONDARY states that,"Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." To conclude, we are not using any primary sources for box office numbers or are doing any sort of analysis, but are just quoting reputed secondary sources. How a reputed source checks the factual accuracy of primary sources is left to the reputed secondary source alone. Bangalore102 (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if we consider them secondary sources, the point still stands about them being outdated sources and the need to use more recent up to date sources to reflect its later box office run in Chinese markets. It's quite likely that recent secondary sources from the last few months would've already taken earlier such reports into account for recent estimates. Maestro2016 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The recent edits regarding the box office numbers putting the figures as Rs. 2000 to 2200 crores are not substantiated with reliable sources. The Moneycontrol cites Statista reference as the source, whereas the Statista refers Wikipedia as the sources. Wikipedia is not an original research or source for any material as stated many times in this talk. Request admins to please stop such edits and to revert the figures as per reliable sources. Bangalore102 (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. If anything it qualifies as original research. Users have gone on adding figures of collections in individual countries in their official currencies converting them into Indian rupees and US dollars and back again to rupees and what not! Also, do we really need the 'Dangal worldwide gross revenue breakdown' tabular column there? Wikipedia should give encyclopaediac content, written mostly in prose. The 'Box office' section is just filled with numbers with country-wise breakdown! Editor5454 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to inform about final box office collection of Dangal in China.

As per entgroup.cn final update- week no. 26th 2017 was US$ 216.2 million collected in 59 days. Please see the reference link and update accordingly. http://english.entgroup.cn/boxoffice/cn/Default.aspx?week=956 Thanks - Hemayet (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. This is the most reliable source (in English) we have on the China box office, so I have updated the article accordingly. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Title

Adding native name in the title (first paragraph) 157.35.46.142 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

For India related article, generally the indic script name is not included. See WP:INDICSCRIPT for details. Ravensfire (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

---

• Dangal (film) → Dangal
• Dangal → Dangal (disambiguation)

– This article qualifies as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC out of the articles listed at Dangal. It gets the bulk of the views out of all of them, and is clearly more significant than any of the other topics. I mean, it's the biggest Indian film of all time. YttriumShrew (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Support I agree with everything you said.78.149.121.207 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The film is getting thousands of hits per day, 10x the pageviews of the TV channel this year. Station1 (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose the term looks primary by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  What does this mean 78.149.121.207 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a sensible proposal, as the film appears to currently be the primary topic with respect to usage: nearly 470 of the 704 visitors to the dab page in June followed the link to it [1] (the ratio will be even higher if you only include visits that resulted in a clickthrough). However, this usage data isn't as strong as it may seem at first (see the sources of the incoming traffic to the dab?), but what's more important is long-term significance, and I'm not sure the type of competition (the one that the film is apparently named after) can be displaced by the film. There are also a few other (much less popular, though still significant) topics with the name, which I've just added to the dab page (including a small language of Chad). – Uanfala (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm probably missing something that's staring my right in the face but what did u mean when u said "see the source of the incoming traffic"? 78.149.121.207 (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, that was not really obvious, I should have elaborated. Most of the sources of traffic are articles about similar films, which suggests that links to this film may need to be better integrated into their structure and if that happens then incoming dab traffic intended for the film will decrease. It's also noticeable that a very small proportion of dab visits comes from external search engines (labelled as "other-search"; compare that with a random dab page [2]). – Uanfala (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I get you now. Thanks mate.

  However, I still support the move. I get your point about coming from external search engines but from my perspective that doesn't overshadow the fact that this page gets more hits than other Dangal pages. If anything, coming from external search engines just means people are finding it from a disambiguation page - just not a Wikipedia one - so I don't see what difference it makes myself.

