Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan/Archive 1

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


Film title[edit]

I found a link that describes the film finally gets a title! I don't know whether it is official or not. Thanks --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the title Yeh Kahaan Aa Gaye Hum has been written into the article's main body. However, its not yet been officially confirmed. hence, the article cannot be moved to the new title yet. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know,that is why, i didn't wrote or request to move. thanks..!! --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

english translation[edit]

there are continuously many edit wars over the English translation of Jab Tak Hai Jaan. however i must accept that it has many meanings, all mean the same thing though. so which should stay as the translation? here r some suggestions:

  • Till I'm Alive
  • Until I breathe this life
  • Till there is life
  • As long as I'm alive

Anything can do, but must be correct. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This is the trailer in English subtitles from the OFFICIAL YRF Youtube channel : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mp-7kM3Uqg&list=PL33999893316C6279&index=1&feature=plcp

It clearly translates the title in the poem as "Until I breathe this life" I think that settles the matter...I mean, the production house knows better than anyone what the translation of the title their own movie is. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you. But that should also help end the edit wars. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, add it as a source. BollyJeff | talk 14:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so Shahrukh did a redo on the translation: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Shah-Rukh-Khan-turns-poet-translates-Jab-Tak-Hai-Jaan-poem/Article1-928713.aspx . Ignoring the poetics of wording, what does the title really say? Hindi isn't my first or second language but I'm pretty sure 'jab tak' alone is 'while', and 'jab tak nahi' is 'until' TMV943 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current translation on the article page "Until there is life" is not good. I suggest 'Until I die' or 'As long as there is life'. Even if one to one translation of words is 'until', "until there is life" is a not good English usage. Use of 'until' needs to be followed by a happening action like death or a certain date or some event culminating like sunset. 'There is life' is not an event culminating, it is a continuing process, so 'as long as' is better suited. If, when, the movie company decides to use some translation as official that will be it, until then a translation that makes sense in translated language can be used. 78.177.254.111 (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a contention, another perfectly valid option is to remove the English translation altogether. It is not required. BollyJeff | talk 13:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we add a sentence in the production or marketing section (I'm not sure which is appropriate, since naming the film is a part of production, this should ideally find a place there, however, due to the fact that khan's opinion on the title was a part of the marketing strategy, it is not incorrect to place it in the marketing section) describing how the title was referred to by Khan and other sources, and remove it from the lead. The readers are left to interpret the contention. Secret of success (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a phrase that needs to be translated, can we just take a vote from those that understand hindi well? It seems it's basically between "Until there's life" and "While there's life". I'm for the latter TMV943 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my suggestion only presents the available information pertinently while adding the translation brings in the endless list of opinions, which is not really good for the article. Secret of success (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having a translation for a foreign title in an english language article is kind of necessary. I'm not trying to nitpick the wording but the edits are between two very different meanings. TMV943 (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't think you got me. I emphasized on the fact that the translation by the film's crew cannot be overpowered by our interpretation of the Hindi title and due to this, we should add a sentence saying how it was translated by the crew in the production section, and simply avoid it in the lead. Secret of success (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but in any case I've changed it to at least something with a source. I wouldn't object to a translation from the crew, but the last one was simply incorrect; "Till" implies waiting. "Jab Tak Hai" means "While there is" TMV943 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to additionally note, the one I put isn't exactly word for word as "While there's life" but I think it is more semantically correct and closer to word for word than either of Shahrukh Khan's translations which were more poetic TMV943 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 November 2012[edit]

Jab Tak Hai Jaan movie running theaters in chennai

S2 cinemas, AGS Royal cinemas, EGA Cinemas, PVR Cinemas, DEVI Cinemas, Escape, Sathyam cinemas, Fame cinemas, INOX, AGS Cinemas, Mayajaal Jmahendran50 (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. A blog is not a reliable source. Also, your request needs to be formatted as "change x to y" or "add x" and then include a reliable source. Thanks gwickwire | Leave a message 04:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DMY[edit]

I have changed all dates to "dmy" formats, which is used in most of the Indian related articles. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

katrina was cold in london?[edit]

she spent half of her life there...it's like saying rajnikanth was sweating in chennai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.211.157 (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, am I under the impression that you seem to be suggesting Rajinikanth did not sweat in Chennai? Oh, come on. Secret of success · talk 02:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i'm saying, if julia roberts comes to india, and newspapers report that she is having problems adjusting to the new climate, it is understandable and somewhat worthy of reporting. this lady kaif here is a seasoned londoner, why make a big deal outta it.

