Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan

Status

The film has done excellent bussiness in overseas as it is usual for SRK and with a budget of around 50 cr ,finally it reached a figure of 100 cr in domestic market in struggling way.I am just wondering how can YRF and other trade analyst called it a worldwide blockbuster.I do not remove it from article myself because i do not want edit warring.Is yash raj website considered reliable?Please discuss about this issue.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is very disappointing at local box office. And what is meant by "other analysts"? It should be "However, according to its production company Yash Raj Films, the film was a "worldwide blockbuster." --139.190.140.12 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Other analysts are Komal Nahta and Taran Adarsh. The figures used in the Yash Raj Films report are theirs if you actually read it. And yes, the two are considered RS according to Wikipedia guidelines. The WW blockbuster and Conflicting reports were added because Box Office India is giving various reports about BO collections. Here they said the film grossed 91 crore in 10 days but in another article they say differently: www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5134&nCat. This was discussed with editor Besharamsun, Meryam90, sonataca and another contributor named Jitesh and then added. Based on Wikipedia guidelines, the majority wants this section so it will stay. Thanks for understanding. Ashermadan (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

why trust only boi when all trade analyst and sites are saying it crossed 120 cr after its third weekend.what gives boi more credibility?are all these trade analyst(who make a living out of it),yrf,and other trade sites wrong or biased? must go with the majority sites and trade analyst,mention the boi figures in conflicting report and mention majority figures in main report -rahul ghosal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.219.9 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above comment, however want the Conflicting reports section but it should be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueindiangrit (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a section that talks about Conflicting reports because BOI is also flip-flopping over collections. They've never done that before for any other film. I'll expand on the section and include the references above. Thanks! Ashermadan (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

BoxOfficeIndia has changed JTHJ collections page at least 3 times (those I have noticed, could be more) which is not the norm with any other movie. BOI looks to be shady because no one seems answerable. All other trade experts have had a similar and constant figures for the collections and were drastically different from BOI's figures. I feel this lack of transparency by BOI should be taken into account and should not be taken as the sole source for movie earnings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.99.180 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. BOI data has changed so other sources should be mentioned. Ashermadan (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Usually there is a ~5% difference is collections reported by Taran and Komal and Box Office India. Recent examples are Barfi!, even Ek Tha Tiger and Talaash. The biggest difference recorded so far is 8% which occurred during film Bodyguard's collections. For JTHJ this is the first time that BOI changed their data a number of times. The difference in collections reported by BOI and Taran/Komal is roughly 20%. 20% is not in the margin for error. Something these severe should be reported and have a special conflicting reports section. Ashermadan (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the heck is going on but I want to stop it, because it is edit warring and the article will come back to full protection. ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully protect the page then. Everyone agrees that the article should remain as is and the conflicting reports section is important. But zeeyanketu keeps on creating an edit war. He is the only one who is against it and like 6 people are in favor for it. Please tell him to stop reverting the edits as he has violated the 3 RR rule many times. Ashermadan (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Jineshparekh (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)I have a pretty straight opinion. Nett collection of a film reported only by the respective distribution studio should be considered because it the most correct. The reason is simple. The figures reported by the respective distribution studio are subject to statutory audits. The distribution studio reports the nett collection, which is the share it gets from ticket collections at box office, but after deduction of entertainment tax, to media. Hence, any over-reporting results in higher payment of entertainment tax and higher tax deduction at source (TDS). The concurrent statutory auditor of the studio is supposed to publish such over-reporting in his/her audit observation if the corresponding tax liabilities are not adhered to and paid by the distribution studio.

Besides, What is the credibility of Box Office India to question the collection reported by the distributor. Are they even aware of the subsequent tax implication on such over-reporting as they always claim about any film? BOI, except for publishing the collection on its own website, has no credibility whatsoever. For the collection report of BOI to be even considered for debate, one needs to be aware of the mechanism being adopted by BOI to find out collections from theater across India. The collection figures reported by BOI are not subject to any statutory audit. Hence, they can report what they wish to unlike the distribution studio.

in case of Jab Tak Hai Jaan, the film has collected Rs. 1.21 billion at the end of three weeks run, as reported by Yash Raj Films Limited. This is the most correct reporting. The film is a world wide block buster as declared by the offical distribution studio.

