Talk:Taare Zameen Par/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

There is another article named Taare Zameen Pe on this film. Could someone please merge these two?

Done. -- But|seriously|folks  06:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Amol Gupte

Amol Gupte wrote the story and the dialogue, and was creative director. This movie is his baby. He is not even mentioned in the introductory paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.5.19 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Island story a myth?

The tale that Amir Khan tells about the tribal people getting together and cursing the tree to kill it is not really true is it? I couldn't find anything on the internet that mentions this. So maybe the filmmakers just made this up. Can anyone confirm this?

Yashrg (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Film-makers spelled film wrong

Really annoying how the film makers have spelled Taarein as Taare. It's like a fifth grader writing who doesn't get much good grades. Unfortunately I've been observing most youngsters in India spelling similarly nowadays. Really makes them look dim witted. From a big profile film though one would expect that it doesn't sound like an essay written by a fifth grader.

59.178.57.24 (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Just a reminder, hindi is originally written in Devanagri, not in Roman Letters, and as far as i know, there is no hard rules in how to write Hindi with Roman letters. And on the other hand: for the international market, people are more likely to pronounce Taarein correctly if written "Taare", than if written "Taarein" (many will pronounce it "taareyn"). But I am not saying everyonw WILL, but most people PROBABLY WILL. With best wishes from an NRI.

Mystery lady in the movie

There was also (inexplicably, in my opinion) a pretty lady, who played the role of Jabeen, Ram Shankar Nikumbh's colleague at Tulips. Strangely, she and many others are not included in the credits at the official site. Does anybody know who this lady is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrohan (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

Please remember to use appropriate citation style per WP:CITET. Ekantik ^talk 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hindustan Times review

Use this article for data-mining. Ekantik ^talk 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.68 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Taare-Zameen-Par-cd.jpg

Image:Taare-Zameen-Par-cd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Material needs references

This material needs to be sourced. If someone can provide references for the text, I will restore it back to the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

- The info is also in the first screen of the film where the film Thanks these schools and also listed in the credits of the film as Shooting Locations.

Also, check http://www.nehsindia.org/announcements/announcements.php3#7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.183.158 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Film locations

The film was to be previously shot at The Scindia School in Gwalior but due to some unknown reasons it was relocated to New Era High School in Panchgani, Maharashtra, India. The school is run by the Baha'is and already implements many spiritual teachings and deals with the issues handled in this film. Thus, the film starts with a statement that reads "Nothing negative shown in this film should be taken as a reflection of their actual teaching philosophies. In fact, in our experience we found both schools extremely sensitive to children and their needs." The second school mentioned in this statement is St. Xavier's High School in Fort, Mumbai, where the first part of the movie was shot. Several other schools in the region contributed as well.

reviews

Added Variety review. One has to wonder: Variety is not an Indian magazine - are there other international publications reviewing Taare Zameen Par, and if yes, I wonder if they commented on the movie positively. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 00:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the BBC gave it an excellent review (it is the first review listed in the section). Otherwise, as far as I can tell, Variety is the only other international review. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are two more reviews, a second one from the BBC (different critic) and a review from The Hollywood Reporter. I will add them to the article:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?rid=10573

http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/films/bollywood/2007/12/taare_zameen_review.shtml

-Classicfilms (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Einstein dyslexic?

while the art teacher does state that einstein was dyslexic in the film, is this necessarily true?

--Skydude176 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a topic of debate but most do believe that he was. Here are two links on the topic:

Link one and Link 2. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Trailer

Could we put the trailer link under "External Links"?
http://disneydvd.disney.go.com/like-stars-on-earth.html#/?page=TRAILER
--HIAW! :) (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DVD commentary

I haven't gotten a chance to watch it yet, but the Disney DVD has an audio commentary. From the brief bits I heard, it sounds like it has some good information that would be very helpful for the article. Ωphois 05:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was closed as uncontroversial by billinghurst.