117.221.28.37 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the given source from TOI says that she did face difficulties, without mentioning the fact that she has stayed there long enough to adapt to the chills. So, we have no choice but to keep it. The reader is supposed to interpret whatever he or she can from it. Secret of success · talk 14:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no choice? of course you have a choice. it's gossipy and barely encyclopaedic.

117.221.28.37 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any difficulties faced during filming is an integral part of the film's production. The given source (TOI) says that the crew decided to postpone the shoot in London because of Katrina's problem. And since they didn't, they had to take all precautionary measures including giving her a hot beverage every now and then. So, the problem was highly significant and would have probably altered the original budget of the film too. Secret of success · talk 15:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has troubles due to cold, hot, sickness, mood. Do we put them all? Delete. BollyJeff | talk 15:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but the media does not cover everyone, does it? Secret of success · talk 15:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if it's reported in the RS media that Katrina's favorite scene was the one filmed in the cold, and someone adds that the article, your response would be? BollyJeff | talk 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm pretty surprised that someone who claims that they have been denied access to free time have been able to frame a hypothetical question and deviate from the topic. Secret of success · talk 11:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know why I said that :-) This is just as trivial as that, and either they both are acceptable or neither are. BollyJeff | talk 13:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i think this is enough, i say we delete the line. 117.221.28.37 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the budget wasn't altered was it? that is pure speculation. 117.221.28.37 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand wats going on, but this gossip section should be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no small talk. yes kailash, that's wat i was getting at. last time i checked, this wasn't a tabloid. remove the gossipy stuff 117.221.28.37 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LoL! That's somewhat sexy to imagine... with she shivering in cold...--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

please remove the line "Kaif faced difficulty at times while filming in London due to the cold weather" as per the discussion above. 117.192.198.110 (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also, ref number 57 is from twitter of all places. from an unverified account. User Factual proof had correctly removed the material but the was reverted. i dunno what kind of policy you ppl follow on wikipedia, but show me some policy which says that you can use tweets from an unverified account as sources in an article. 117.192.198.110 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sry it's not ref 57, but 9, 37, 44, 46, 50 and 55. the place is full of em. 117.192.198.110 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is under full protection. Updated the request template accordingly. RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence minus Removed. Twitter references minus Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 November 2012[edit]

Upon release, Jab Tak Hai Jaan was met with high critical acclaim from top critics, notably from IMDb, which gave it 8.6 stars out of 10."[1]. Fizz k19 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2176013/
3 stars from rediff, anupama chopra and 2.5 from sukanya verma of rediff wouldn't really put this in the 'high critical acclaim" category. besides, imdb ratings are given out by users not critics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.28.37 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: IMDB is not a reliable source as per our guidelines. The overall rating will be decided soon, probably when sites like Review Gang or Rotten Tomatoes put up their consensus'. Secret of success · talk 15:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And who has put Review Gang in Reliable Source category ? I can understand Rotten Tomatoes being a reliable source but not Review Gang.Vikalp Jain (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The references are poorly inserted so please try to fix them.---zeeyanketu talk to me 05:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - with this edit. Thank you. There was a missing </ref> tag in the "India" section, causing all references to not display, and giving the "big red" error... Begoon talk 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 November 2012[edit]

Jab Tak Hai Jaan review at Box Office Capsule.Box Office Capsule Review. Box Office Capsule has rated 4 STAR to JTHJ.