Yup, that's why I mentioned it. I'm glad you think the conflicting report section showing other figures that are available is correct. Especially when BOI is providing one figure on one page and another figure on another. The YRF WW blockbuster status has also been included. Thanks. Ashermadan (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous figures given by boxofficeindia are estimates and around figure while latter it gave exact territorial breakdown which was exact one.It is an obvious thing and boxofficeindia give figures in more precise manner than any other website that's why it is most reliable among all.And at last you Ashermadan cowardly poisoned others users ears against me.Is that correct as it is not an arena,Do it in civil manner.Why dont you dare to discuss with me or other experienced users.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 17:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with this. The edit stays as the majority agrees. Ashermadan (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your english is quite weak too as you have difficulty in reading and understanding.I post some previous links [1],[2], blocked twice here and poisoned others users ears without any valid reasons here, bogus warnings and threats here & here.These are for admin's and other user so they can better decide who is really uncivil.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, enough is enough. Both of you, stop this. ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 18:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The conflicting reports must stay. Just the reason that(and i quote zeeyanketu) "boxofficeindia give figures in more precise manner than any other website that's why it is most reliable among all" is too illogical and naive to be taken seriously. BOI is a privately owned website, with no official stature. So, in case conflicting reports appear, they must be mentioned. I agree with ashermadan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An0nim0sity (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The higher a producer quotes his collections, the more tax he/she will have to pay. Therefore no logic would say that a producer or production house exaggerates its earnings!Even BOI states in its About Us section that figures could wary! So are we to believe the producers, or some arbitrary entity whose origins are not even known. Just few mail address's in Contact Us without any registered office, what level of authenticity does it say about the site? I feel BOI should be totally out of reckoning and could very well be deemed an illogical site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.99.180 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Following a discussion few years back a consensus was made to use boxofficeindia as a reliable source for boxoffice figures of Bollywood films at wikipedia and we found it in every good article.As far as i have seen it is the only website which give results in algorithmic way although estimated figures are given earlier and exact figures updated latter on.It took time but never failed as usual for any good website and it is obvious that 10 different websites give different figures and then only break the stability of article.What is the need to add conflicting reports as there no need for it as i think.So,I want views of only experience users here so there will be no edit warring regarding this.Thankx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The need to have a conflicting reports section arises when there are significant differences in figures reported by other sources like Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahta and Box Office India. The reports by the different sources and Box Office India usually vary only by a small percentage, 5% or less in cases like Ek Tha Tiger and Barfi! and this has been consistent for many years. However, if you look at the Singham page, there is debate whether or not the film crossed 100 crore or did not as Box Office India says it didn't but other sources say it barely did. Jab Tak Hai Jaan is another example where the difference in the figures is too great to ignore. The figures reported by Box Office India and Taran/Komal are 20% apart. This significant difference has caused many people, including myself, to question why the reports can vary this much. 5% or so is understandable but 20% is not. Hence the section was added. Last year, other sources than Box Office India were used for films Ra.One and Don 2 because Box Office India forgot to report the collections of the film in Tamil and Telugu languages and did not provide data for around 200-300 screens in India. Taking all of this into account, including views from "less experienced" editors, the conflicting reports section was added and should remain there. -Ashermadan

While everyone here agrees to keep Box Office India for the Bollywood box office, users like AsherMadan has a history of pushing his agenda on SRK films. Wants to make everything fanboyish. Something like "It will collect more if Yash Raj Films decide to release it in other markets" is barely encyclopedic. Has a long history as we all know. Repeat, the consensus is to keep Box Office India time and again. --139.190.140.12 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That comment is from the source. I didn't insert it, your friend or sockpuppet Zeku did. Also, Koimoi is not Komal's website. Why are you making things up? ETC Bollywood is Komal's television channel. -Ashermadan

Are you aware of basic Wikipedia policies like WP:AGF? You accuse established editors of sockpuppetry. You also bite newcomers and label them as trolls and inexperienced. See WP:BITE. Komal just left Koimoi in 2012 and he's been the website's main editor for years. --115.42.65.162 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Very invalid point made by Ashermadan. According to Box Office India, Ek Tha Tiger made 186 crore. According to Komal Nahta it made 198 crore. There is a difference of 12 crore: http://www.koimoi.com/koimoi-bollywood-box-office-top-10-2012-movies/ According to Taran Adarsh's Bollywood Hungama it even made 200 crore: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/features/type/view/id/4005 --139.190.140.12 (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If you take the percentages, it still adds up to around 5-8% difference, not 20%. I have a valid point. And I know your real username is GSK. -Ashermadan