Taare Zameen Par (Like Stars on Earth) → Taare Zameen Par — An article name should not feature both titles, especially one that is just a marketed name for international distribution. Numerous articles of fiction have alternate titles, which are meant to be noted in the lead. Parentheses in article names are meant to disambiguate it, not serve as an actual grammatical parentheses. "Like Stars on Earth" should be removed and instead be established as a redirect. Ωphois 04:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• 'Support this move. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed, uncontroversial billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Cast section

I'm not sure about the colons. What about using full sentences? Is this article's format based on some other GA/FA article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess there's a variety of ways that are OK. Looking at some random FA film articles: Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, 300 (film), The Cat and the Canary (1927 film). There are some options, but right now this article's cast section is worded confusingly. It's not clear enough what's in universe and what's out of universe. I won't change anything until you guys decide exactly how you want to do it. It could be something like "Darsheel Safary as Ishaan Awasthi: Awasthi is a good artist but a poor academic..." Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it clearer now? Ωphois 14:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The two sentences that have "tended" in them could be made shorter and more forceful, I think, but I don't know exactly what the source said. Also, "tended to give a higher pitch" sounds funky. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the commentary said "tended". Only a few of her scenes needed ADR, so she may have started talking louder as filming progressed. For the father, I just removed that part since it's implied in the rest of the sentence. Ωphois 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I cleaned up the cast section a bit. We need to go through the article and begin to work on c/e as there were a few punctuation, grammar, and spelling mistakes. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation and Red Links

A. Punctuation: I believe you are referring to this section the the WP Style Guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Punctuation Please notice that there are two systems discussed here. The article has been traditionally following this system: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp If we change systems, then we must change be consistent throughout the article and indeed within each section (as I saw both methods used in the "Cast Section.") Placing the period inside of quotation marks is a standard choice.

If you are using a quoted sentence, then the punctuation goes on the inside. For example: Khan said, "I love this movie."

If you are using a quoted phrase or words, then the punctuation goes on the outside. For example: Critics loved the "well-known movie". Ωphois 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ωphois 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

B. Red Links: Red links tend to hurt the chances of an article in FAC. Please note they should only be made if you intend to make an article for each. If so, keep them. If not, we should remove them until articles are made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red_link#When_to_create_red_links

I've done numerous FAC's, and red links have never hurt. If someone says something, it would take two seconds to remove. Ωphois 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

-Classicfilms (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reread the wiki style guide on both of these topics. They are very clear on each topic. It is bad form to mix styles. Remember that the goal is the production of a quality article and c/e is part of the process. I think we need to focus on bigger issues than these. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did the website link above come from? Because according to the WP guide you cited, British English (which is used for the article) says quotes go on the inside of punctuation.

As for the red links, these are actors and should eventually have a page. Following the red link guideline you provided, we should include them. Ωphois 16:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is a minor issue. Neither British nor American English is privileged for this article or any article on the English WP. The article very clearly states that there are two styles. We should be consistent in style. I'm not sure why this is a big issue. As for red links, the style guide states that they should only be used if articles are created. If you plan to create articles for them, then they should be used. If not they should not. I've been through both GACs and FACs before and these are the kind of topics that come up. If you want to use the British style for punctuation, then the entire article needs to be edited for that. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The article already uses British English spelling, so it would make sense to use British style of punctuation. All but the cast and critical reception section are already formatted this way.

As for the red links, if you are really against it, then we can remove them. But the rule you are citing says: "Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles". Ωphois 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It also uses American rules and spelling (I didn't notice the British spelling, where is it?). Honestly, it just doesn't matter to me which system we choose - American or British. The FAC for Lage Raho Munna Bhai (two of them actually) faced all of these issues. Here is what I learned. We need to be consistent in spelling and grammar. If you would like to follow the British rules, that's fine but we need to clean up the entire article. As for red links, that was an issue with past articles I've worked on. Personally, I don't care, but other editors do. I just know from Bollywood articles that red links are created and the actor articles are never created to fill them in. So again - if you plan to create the articles for the actors, leave them. My goal is consistency in the article, the highest level of writing, style and mechanics. I have to sign off for now. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Which St. Xavier's?