SUMITKRISHNAGUPTA (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Secret of success · talk 13:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Its very unfortunate that me and User:Ashermadan lost temper and engaged in edit warring just because of some misunderstanding but we both are agree to discuss now instead of reverting each other.Extremely sorry to all users who wont edit it untill the protection will be removed.It's my request to sysop's to remove the protection template as the every editing dispute will be resolved by discussion instead of reverting ---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you two come will try to resolve this problem soon. Sometimes, full protection will make users think about their mistakes. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I AM NOT READY TO DISCUSS. I AM DONE WITH WIKIPEDIA. THIS "zeeyanketu" IS A VANDAL AND A COMPLETE TROLL WHO CAN'T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH. SO PLEASE, LEAVE ME ALONE. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THIS PAGE NOR EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA ANYMORE. I WILL NOT COLLABORATE WITH THIS PERSON WHO HAS SOME ODD HIDDEN AGENDA AND HAS BROKEN THE 3 RR RULE MANY TIMES. ADMINS REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT HIM. I WROTE A HUGE MULTI PARAGRAPH SECTION IN THE REVIEWS WHICH WERE ALL RS BUT HE KEPT ON DELETING IT. ADMINS DONT DO THEIR JOB AND DONT BLOCK PEOPLE LIKE THIS MAN. SO BYE. SO STOP LYING TO EDITORS AND SAY THINGS I SAID. BYE. NOT INTERESTED IN WIKIPEDIA OR BEING AN EDITOR ANYMORE. Ashermadan (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally your behaviour proved who was acting like a troll.We all are good people but sometimes seem harsh after loosing patience and i apologize it.There is no harm in accepting our faults if we have done them.The truth was that your reviews were incomplete and poorly inserted and you dont even know how to fix references and still consider yourself master editor and it seems that you have a p.h.d in English.You are not even respecting admin's views.---zeeyanketu talk to me 05:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First day earning[edit]

Movie's first day earning is 15.27 crores in India. Figure reported at present is wrong one. Link http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bollywood/news/a438114/jab-tak-hain-jaan-triumphs-in-box-office-clash-with-son-of-sardar.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvipul443 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is facing some other problem and for your information, we use only boxofficeindia.com as a reliable source at wikipedia.---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BoxofficeIndia itself says that it is only according to early estimates. But the words in article does not mention that.

You may see {Wikipedia:Copy-paste}---zeeyanketu talk to me 15:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 November 2012[edit]

The first day all India collections are 15.2 crores

The following is a website confirming it. There are several others that claim around 15 crores

http://www.addatoday.com/

Furrytanned (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See #First day earning---zeeyanketu talk to me 06:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

first day 15.27 cr At NBOC[edit]

Movie's first day earning is 15.27 crores in India. Figure reported at present is wrong one. link http://www.boxofficeindia.co.in/jthj-day-one-all-india-nboc/

59.178.40.106 (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay there seems to be some agreement that this should be changed.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only boxofficeindia.com has been used.---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 November 2012[edit]

gross = 15.2 cr (1st Opening day) Mirza Atif Akhter Baig (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please provide any reliable sources.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 09:05, 15 November 2012 (U

it earned 19.54 crore on its second day and about 13.50 crore on 3rd day.It crossed 50 crore mark in three days as it earned 50.77 crores in three days.

IANS Hindi Film Review[edit]

IANS Hindi Film Review has rated 4star to Jab Tak Hai Jaan. And quoting "Fall in Love with Love again!". Source-IANS Hindi Film Review, IANS Hindi Film Review Please insert in the (Section6 i.e. Critical Reception, Sub Section 6.2 i.e. INDIA) Professional Reviews Column with Review Scores. SUMITKRISHNAGUPTA (talk)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes a vow[edit]

Please change "makes a vow to get married to her fiancée" to "makes a vow to never meet Samar again" because she makes a point at the end to say she specifically didn't vow to marry her fiancée.

94.194.67.168 (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 November 2012[edit]

I just want to tell you that there is a simple error in the plot of Jab Tak Hai Jaan. During Samar accident, Meera vows to God that she will not meet Samar ever again, not to marry her fiance, as she even mentions in the film.