How can you easily said anyone vandal,troll and sockpuppet.That means you dont even know the exact meaning of these.You have a terrible history of edit warring and you were blocked twice too.Only boxofficemojo has been used for Hollywood films as Boxofficeindia for Bollywood.It cannot be changed for you.Not a single experienced user might be agree with you.It will be removed by further discusson.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 03:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No it won't. The majority of people who have commented agree with me. You are the only one opposing it. You wont even find 10 people who agree with you. And I do believe GSK is your sockpuppet and have lodged a complaint. Keep trying. The majority opinion wins. Ashermadan (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly,These independent trade analysts are not reliable as they do not belong to any reliable news agencies or newspapers and it is according to wikipedia guidelines.Newspapers are giving figures which i am not saying are incorrect they are near around too and i have already said there was a consensus made for boxofficeindia,its not my personal website and i am not going to earn money from it.Seconly,Most of the users who are agree with you have no experience regarding this and i suspect some of them are your sockpuppets(forgive me if i am wrong).Boxofficeindia check stats and flow of growth of collection and then change it accordingly and reporting users is not a fun until you have strong case.Aggression is not needed here.You may write whatever you think but please be cool.We are not fighting,just discussing.Good luck---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 16:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by building logical consensus, not by casting dumb agree/disagree votes. See WP:VOTE. You seem to know nothing about policies and guidelines. Again you're assuming bad faith and insulting zeeyanketu depsite being warned twice. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I am not related to any of these discussions, nor do I operate any sockpuppets. Do not connect my name with false accusations based on little to no evidence. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I know how Wikipedia works random IP address 139.190.171.30. Thus we are having this discussion and so far all editors who have commented who are not nameless but established like Abhinavname agree with me. Based on this, the page will stay. And I apologize to GSK, I guess the IP address was just some random person harassing me. I am not calling for BOI figures to be removed, I'm just calling for the addition of a conflicting reports/controversy section because the difference between BOI numbers and numbers from other sources is around 20%. Usually it's 5% or even less so there is no need for such a section. Plus, BOI deleted a lot of articles and data. There is a reason to question this. -Ashermadan

Abhinavname is not an established editor,just two days old,BOI never deleted anything,you may see them from typing previous serial numbers in url.Thanks---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 05:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, only two days old. Distorting facts is all you can do Ashermadan. And you're still ignorant, there's nothing wrong editing with an IP. See WP:IP. A lot to learn Ashermadan - a lot to learn. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

why only Jab tak hai jaan ,all are concentrating.Even Son of Sardaar india nett figures are varying by 16-17 crores.See this link:

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/919/date/2012-12-07   
   

Son of sardaar nett grossed 105.03 crores. And Taran adarsh tweetsis a genuine sources.It has more than 2 lakhs followers on twitter,He takes data from production houses.,Even Ajay Devgan tweeted on Guru purnima day,Nov28,2012 Evening 4 PM that Son of Sardaar crossed 100 crores in india nett. you can check his tweet.some exceeptions can be made in wikipedia if Box Office India is changing its figures 3-4 times. this doesn't happens ,but basically after Golmaal 3it is changing drastically for these diwali releases. See these links: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/youdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5133&nCat=
changed 75 cr to 69 cr for 10 days in india

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/youdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5139&nCat=

So please have conflicting reports in Son Of Sardaar also User talk:Abhinavname 05:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2012

I think the sentence below is very inaccurate:

However, Yash Raj Films and independent trade analysts called the film a "worldwide blockbuster."

It only uses one cite that goes to the producers of the film Yash Raj who claims so. It does NOT cite any other sources for "independent trade analysts" who called the film "worldwide blockbuster". And claims from producers isn't even third-party independent data as we all know. It should be changed to:

However, the production company Yash Raj Films claimed that the film was a "worldwide blockbuster."

139.190.140.12 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This matter is being disputed right now. As it is settled more sources from Komal and Taran will be added. Thanks! Ashermadan (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You couldn't just add uncited claims like that. There's no evidence that "independent trade analysts called the film a worldwide blockbuster". It must be removed now. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

y not go by boxofficeindia.co.in figure?they r also a ccredible site,boxoffice india changed the collection 3 times ,and their data differs from all the other data given by other sites and trade analysits who more or less agree on their data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.139.144 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times and with the same consensus to use BoxOfficeIndia.com only. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What about Son of Sardaar and singham.Both are in 100-crore club by many sites and reliable sources

What about Son of Sardaar and singham.???? Both are in 100-crore club by many sites and reliable sources.conflicting reports should be here also. See hese links: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/919/date/2012-12-07 http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/917/date/2012-11-30 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-30/box-office/35484121_1_crore-mark-ajay-devgn-ffilms-ashwni-dhir http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/son-of-sardaar-beats-bol-bachchan-grabs-7th-position-in-koimoi-top-10-india-box-office-2012/ http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=299099&subcatg=&keyword=bollywood&nid=299099 http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/movies/son-of-sardar-crosses-rs-100-crore-mark-in-india_123621.htm http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/son-of-sardaar-enters-100-crore-club/1/235423.html