Which St. Xavier's did Khan choose to film in? There are a couple in Mumbai. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't specify. Ωphois 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the commentary? Then we need to find another source. Readers in India will expect to know which school. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources that say the name specify. Even the film itself just says "St. Xavier's School (Mumbai)". Ωphois 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't listened to the commentary so it may be that other clues were given such as street names. Where in the film are you referring to when you say that the film just says "St. Xavier's School (Mumbai)"? I can take a look. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the opening credits of the film, which I am assuming is what you are referring to, and saw the credit. In the Wikipedia, the article for the school is St. Xavier's High School, Fort but I will disamb. to keep with the phrasing of the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it says "Fort" in the credit? Ωphois 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the official name of the school. St. Xavier's School (Mumbai) is another way of phrasing it. After seeing the credit, I could confirm that that is what they were talking about. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the dab to: Category:Jesuit schools in India - while the above is what I first thought of, in thinking about it further, without a more detailed source I think we should play it safe and leave it with this general cat. If we can find a more specific source, let's use it, otherwise I think this cat is fine.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations need formatting

The new information added to the article is just great and has really helped to develop it. In addition, a number of new citations have been added that need formatting since we have to keep the article in line with: WP:CITEHOW which states that citations in articles be "internally consistent." The issue at hand is that it is currently a Good Article and thus we need to maintain the level of the article. I know formatting references is a pain and I am not particularly attached to one style. But we should choose a set style and format all references to that one. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and do it today or tomorrow. Right now there are inconsistencies for much of the dating (the article date is formatted as 28 December 2007, while retrieved date is 2009-05-12). I will use a bot to fix the bare references, and go through correcting the other dates. Ωphois 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, that's going to help the quality, though only a few dates are like that. It's worse to just have a URL. Probably 2009-05-12 is the easier format but it doesn't matter. Let's try to maintain one method as the article develops. Ok, I'm signing off for today. Will check back at another time. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I went through and fixed all the refs. I also added archived versions of everything that I could so that the info will never be lost. Ωphois 05:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! Bravo! Thank you for all of your excellent work on the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Original title

The way you changed the wording of the title section implies that everything was changed before filming. The subplot of him not being able to do the high jump was filmed but cut from the movie. Ωphois 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted and added. I also tweaked the sentence to indicate that "Like Stars on Earth" is not an exact translation of Taare Zameen Par but rather a figurative one, while the other two are literal translations. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the subplot was filmed (but was later cut after the ending was rewritten). The original ending was changed before filming. Ωphois 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Ok. Do we say somewhere in the article that the subplot was filmed? Or should it be added to the title section somehow? Have to sign off for today. Will check in again at another time. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Line in lead

I removed the line in the lead about the protests against the film. Protests happen with many Bollywood films and virtually all of Khan's films. This was a minor one, not nationwide, and not significant enough for the lead. I'm not even sure it is worth it's own section though I won't contest it. Here is an example of another protest for a film called Billu - this led to a change of title for the film and thus was significant enough to include. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billu#Controversy -Classicfilms (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it probably is too minor for the lead. However, I think it is notable enough for inclusion within the article since a theater did boycott it due to pressures. Ωphois 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Here is an example of a pretty serious round of protests prior to the release of My Name Is Khan - it is slightly referenced in the lead but was so significant that I would say is worth a line in the lead should the editors want to add it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Khan#Shiv_Sena_controversy

-Classicfilms (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Darsheel's casting

Right now Darsheel Safary's casting info is in the development section, but it seems out of place to me. It kinda interrupts the flow of the section. What do you think? Ωphois 14:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I checked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Production

It doesn't seem as if there is a rule for "casting." So there are a few choices. We could move all the info to the "Cast" section under "Ishaan" or create a new "casting" section. I am more inclined at the moment to move it to the existing "Cast" section since we don't really have enough "casting" information to create a section.

Great work by the way, lead looks very good. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over it again, I think WP:CASTLIST implies that this is the place to put casting info. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The casting section says "Gupte had a number of boys audition for a scene in which they would informally describe how they would bunk school after being given a few scenarios." However, looking over the source, it does not appear to be that. The source says, "The technique was very simple really: throw them a few lines about the story, about a boy who bunks class one day and goes all over the city. We would casually introduce the situations and then ask ‘How would you say this?’ That’s how we got various reactions to our script….and that was our audition!" To me that sounds like they told him how he was bunking, but just wanted to hear how he would act. It seems ambiguous to me. What do you think? Ωphois 12:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten it. What do you think? Ωphois 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Rewrite looks great! Am a bit busy for the moment but will try to look in later in the week. Keep up the great work! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of Claymation