Also there is an error that Meera has a child, which she hasn't. Also it is not mentioned that Samar moved back to India at the climax of the movie.

DiVANSH (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 November 2012[edit]

Jab Tak Hai Jaan had a bumper opening of around 95-100% occupancy at multiplexes and also strong at single screens across India.It had collected around 50 crore INR in first 3 days. Source- 1. http://www.boxofficeindia.co.in/jthj-day-one-all-india-nboc/ 2. http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/jab-tak-hai-jaan-opening-day-box-office-collections/ Naukhezster (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says this. Begoon talk 09:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil actor Vijay's Thuppakki beats srk's Jab tak hai jaan in Tamil Nadu please c the link below and add it[edit]

http://truthdive.com/2012/11/14/box-office-report-thuppakki-beats-jab-tak-hai-jaan-sos-and-podaa-podi-in-tn.html122.164.43.217 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This article is not about Thuppakki.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical acclaim and overseas review[edit]

The film received generally positive reviews from the critics. Rachit Gupta of Filmfare.com praised the movie and said,"At a gracious 3 hours runtime, JTHJ feels like an epic love story. And it is just that. JTHJ is the perfect adieu to a hallmark career. It is the best romantic film made in this generation". He gave 4 out of 5 stars to the movie.SOURCE http://www.filmfare.com/reviews/review-jab-tak-hai-jaan-is-a-winner-1679.html Ananya Bhattacharya rated the movie 4/5 and said,"The King of Romance behind the camera directing the Badshah of Romance in front of the camera. And a script that boasts of solid, undying love. No, there cannot be a better way to portray love on the silver screen." SOURCE http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/movies/jab-tak-hai-jaan-review-this-one-will-be-remembered-jab-tak-hai-jaan_122689.html

overseas: The movie was well received by critics worldwide. SOURCE http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/anushka-sharma/jab-tak-hai-jaan-gets-thumbs-overseas-critics. Lisa Tsering of hollywoodreporter.com wrote in her review,"Director-producer Yash Chopra's film -- his final project before he died -- delivers not only the romanc e and human touch, but also reflects a modern sensibility." She was full of praise for Chopra's direction. SOURCE http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/my-last-breath-jab-tak-390456

THE CRITICAL RECEPTION WRITTEN IN THE PAGE DOES NO JUSTICE TO WHAT IT ACTUALLY RECEIVED. IT SHOWS MORE NEGATIVE THAN POSITIVE REVIEWS. KINDLY PAY ATTENTION TO THIS SUBJECT WHEREAS THE MOVIE ACTUALLY RECEIVED MORE POSITIVE REVIEWS.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceinside19 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 November 2012‎

Edit request on 15 November 2012[edit]

Request to insert IndiaWeekly's rating as below

 Professional reviews
Review scores
Source Rating
Bollywood Hungama
IndiaWeekly
IANS
Filmfare
Zee News
One India
Koimoi
NDTV
The Times of India
India TV
Hindustan Times
CNN-IBN
DNA India
Digital Spy
Rediff †
The Indian Express
† indicates that the given rating is an average rating of all reviews provided by the source

Please add up IANS as well as India Weekly Review. Thats my Humble request. Wikiuser7777 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The protection on the article was reduced to semi-protection yesterday. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALL INDIA NETT BOX OFFICE COLLECTION

Tuesday 15.23 Cr Wednesday 19.54 Cr Thursday 14.45 Cr Friday 11.17 Cr Saturday 10.38 Cr Sunday 9.96 Cr

TOTAL INDIA 80.73 Cr OVERSEAS

JAB TAK HAI JAAN takes the International Box Office by storm.

JTHJ recorded some mind boggling figures for the opening day (Tuesday) screenings on a limited overseas release, as the film opened in stages over 14th, 15th, and 16th November.

The film has had a tremendous response and the audience reactions have been extremely positive. What has been most touching is that everyone is sitting through the end credits as the film pays a tribute to Yash Chopra, which makes it even more special.

