Jump to content

Talk:Khans of Bollywood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in Khans of Bollywood

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Khans of Bollywood's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "LAT":

  • From Shah Rukh Khan: Zeitchik, Steven (4 November 2011). "'Ra.One': Shah Rukh Khan as Bollywood superhero". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 June 2014.
  • From Johnny Depp: Williams, L. (November 2, 2012). "UC Irvine prof can seek damages from Johnny Depp in concert scuffle". Los Angeles Times.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Khans of Bollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Khans of Bollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

@Maestro2016: stop edit warring and discuss changes here. SoniaKovind (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Nominal' means a lot of things, what is your problem with writing "non-adjusted" for inflation? Also all around Wikipedia it is standard to add directors name with the film, a film is known by its director not actor, writer or production company. SoniaKovind (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary already sums it up: Nominal means "no inflation". It is not standard to add director's names. Article is about Khans, not directors. Awards mentioned and sourced in individual actor articles. In response, your POV edit failed to provide any such explanation, other than "Nominal has many meanings", which is nonsensical, as the article clearly stated nominal gross revenue. Using "non-adjusted" (which is a term you just made up) instead of "nominal" (which is the standard term) is just poor English writing on your part, not to mention your poor punctuation, writing nonsense like "ever(non-adjusted for inflation)" with no space between it. And no, it is not standard to add directors' names. Most articles about films rarely ever mention the directors' names. This article is about the three actors called Khan, not about the director, so it's completely irrelevant to mention them. Maestro2016 (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol...at least write with some grace, it is standard, just check other film's page, it is standard to write director's name with the film if only you would bother to read instead writing your own POV. Also in case you have ever come across an English dictionary please check, nominal has many meaning in different context. "Non-adjusted for inflation' is a correct and descriptive phrase to describe a film's standing in terms of revenue. Wikipedia is not about your POV. SoniaKovind (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you with meaning of 'nominal', just as per google nominal means, adjective

  • (of a role or status) existing in name only.
  • (of a price or charge) very small; far below the real value or cost.
  • (of a quantity or dimension) stated or expressed but not necessarily corresponding exactly to the real value.

relating to or functioning as a noun.

Complete POV nonsense on your part. I have searched for the phrase "non-adjusted" here, and nowhere do any articles ever mention "non-adjusted" in reference to gross inflation. The only other article which does mention it is Bollywood 1000 Crore Club, and it turns out you were the one who added that term there yourself. Your "non-adjusted" term is a POV peacock term you made up yourself. Maestro2016 (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here, a section you were editing yourself before deletion, you were using terms "adjusted gross" and " adjusted for inflation ", at least follow what you preach. SoniaKovind (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "adjusted gross" and "adjusted for inflation" are actual English terms widely used on Wikipedia. If you search "adjusted gross" on Wikipedia, it comes up with over a hundred results. And if you search "adjusted for inflation" on Wikipedia, it comes up with over a thousand results. In comparison, the only other Wikipedia article which mentions "non-adjusted" is an article that you wrote, demonstrating that you made up the term "non-adjusted" yourself out of nowhere. The correct encyclopedic term is "nominal" gross, not your made-up "non-adjusted" nonsense. Maestro2016 (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and "non-adjusted for inflation" means exactly that gross is non-adjusted for inflation, it is not a made up term it is a literal English term, and quite explanatory itself unlike 'nominal', which has many meanings. SoniaKovind (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what is this with these verbatim searches on Wikipedia? How is that helpful, "non-adjusted for inflation" is used in same context as "adjusted for inflation" is used. SoniaKovind (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you might think it's okay is clearly because you're not a native English speaker. Just so you know, the term "non-adjusted" is almost never used by native English speakers. The standard term is "nominal gross", which is the opposite of "adjusted gross". Stick to the standard encyclopedic terms, instead of making up your own terms. You might want to read the article Real versus nominal value (economics) if you are still failing to grasp what "nominal gross" means. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, how hard is it for you to understand basics, nominal has multiple meanings, it is not a 'technical' word. "Non-adjusted for inflation" is used in same context as "adjusted for inflation", simple and self-explanatory. I am guessing you are from former USSR, with your fetish to add film's gross from Soviet Union on Bollywood pages, just guessing, hence English seem alien to you also. SoniaKovind (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I'm from the English-speaking world. Not sure if that's how people speak English in India, but the term "non-adjusted" is not used in the English-speaking world. The standard term is "nominal" gross, not "non-adjusted" gross. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, "non-adjusted" for inflation is perfectly literal English term, for example this. I am sure those Americans at CBS know a bit or two about "English", or they can always avail you guidance. SoniaKovind (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the adjusted gross list has now been removed from List of highest-grossing Indian films, any mention of "non-adjusted" has now become redundant in this article. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not. The 'non-adjusted' on this page was not related to the other page, stop blind reverts. The discussion is still on, do not revert without consensus. SoniaKovind (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason adjusted gross list was removed was your unreliable and made up source not choice of words. SoniaKovind (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to prevent any further edit-warring. If you are unable to come to terms with your differences on the talk page, please consider dispute resolution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted the disruptive edits by the banned user SoniaKovind. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most successful

[edit]

This article is hinduphobia Just made to insult hindu superstars Amithab and Akshay No need of this When there is indian actors wikipedia Its just made on favour No encyclopedia in this A MUSLIM BULLSHIT LITERALLY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheera raj illalai (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atheera raj illalai I am neither Muslim or Hindi. I have never seen a Bollywood film, yet I have heard of the Khans. Writing articles on this family is fully justified by WP standards. This article does not detract from your favorites. The Khans are in fact Indians, perhaps you don't consider Indians of Muslim religion to be Indians,then if so you must be BJP or one of the other extreme right wing Indian parties. If so then you have brothers in Europe and America who believe that non whites (like Indians) don't belong in their countries. FYI [[Sendhil Ramamurthy|Amithab}} is an American Actor of Indian parentage and unless you mean Amitabh Bachchan, or Akshay Kumar or Jasper (actor) and I am sure that there are more Indian actors. The problem is that not everyone who gets a role in a movie is notable and has significant mentions in reliable sources. It appears that too many people believe that just because they get a screen credit that they deserve a wikipedia entry. Not so. But there is no Hinduphobia or PhiloMuslim stuff going on here. Stop looking for offense.Oldperson (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other Khans

[edit]

I think the Zayed Khan writeup in the other khans section is overly long and redundant. I recommend reduction of content on that regard. Also, recommend adding a female actor to the other khans section. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Felt the same. It would be nice if you can make the Zayed Khan part concise. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khans_of_Bollywood&oldid=1207964842"