Two points about the use of "Claymation" in art and animation. I believe that this is the original version of the reference from Yahoo that we use in the article. It is from CNN-IBN, a very good source often used in Bollywood articles. We should probably replace the Yahoo version with this version, particularly as it mentions the journalist who wrote the article: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/taare-zameen-par-brings-clay-animation-to-bollywood/56787-8.html

The second point is about the claim that TZP is the first to use claymation. While commercials don't fall under "Bollywood," it is probably worth it to stipulate that it does appear in commercials. This source from the The Telegraph (Kolkata) http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080403/jsp/careergraph/story_9086718.jsp mentions the commercials. It also adds more info about the use of claymation. What do you think? -Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention the commercials. Maybe just specify with "Bollywood cinema" instead? Ωphois 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We can mention it in passing just as the Telegraph article did, and say Cinema. To say "First use" may engender some criticism if we don't mention that it has been used elsewhere. I'll go ahead and add both of these references and make passing note of commercials in general without changing the structure too much. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the information, go ahead and tweak if you want. This way all bases are covered. I haven't quite figured out how to use the archiving tool so when you have a chance, please add the archived URLs or if you could clue me in to using it, I'll do it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I usually use Webcite to archive them. Just put in the URL and an email for the confirmation to be sent to. When you visit the archived version, it will say in the top right corner the date of archiving (usually it's today's date, but sometimes the page has been archived before). Ωphois 17:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done and thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I added in some info from one of the sources. I don't think I worded it well, so feel free to fix it if you want. Ωphois 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I've asked some other members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force to take a look at the article so hopefully there will be more sets of eyes to offer feedback and edits. I have to sign off for today but will check back in later during the weekend. Good work. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-org

Seems like WP:MOSFILM has reworked the way film articles are organized. I re-organized this article to follow it in prep for the upcoming FAC. I am not particularly attached to one way or another but we should probably try to follow the style guide to the best of our ability. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, although I think it would be better to put Box Office back into the Release section, since it discusses very similar details. Ωphois 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory I'd agree with you, but MOS:FILM has it following critical response under reception. This organization seems new to me, so there must be some logic to it. Maybe we need to slightly rewrite to follow the new format. In other words, I think we somehow need to alter text to follow the way the style guide is now organized. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is just a guideline, though, not law. If we disagree with it, we don't have to abide by it. ("This is only a guide, and may change depending on Wikipolicy or participant consensus"). Ωphois 01:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in this case I think I would prefer to stick with the guidelines since we are talking about an FAC and I suspect FAs will be expected to follow particular guidelines. I don't think it will be that hard to change the article slightly. The goal is for it to achieve FA status and following the style guide is part of that process. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Box Office section of the guide says, "If sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office performance" or "Theatrical run" section." We have more than enough coverage for it to have its own section. Ωphois 01:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"redeems himself by the film's end"

If we are going to keep the phrase, "redeems himself by the film's end" in the "Cast" section (for the father), we need to explain the use of the word "redeems." I haven't heard the audio so I'm not aware of what Khan said. As it stands, the sentence doesn't make sense here. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way does it not make sense? Ωphois 03:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, this is how the sentence reads:

"Vipin Sharma as Nandkishore Awasthi ("Papa"): Ishaan's "strict, hard, dominating father" who does not accept failure in his children, but redeems himself by the film's end."