OVERSEAS GROSS BOX OFFICE COLLECTION

Tuesday $1.30 Million Wednesday $1.20 Million Thursday $1.08 Million Friday $1.35 Million Saturday $1.52 Million Sunday $1.13 Million

TOTAL $ 7.58 Million TOTAL OVERSEAS 41.7 crores i collect from these website http://www.yashrajfilms.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=1d3cf0a4-a473-4513-ae21-2864f6464dd5 <yashraj film official website who produced jab tak hai jaan movie http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/914/date/2012-11-19 http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/jab-tak-hai-jaan-1st-monday-box-office-collections/

please please please accept my edit.present box office article totally wrong.if you don't change it people will know wrong information from your site.So please edit your article and see my reference links.

Update in Box Office Collection of Jab Tak Hain Jaan Movie[edit]

Jab Tak Hai Jaan collected around 19-19.50 crore nett on its second day as per early estimates taking its two day figure to around 32 crore nett. The film showed big growth all over apart from the circuits which were strong on day one.

The growth on day two is around 50% which is good but mass circuits did not show the growth they should have

Jab Tak Hai Jaan grossed around 13.50 crore nett on its third day as per early estimates which takes the three day business of the film to around 45 crore nett.

Reference:http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5099&nCat= 115.185.32.132 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection[edit]

I've ended the three-day full protection early, and imposed a month of semiprotection. Hopefully this will reduce the level of contention slightly, until the results of the movie release have become clear. Registered editors (at least, those who have been here for a little while) can now edit the article directly. Please use caution, especially when adding box office results, that you are following the usual standards for Indian film articles on Wikipedia. If more edit warring occurs, the full protection may need to be restored. Use the talk page to get agreement on disputed points. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Hello,if there will be chance of any type of disagreement between users.Start the discussion here instead of reverting more than once.Thanx---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Someone please help me fix the references. They're in 10 different formats, have lots of spelling mistakes and consistency issues. Who's good at this? I'd prefer if someone like Pleasant helped me out on this. Ashermadan (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact problem with references.Do let me know too?---zeeyanketu talk to me 16:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some references are written as firstpost, there are typos in dates, I corrected at least 4 instances where there were things like nJune or xJuly. There are nyetimes like references. They need to be written as First Post and newspapers needs to be in italics. Some references are in different formats too. Like in one place is says Steven Baker.... 1 Jan 2012 for example and in the other it says Steven Baker (1 Jan 2012), 1 Jan 2012 and another 1 Jan 2012. Just look over them. They aren't right. They should be in the same format and have no mistakes. I'll try and fix them over the coming days. Ashermadan (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I fixed all the references and made the accolades table even cooler. It's collapsable now so it doesn't cause an intrusion in the article. Check it out, it's super cool. Ashermadan (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-release Table[edit]

I have hardly seen that type of business in any article other than Raone before,I dont think indicine is a reliable source,If you show me that type of business figures from newspapers like Hindustaan Times and The times of India etc.I will be definitely agree with you.---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First,i am not going to revert it again and secondly,Dont take it in any wrong way,I am just expressing my views.Satellite rights and music rights are ok.Thanx for being so friendly.---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, you're right. This makes no sense. Even Music rights aren't ok. Music will make a profit of 8 crore but YRF did in in house as well as the home media which will make 3-5 crore. I'm removing them as this is NOT prerelease business. We can mention this separately in the soundtrack section or the home media section. Most of the CDs are sold after the film comes out believe it after the initial push ends. You're right. I'm only leaving UK subsidy and satellite rights only, removing the rest sorry about the confusion. Ashermadan (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Can we archive this? All these disputes have been resolved. 198.228.200.153 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have set a bot to automatically archive all threads with no responses after 30 days. This is fairly standard practice; only pages with extraordinary amounts of commenting are archived faster (that would be pages where multiple threads are opened every days). Why rush? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

