Talk:Ra.One/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Akon

IT is said that akon is making apperance in this film. Please discuss this thing.--Cute754 (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Please change the word ' creature' against Ravan. It is inappropriate and may be offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.12.93 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has some problems

This article has a few problems relating to formatting and grammar. I have corrected them. Also, some info has also been added about the budget.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Budget Issue

The budget seems just 1 Rupee.Dear friends please dont mock. Be real. I dont have the source or else I would have taken the initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeflint (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor

It's mentioned here: Herethat Martin Walsh is one of the editors of Ra.One, I watched the trailer in HD myself on youtube:here and it appears that the source is correct --Meryam90 (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for semi protection

This page is subjected to vandalism on a regular basis...either by changing the cast's names to some random actors or adding links to some random sites or by haters who keep posting homophobic references or false informations or descriptions. It will be much easier if only registered users have access to editing. Thank you.

--Meryam90 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Bility (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism

according to this CNN IBN article, the film's poster is a blatant ripoff of batman's:

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/snapshot-raone-poster-a-copy-of-batman/183384-66.html

must be mentioned somewhere in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.139.122 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It has resemblance to the poster, and that pose of Superhero holding the girl is a Classic pose that has been done since the era of superheros has started . Please check this: http://www.pinkvilla.com/files/images/superhero.jpg That poster of Batman isn't even the official poster.--Meryam90 (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. You can't compare two similar files and say that one has been inspired from the other. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New poster

Shah rukh khan (the producer of the film) released the new official poster of the film on his twitter/Whosay account: http://www.whosay.com/iamsrk/photos/66302 . Is it possible to change the current poster to the new one? --Meryam90 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the new poster doesn't show credits to Eros, Anubhav Sinha or any major info like the first. It is better to keep the first unless a new one with sufficient data is released. Maybe Red Chillies's official website will have one. I'll check it out. Secret of success (Talk) 08:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

The synopsis is copied, verbatim, from http://www.raonemovie.com/html/synopsis.html The article reads like a marketing campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkjohn (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Added copyvio tag -- Tinu Cherian - 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Chammak Challo

Enough with the fight over the spelling of the song: According to iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/ra-one/id465956922the song is spelled CHAMMAK CHALLO. I hope this puts an end to the confusion --Meryam90 (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The new Chammak Challo article

I've just completed the writing of the Chammak Challo article. Can you guys please have a look a it. It was in a pathetic state when I first saw it. Any positive changes are welcome. Thanks. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man! Great stuff...I didn't even know the song had it's own page!! awesome! :) --Meryam90 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead photo

I believe that the lead photo should be changed. Keep the lead photo and music photo different. I do not want to change it myself, as I have a bad way of attracting all sorts of copyvio problems when I upload photos. Please change it soon. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about the Chammak Challo page. Right? That was the case in the first place, but the lead photo I put up at first was same as the album cover and then I added the Kareena KAPOOR picture to the Music video section. But it went down under the song info box and looked out of place. So I thought I would change it later when I find the lyrics of the song in Hindi text, then the article would be bigger and therefor the picture wont look out of place :)

If you're speaking about the Poster here, well there is only one version of the Music cover anyway...Guess we'll wait if an other is available. --Meryam90 (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about this page, the Ra.One page. Aren't there any other posters which can be used in the infobox other than this one? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 06:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are only 2 posters, One for the introduction of the character G.One and the official poster used in this page (released by SRK himself). But I think the problem is solved now, since the whole soundtrack has its own section.--Meryam90 (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ra.One

Budget

Is Ra.One's budget just 125 crore? I found many RS's claiming the budget to be 150-200 crore. There were also many links comparing it with Enthiran, which had a budget of 130-160 crore claiming that it was more expensive. 125 looks like a fake figure, someone plz help me find a more convincing link. The only one I found was this which doesn't look like an RS. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The production budget is 150 crore excluding promotion budget as reported by Times of India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Ra-One-challenges-Shah-Rukh-Khan-the-star/articleshow/10112677.cms

For promotion budget Business Standard says 40 crore:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/bollywoods-longest-promotion/449593/

This makes the overall budget 190 crore. --175.110.139.122 (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess as same as in Enthiran, we must not mention Budget at least till now. Wait and watch if production house declares the actual budget. Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly...the film itself is still on the editing table, which means the cost is still NOT finalized yet. So, we should really wait for OFFICIAL words from the makers.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 14.99.196.105, 23 September 2011

under the promotions sections there is a mention of amount being spent which is quoted as Rs. 35-40 Crore and it's shown equivalent to US$ 34.99 billion.The amount for online promotions is quoted as Rs. 12-15 Crore and it's shown equivalent to US$ 12 billion. It's a mistake regarding conversion. Edit it.

14.99.196.105 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done There was a little problem because you can't convert a sum which is written like (12-15). U can only convert a number. It's fixed new.