Many sources such Taran Adarsh ,Times of India,Bollywood Hungama, Zee news,NDTV,Koimoi, etc. have stated that Son of Sardaar crossed 100 crore (US$18.2 million) nett.gross in India in 16 days.But Box Office India has stated only 88 cr(original 105 cr) for Son of Sardaar and 102 crore(origibal 120 cr) for Jab Tak Hai Jaan,after 3 weeks run in India.See this link: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5178&nCat= Also BOI downgraded the verdict on JTHJ in india from "superhit" to hit" see this link: http://boxofficeindia.com/boxdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5136&nCat= and then it removed this page content. No trade magazine or website except Box Office India is giving wrong estimates early on,and deleting that page content. Please add conflicitng reports section on Son of sardaar and singham.Even for Barfi ,BOI has given only 106 cr(original its 120 cr )

I rember this Eid Day,on August 20,2012, Just n the evening when Taran Adarsh tweeted 100 cr nett. for Ek tha Tiger in 5 days,all New channels like Aaj Tak,Zee News,CNN-IBN and trade magazines statrted giving news of 100 cr for ETT from 4 pm in evening,while BOI has stated it crossed in 6 days. The difference in BOI and other sources(all these give same figures) is now growing from 5 cr to 13 cr and now its 18 cr fro JTHJ and SOS. Abhinavname (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on Dec. 9: Unprotect the page, by moving the box office stuff elsewhere

I suggest to move almost all of the 8. Box Office section to a new distinct Wikipedia page entitled: Jab Tak Hai Jaan (box office),
(just as is done with section 7. Soundtrack : Main article: Jab Tak Hai Jaan (soundtrack)).

That new JTHJ box office page would get Full protection, to stop edit warring between users, but those users, mainly interested in the film gross, could still continue the discussion about box-office figures on the "Talk" page of that new dedicated page.

Doing so would allow unprotecting the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page, so that users could resume contributing to the content, which is all Wikipedia is about. Bernarddb (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2012

According to BOI, the film has now earned 102 crores:

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5178&nCat=

So please change the sentence to:

While Box Office India stated that the film made around INR102 crore

139.190.171.30 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See this link: JTHJ nett grossed ₹ 120 crore+ in india http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/trade/top5/id/919/date/2012-12-07 A gap of 18 crore And y only concentrating on JTHJ,even Son of Sardaar ,Barfi and ETT domestic nett gross in india is given 13-16 cr less by Box Office India.Exceptions can be made by including Bollywood Hungama and Koimoi figures. It will look weird to movie buff and people who are loving Bollywood films trade nad their collections,that when they browse these films article on Wikipedia,it willl show data in india less than 15 cr.When all 6-7 sources like Times of India,aaj Tak,Zee News, NDTV,Bollywood Hungama,Koimoi,Taran Adarsh,Komal Nahta etc. are giving same exact figures and BOI is giving different(first its giving wrong estimate,and then sometimes, deleting that page content when u want to see that page) BOI has downgraded verdict on Jab Tak Hai Jaan in india from Superhit to hit .Can u believe,Why it is giving wrong estimates then early on. Taran Adarsh take nett gross figures from production houses, but BOI takes from exibitors,distributors and multiplexes.that y when calculating worldwide gross figures,Box Office India can give entertainment tax. But stilll in worldwide gross also,BOI doesnot include tamil and telugu version gross.

Abhinavname (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The early figures are only estimates and near around.Updating exact figures take time dear.If it didnot update figures of other version(telugu,tamil etc) then you are welcome to add them from any reliable sources at the end of section's.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 17:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed that BOI is almost always first to give box office opening figures for Bollywood films. Koimoi and Indiafm follows with increasing numbers (mostly in the range of 2-3 crores). JTHJ grossed only 102 crore in India according to BOI. Get over it already. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

boi has changed their data for jthj 3 times..its reports r varrying from other reliable sites and trade analysts by a huge margin who r more or less consistent among thmeselves,boxofficeindia.co.in also gives 120 cr as 3 week collection of jthj so boi is not trustworthy anymore and majority report should be mentioned in main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.222.67 (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong in deleting page content and change figures when you get near accurate figures from fresh counting and reports.I suggest you to explore all the boxoffice websites from scratch.No other website gives you regional and territorial breakdown figure of Bollywood films other than Boxofficeindia.com---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

nope boxofficeindia.co.in gives day by day territrorial breakdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.80.20 (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Boxofficeindia.co.in does not qualify as a WP:RS. Period. --139.190.171.30 (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Devgan is spelt as Devgn throughout the page. Please correct it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)