Saving table here as it will be used latter on.---zeeyanketu talk to me 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collections breakdown
Territory Nett collections (After entertainment tax)
India ₹102–121.27 crore (US$18.56–22.07 million)[1]
Distributor share:
Approximately ₹60–65 crore (US$11.01–11.83 million)
Entertainment tax:
Approximately ₹35–40 crore (US$6.37–7.28 million)
Overseas
(Outside India) 		US$13.56 million
US$3,047,539 (United States)[2]
Worldwide ₹176.50– 205 crore (US$32.12–35.63 million)
 Done. Added into the article. Ashermadan (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section expansion[edit]

Several names of the cast of the film aren't mentioned. Should we add them?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 18:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure---zeeyanketu talk to me 21:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no one added them. I added them. Can you check if I got all the main ones or do you want to add more? Ashermadan (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You got all the right ones. Thanks :)----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 13:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Added and checked! Ashermadan (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 January 2013[edit]

Jab Tak Hai Jaan has grossed over 200cr!!! SOURCE: http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2013/jab-tak-hai-jaan-jthj-7-weeks-collection-box-office-102314.html Vsareen (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're waiting for BOI figures and then we'll add all the details in. We'll include these Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahta figures as well as the BOI figures.Ashermadan (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. We only use BOI. The difference in this case was large so it has been mentioned that the difference between official and BOI figures was large. No need for this. Ashermadan (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

Asher and Zee are doing a very good job on maintaining the article, and if this continues for a few months it can become a good article (not now, around summer 2013 or later). Well then, keep up the good work!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the review take months though? Like many reviewers have to review it. I think we can go ahead. All the reviews are out, everything is out. I'll keep on updating the awards as they roll in. Ashermadan (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went over the article like 10 times, I fixed every mistake or non-referenced material I could find. The only thing left is to add the little worldwide gross data in the top right info box when Box Office India releases worldwide gross figures, whenever it does and update the awards as they come in over the year. I reviewed the good article guidelines and I think it meets all of them. What do you people think? Ashermadan (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks very good. There is only one problem: unreliable sources. Just keep Pinkvilla and sources used for the home media and delete Indicine (you can replace them with Bollywood Hungama). ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 16:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. PinkVilla is not WP:RS. Fideliosr (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Changed references to RS sources like DNA India, Hindustan Times, Times of India. Can you check if more need to be changed? I think all are RS now. Ashermadan (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Thanks! Fideliosr (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

The release section is just ridiculous. We don't need a map to show where this was released. And per WP:OVERCITE, we don't need 15 different references. Please figure out what info there is actually necessary, and cut the rest, including the map. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a movie fansite, and not a substitute for the company's official page. This is absolutely, patently ridiculous. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed here. The map and the flooded cites look absolutely unnecessary. Fideliosr (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The release section of Ra.One is exactly the same. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra.One#Release_statistics. We can take it out if other editors who have contributed to the page agree. Ashermadan (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not very relevant here therefore not a valid argument. See WP:OSE. Fideliosr (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. It'll stay out. No need. Ashermadan (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Map depicting the number of screenings of Jab Tak Hai Jaan
Major region listing
Color Region Color Region
No data available Australia
India Europe†
Canada* Germany
Ireland Middle East†
United Kingdom New Zealand
United States* Pakistan
Some countries may not be included on the map as data is not available about the film's release there
* the screen count from the United States and Canada is cumulative
† the film released only in certain countries in a given region
References: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Edit request on 16 April 2013[edit]

box office: 253 crores 49.203.32.22 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 17:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review probably Tuesday.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Link Discovery Channel
 Done - Linked
Cast
  • Shahrukh Khan as major Samar Anand. Major should be capitalized as a title.
 Done - Capitalized
Production
  • Diwali, wikilink? A note before saying whatever type of festival etc it is would help for non-Indian/Hindu readers.
 Done - Linked and added note
Filming
  • Wikilink Shepherd's Bush and Kashmir.
 Done - Linked
Soundrack
  • It was released by YRF Music on 9 October 2012.-Citation needed.
 Done - Given source from iTunes
Awards
  • Section is entirely unsourced.
 Done - Added sources
Records
  • " and the third-highest-grossing Bollywood film that year", can you say, after xxx and xxx, interested to know the top two grossers.
 Done - The top two grossers were Ek Tha Tiger and Dabangg 2, mentioned that