Number of screens

In the lead, its given that Ra.One is releasing in 3,200 screens WORLDWIDE> That is wrong. 3,200 is the number of screens in INDIA ALONE. I'll try to get a confirmation of this, and put up the change soon. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd read this quote from Kamal Jain, chief financial officer at Eros International: "We’re releasing the film across 3,000 screens in India and abroad, of which 500 screens will be 3D. That will mean higher recovery." [Financial Express. September 21, 2011] Maybe they're now releasing in more screens. Scieberking (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why is the page no longer protected? and that close to release? it's now that the protection IS required...--Meryam90 (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Over the past several weeks, as the film gets closer to release, I have noticed that the article is constantly being updated with news about the film's promotions, its budget, etc. However, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE note that while adding these things, we have to use reliable sources. If a user is not sure about what a reliable source is, please read this. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be a fantastic expert in identifying reliable sources. Perhaps you could take the little effort of turning on your computer and finding the reliable sources for the two points I put up, which you have continuously and blatantly deleted from this article.

• McDonalds tie-up.
• Formula 1 tie-up

While I am generally pretty easy-going and try to keep the atmosphere positive, I am going to be very blunt. Your attitude towards my edits is beginning to strongly irk me, and believe me, I am not my most hospitable when I am so. I am giving a polite and perfectly proper message to you, Bollywood Dreams, following all the rules laid down by Wikipedia, lest you cite any one of them and try to throw me off track. I suggest that you get the sources which are up to your highest standards, but I expect these two points to be present in the article before the release of the film (October 26). I hope I have made myself fully and clearly understood. Until then, since my edits are so obviously receiving the boot very frequently in comparison to others, I will stop editing on this article. Perhaps that will give you the peace of mind you so obviously desire. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Acceptable reliable source that supports both McDonalds and Forumula 1 points:

SRK's superhero power: Turning 'Ra.One' to marketing gold. India Today

Take it easy, Ankit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project after all. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"I suggest that you get the sources which are up to your highest standards, but I expect these two points to be present in the article before the release of the film (October 26). I hope I have made myself fully and clearly understood." - First things first. I have not set any standards for sources. If you take a look at this, you'll know what I'm talking about. Next, excuse me but this is not how it works over here!!! Since YOU added the information, YOU find the sources, and that too RELIABLE ones. I am not suppose to go around following your edits and finding sources for things that I have not added. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you do either one of two things: either stop over-reacting whenever my edits come up, since you seem to be extremely touchy over that (God knows why), and get a life; or second, just completely stop interacting with me. I will be more than happy to oblige you in return lest you take the second option. Coming back to the point of reliable refs, since you removed my edits twice, even though I got different references to support them bot times, I said that you should undertake the job. It was a professional wish. But since you are acting mostly like a little child, I shall not over-saddle you with things you obviously are too lazy to do. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I would only expect someone as shallow as you to degrade another person in a situation like this, and that too for something that you have done. To begin with, I have no intention in "over-reacting" with your edits. You have done plenty of edits on the article and I have only removed the ones that were not supported by RELIABLE sources. You make it seem like I am only after you. Lastly, as long as you do your part, I would be happy not interacting with you. I am only interested in improving the article and that's it. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For goodness sake guys, stop fighting like immatured squirts and please assume good faith. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's hardly helpful when you refer to both parties as "immature squirts"... Especially when the "fight" is over. Scieberking (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, can we ALL calm down and STOP this?! Let's not make this PERSONAL...and may I suggest that we stop deleting each other's edits....if there is no reliable source...maybe some1 else is willing to go look for it even tho it's not their own edit...so, just patience and good faith...and all will be good.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough previously. Alright, listen up everyone please. Perhaps if I make my stand fully clear, we may be able to avoid such discussions in the future.

I was a very interested and interactive editor who never ever came up to blows with anyone regarding any circumstances, unless of course in extreme cases of vulgar language (which, I assure you, is extremely rare). However, since the occurrence of the rather nasty controversy surrounding the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, I have learnt a few things about Wikipedia - that while most editors are contributors just wanting to do their jobs, there are some who are clearly not fit for the sort of respect or attention they try, and want, to get. Frankly, I can't care less about the opinions of heavily-biased and wrongly-motivated causes, as surely you will not either. I have since learnt that strict and unyielding rigidity is required to deal with such people. Since then, my methods have been successful in small measure by helping curbing vandalism in such articles as My Name Is Khan (which came under some problems from editors defacing it).

I was applying exactly the same solution here - and voila! Someone was able to find a nice and simple solution to the problem. It would, of course, have been better if the addressed party had taken things in stride, rather than drag the matter along and pull others into it. However, I shall not touch upon my so-called "shallowness" and "degrading nature". What I said was perfectly correct and true - I had made a proper professional wish for the reference to be placed, since the addressed had been unhappy with what I had put and expected something else which I did not know. However, lo and behold, instead of a short solution, we hear all sorts of accusations flying, and in the end, the addressed was stubborn enough not to concede a minor point. That, is clearly not my fault. I hope I have made myself clear.