To redeem oneself means to compensate for past sins. For example, someone who committed a crime may redeem him or herself through acts of community service. At the end of the film, "papa" exhibits remorse or regret for the way in which he coped with Ishaan's difficulties. Thus, it is a matter of the way the sentence is constructed - inability to accept failure does not suggest the need for redemption. It is a matter of either expanding the sentence if you want to keep the word redeem or to offer a quote which indicates exactly what Khan said. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the new version better? Ωphois 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ishaan's "strict, hard, dominating father" who does not accept failure in his children, but is ultimately redeemed by his change in outlook." Again, the way the sentence is constructed does not explain what he needs to be redeemed from. Can you transcribe word for word what Khan said? Without knowing what you are referring to, it is hard to understand why the word "redeemed" needs to be used here. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(Before the father thanks Nikumbh) "Again, this moment was very important for me. I wanted to see the character of the father redeem himself. It's very important for me to see him go through that... So this epilogue, if I can call it that, does all of this. It ties all these loose ends in. Not from a plot point of view, but from an emotional point of view." Ωphois 16:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That helps but I need a little more information. What does he say before this sentence? What specifically is Khan referring to? -Classicfilms (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Before that was a different scene where the parents talk to the different teachers, and he was talking about how the parents are so happy to see that Ishaan has improved. The scene above is of the father being emotional and thanking Nikumbh. Ωphois 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a way to rewrite the sentence that fills in some of these details and uses Khan's exact words. In other words, I'm assuming that when Khan was speaking, he was alluding to the fact that the father redeemed himself of something quite specific. What is it? -Classicfilms (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that he redeems himself of his original outlooks and resulting actions. Ωphois 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My point, however, is that as the sentence is written, none of this is clear for the reader (who has not heard Khan speak). So please rewrite the sentence in a manner which makes all of this clear for the reader. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The cast section comes after the plot section though, so the reader will already know of his actions. Ωphois 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "but is ultimately redeemed for his actions by his change in outlook"? Ωphois 16:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Better but still not quite there. Think of it this way. We are stating in this sentence that "papa" "does not accept failure in his children." How is that an action which needs redemption? I suspect that Khan was referring to other aspects of the interaction between "papa" and Ishaan, that involved the particular way in which "Papa" dealt with Ishaan's behavior. It doesn't matter if the "Cast" section follows "Plot," we are talking here about the way in which a sentence is constructed. We need to reconstruct the first half of the sentence so that the use of the term "redeems" flows naturally towards the end. Take some time, look at Khan's original language, and play with the sentence. I'm signing off for today. I'll check back in tomorrow to see what you came up with. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that RL calls and I have to take a wikibreak for the next few days. Will be back next week and will take a look at how the article is doing. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Art or the arts

Is this child said to have excelled at art or at the arts? All the content makes me assume the former, the lead paragraph (and therefore the blurb on the main page tomorrow, state the latter. Kevin McE (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be "art". I've fixed it. Ωphois 17:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Album infobox

Sorry, but I feel that the infobox for the soundtrack section is not necessary for the article. Everything within it is already written out within the first two sentences of the section. Additionally, the infobox was removed during the FAC process. As for the image, it does not meet the non-free image rules. I understand that you are trying to improve the article, but the picture is more or less identical to the main infobox image, and only a tiny logo in the corner even distinguishes it as an album cover. The purpose listed for the image is also incorrect, as it lists it as the main infobox picture. The FA rules are very strict, and trust me, it's gonna be removed anyways if the project ever reevaluates the article. Ωphois 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gross

The gross is stated as 131 crore from an RS, no doubt. But has anyone ever come across a contradicting one? This mentions it as $21,897,373 which is barely 100c. And BOI states it as 88 crore, confirming the box office mojo result. On the contrary, Express News Service supports the 135 crore figure creating a terrible confusion. What do we over this? Since the 131 and 135 are vague estimates, I suggest we replace it with the 88c figure to avoid confusion. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 10:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since most Bollywood films on here use BOI as their source, I think that the 89c figure would be best, to be consistent with the other articles. You are right that its very confusing having different numbers flying around. Maybe they can be mentioned in the text of box office section. BollyJeff || talk 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Box Office Mojo's numbers are very weird. It says that only made over $1 million domestically, which is way way off. I think that is why I didn't use that site. As for Box Office India, it says that TZP only made just over 75 crore domestically, which is contradicted by this article. I think I chose whichever sources made since together. Ωphois 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

To BoxofficeMojo, 'domestically' means in the USA, but Indian gross is given there also as $19 million. As far as BOI, 75 and 77 are pretty close for India only; the 89 figure is including worldwide collections, which in theory should match Mojo, but not quite. BollyJeff || talk 15:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. So, can we move the numbers from the infobox and place it in the box office section? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I would use the worldwide BOI # in the infobox as is typical, and then list that and the other estimates in box office section. BollyJeff || talk 15:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it. Seems okay, I guess. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I reworded it and took out the website names. I also added in another figure, per one of the other sources that was cited for 131. Ωphois 23:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think 131 and 135 need to be specifically separated as one is an estimate of the other. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:AamirKhan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AamirKhan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AamirKhan.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)