Article looks in great shape.Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All points done, thank you.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Very well done! I think if you could find a bit more on production/themes it has FA potential. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very, very, very big thank you! Yeah, I'll try to find some references on production/themes. Thanks again, Blofeld ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 12:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End of the affair[edit]

I think it would help to mention that the plot draws inspiration from Graham Greene's "The end of the affair". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_Affair and http://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/jab-tak-hai-jaan-837285-8735/ (written by a film critic for The Hindu). Vpdath (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Jab Tak Hai Jaan. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 12:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of problematic content[edit]

In these edits I removed some problematic content, including financial vandalism, but also including puffery about the film's "blockbuster" and "hit" status. It's surprising to me that this stuff was in the article when it passed GA review in 2013, but it was. We don't unduly present subjective opinions as facts or unduly give weight to one source's opinion. For instance, we don't describe films as "rotten" just because that's the phrasing Rotten Tomatoes has chosen to use. It would be improper to do so. There were other issues as well, including that we were using Reviewgang, whatever that is, as a surrogate to Rotten Tomatoes. Granted, we were all much younger in 2013, so maybe we've all learned by now. The Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia has not agreed that any reliable aggregator exists for Indian films, so summaries attributed to these unreliable sources are ultimately not usable. Also, as a general note, "mixed to positive", "mixed to negative" or derivations like "positive to mixed" are meaningless phrases that are widely shunned by WikiProject Film. "Mixed" already means "positive and negative", so "mixed to positive" means "positive and negative to positive." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jab Tak Hai Jaan. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jab Tak Hai Jaan. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jab Tak Hai Jaan. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "#JTHJ 4th Week: 42 lacs. grand total: 121.27 cr nett". @taran_adarsh via Twitter. 14 December 2012. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  2. ^ "Jab Tak Hai Jaan US Figures". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  3. ^ "Jab Tak Hai Jaan Worldwide Cinemas". Yash Raj Films via Facebook. 10 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013.
  4. ^ "International Box Office: 'Jab Tak Hai Jaan' 41.74 cr, 'Son Of Sardaar' 10.79 cr". Bollywood Hungama. 20 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  5. ^ "Jab Tak Hai Jaan Indonesia Screenings". Blitz Multiplex Indonesia. 20 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  6. ^ "Jab Tak Hai Jaan Philippines Screenings". SM Cinemas Philippines. 20 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  7. ^ "Jab Tak Hai Jaan France Times". Allocine. 20 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013.
  8. ^ "Shahrukh's 'JTHJ' crosses 100 crore mark". Digital Spy. 20 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  9. ^ "'Jab Tak Hai Jaan' overseas collections". One India. 25 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  10. ^ "'Jab Tak Hai Jaan' Pakistan Cinemas". Cinepax Pakistan. 16 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  11. ^ "'Jab Tak Hai Jaan' Germany Cinemas". Cinemaxx Germany. 13 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  12. ^ "YRF's Jab Tak Hai Jaan set to open with close to 3,000 screens in India". Business Standard. 8 November 2012. Retrieved 9 November 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  13. ^ "Jab Tak Hai Jaan Marrakech Film Festival". India Today. 21 January 2013. Retrieved 1 December 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  14. ^ "Jab Tak Hai Jaan a worldwide blockbuster collects ₹122 crores in 6 days". Bolly Spice. 21 January 2013. Retrieved 1 December 2012.
  15. ^ "'Jab Tak Hai Jaan' Jordan Cinemas". Cineklik Jordan Grand Mall. 13 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  16. ^ "'Jab Tak Hai Jaan' Worldwide Release Dates". Indicine. 13 November 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jab_Tak_Hai_Jaan/Archive_1&oldid=1145713606"