  Furthermore, I also don't understand why people searching for Dangal through other Wikipedia pages for popular Indian films makes a difference - since the pagehits for this compared to other Dangal pages are still the same either way. Baahubali and R.R.R. (like Dangal) are some of the highest-grossing Indian films of all time unadjusted for inflation (idk if they are when adjusted) which is why people have been searching for Dangal through them. So, I don't see why Dangal needs to be integrated into their structure. Especially considering (unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean,which I deffo could have) - we don't do that with highest-grossing films in general. Like, we don't integrate Avatar into Star Wars: The Force Awakens and decide Avatar's disambiguation page status based on them being on the ten-highest-grosser list unadjusted and adjusted. Doing that would seem unnecessary to me, since they are otherwise unconnected (save for a few trivia pieces like being produced by the Walt Disney Company). 78.149.121.207 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Are the other film pages unrelated? Well, I only glimpsed at Baahubali 2: The Conclusion, which had a few linked mentions of Dangal as well as a few unlinked ones, so I reckoned that if the unlinked ones got linked then there may be fewer readers coming to the dab page. Still, if this consideration doesn't apply across the board, then it's not of much weight and can be disregarded. – Uanfala (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes they are unrelated :) R.R.R. - one of the highest grossing Indian films in history like I said earlier - came out this year and is currently in cinemas. Furthermore, R.R.R. was directed by the same man who directed Baahubali and Baahubali 2 - so Dangal has been getting hits from those pages because of increased traffic to them - and interest in the box-office positions of all three. The only mention of Dangal in the RRR page is in the box-office section.

  The same goes for K.G.F.: Chapter 2 (which has just come out, is in theaters and is already the 3rd highest-grossing Indian film behind Baahubali 2 and Dangal respectively, Dangal having come out a year after the former). The other film giving hits to Dangal is P.K. - the former-highest grossing Indian film of all time. Similarly, it's been giving hits only because of its gross - but the number of hits is smaller - cos it came out 7 years ago and isn't relevant to anything playing right now.

  With this in mind, do u still oppose the move? 78.149.121.207 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the context. My opposition may be considered a tiny bit weaker but it's based mostly on long-term significance, and that's not going away. Still, this question is subjective and other participants may reach a different conclusion from me. – Uanfala (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  You're welcome :)

  Wdym by long-term significance? 78.149.121.207 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  What do I mean by long-term significance? That's one of the two aspects of a primary topic (the other being usage). – Uanfala (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose There's a fair number of articles that start with Dangal, including several that aren't connected to India. For that reason, I believe keeping Dangal as the disambiguation page, and this page with the (film) dab. Ravensfire (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dangal (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting situation - a film nominated by an IP who apparently has never edited the page, though of course they may have done so under a different address. And it's been waiting a while. In any case, we'll need a reviewer to be able to respond to comments. Pinging some top contributors. Maestro2016, Editor5454, Cyphoidbomb, Rashkeqamar, Gouravbhosale, Sid95Q; are any of you willing and able to step in as the GA 'nominator' for this article? —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor5454, Cyphoidbomb, Gouravbhosale, Sid95Q, M.Billoo2000, anyone up for it? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Koresdcine, Materialscientist, any interest? I'll give it five days (until the 27th); at that point if no reviewer is available I'll close the nomination. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: @Ganesha811: If there's doubt that the nominator has contributed to the page before, then I think it should be deemed an immediate fail to decrease the backlog even just a little. And I don't think you should be pestering other users to take over a GAR that you initiated (remember that every contribution made in Wikipedia is voluntary, meaning Wikipedians are basically their own bosses). There's a reason why none of the users you pinged responded to you within 24 hrs. Take a hint. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware that Wikipedia is voluntary and of course no one is under any obligation to help with this review, which is why I plan to close it if no one responds, as I wrote. I simply figured that since these editors were major contributors to the article, they might want to know it has a chance to reach GA status, especially since it often takes months for a GA review to be picked up at all (such as in these case). I wanted to wait five days because not everyone edits every day, and I thought, having opened this review, I should give the article a fair chance to go through the proper process rather than being closed immediately and unceremoniously. —Ganesha811 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exchange rate

The exchange rate is all wrong. Back in 2017, 2000 crore was worth $300M+. Since then, the rupee has inflated, so 2000cr is $250M now. But in 2017, the exchange rate was 2000cr = $300M+. The article is giving a misleading conversion rate by using current 2023 exchange rates for a 2016 film. Fix this. 147.12.151.166 (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Who was the story writer of dangal

Nitesh Tiwari 2409:4088:9BC8:FC40:0:0:34C8:CC02 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)