Yes, I agree that you have more experience than me in editing and have since overtaken Meryam to become this article's highest contributor - an achievement worthily noted. However, no amount of success should get to your head to a great deal, otherwise problems will arise. I also can keep this discussion going on, and believe me, if it does so, it will certainly not be as pretty and polite as it is now. Which is exactly why I want to stop this here, right now. This will be a last reminder - don't push around. That's all. Call me whatever you like, think whatever you want, but don't resort to, in your words, "shallow" practices, okay? You may say whatever else to this in reply, but I'm not gonna give a damn. And yes, I suggest we keep out of each other's way. You and I are just not meant to get along, so it's best to be separate and not interfere in each other's matters. However, I'm warning you, if I find that any of my edits, which have perfectly reliable sources attached, are deleted with lame excuses, the consequences will again not be pretty. It reminds me of the VFX shots part - you claimed to have moved the portion to a different places. The revision history says quite another story - you deleted' it, and Meryam later replaced it. What lies. Isn't that "shallow"?

Anyways, enough. Now I hope we can forget all about this and start thinking about the article, especially since the film is close to release. Cheerio. Ans Scieberg, thank you for trying to be a pacifier. In hard times, we ca use more people like you. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pacifier as in this picture? :-D Cheer up buddy. We want everybody contributing in high spirits and the fullest way possible to take (learn) and give back (contribute) to "mother Wikipedia". Funny I've never been a big fan of either Wikipedia or contemporary Indian cinema. Scieberking (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just like how you said something against your defence, I would like to say something as well. There is no point arguing about this anymore. However, I would just like to clear up something for which I was wrongly accused. To begin with, you have helped improved the article by leaps and bounds, and that is truly commendable. This accusation of me always attacking you has to stop. I am still adamant and will always be about providing reliable sources to support claims. Lastly, if you take a look at this, you can clearly see that I did not remove the info about the VFX shots. Please check carefully before making any accusations. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 00:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the meaning of the photo you put up Scieberg. Can you elaborate? To Bollywood Dreams, I am totally tired and disinterested in talking to you right now. I've had a rather hectic week with Durga Puja celebrations, which ended today, so I'll leave the matter as it is. But one thing, as much as you are so, I am also equally adamant and firm about my stand. Okay? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for my quirky sense of humor. I joked that you meant this kind of pacifier while you said thanks for trying to be a "pacifier". Also the nickname "Scieberg" that you've given me makes me a jew though I'm not one, LOL. It sounds similar to Spielberg and I'm a dropout of filmmaking so I'm happy. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. There's much more to you than I thought. If you don't mind, can I keep calling you by the nickname (which I accidentally used, believe me). Hope you were not offended or anything. Cheerio. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, dropped out of Leeds University (filmmaking and broadcast) and currently a web entrepreneur. Sure, as I said "Scieberg" sounds cool. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes

Firstly, Ra.One is not based on any comic book, unlike Hollywood superhero movies. The info in the lead is wrong. The graphic novel was created after the film was made. Secondly, I want to know if Ra.One's internet marketing can be called viral. I want to be able to put up the new term in this article :D. Help will be greatly appreciated. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite an example of viral marketing, but we would need a reliable source to use the term. Scieberking (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, not again! And the point about the comic? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about that point. The storyline is not based on the comic book. Scieberking (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we use this website as a reliable ref? [1] For the viral marketing part. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good source: Daily Bhaskar. Scieberking (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. the daily.bhaskar is a reliable source of Bollywood info. --Meryam90 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Daily.bhaskar is as same as DNA India. hence a reliable source. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A point deleted yet again

That's it. Here goes. I SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED that Ra.one is the most expensive ASIAN SCIENCE FICTION FILM> For the less intelligent, I will repeat twice more - MOST EXPENSIVE SCI-FI FILM, MOST EXPENSIVE SCI_FI FILM. Done. Now tell me the bullshit you were spewing about the Chinese/Japanese films being more expensive!!!! THEY ARE NOT SCI-FI FILMS, repeated THEY ARE NOT SCI-FI FILM> I hope even a person like you can understand now. And yes, the problem of the ref will be solved very very very soon, so wait and watch. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay Mr. Big Shot, calm you horses. For the so-called "less intelligent" people you are talking about, provide a reliable source and then we will talk. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

At last you have done something agreeable. You have left the info as it is, and put up the "Citation needed" part to it. Excellent. Perhaps if you had had the brains to use this method before, we could have avoided a lot of unnecessary ugliness. And yes, believe me, I will find the ref for the bit I told above, and I will put it up in the article. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please watch the way you talk to other editors? Your attitude is not appreciated!!! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Much I care. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've provided the cite again, Ankit. Please be cool. Why don't you buzz me whenever you need a reliable source for any addition? I will do the best I could. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Scieberg. Yes, that will be very much helpful. But must I ask clearance for every ref I want to put up? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You could always use big-name newspapers, famous (and notable) online news portals and websites of leading film critics. Websites like IndiaGlitz.com and BollywoodBackstage.com are, of course, unreliable. Two articles you should (or you already have) read: WP:IRS and WP:WEB. It's easy... All we need is love! :) Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I just have one question... but how is Lady Gaga's appearance relevant to the film's premiere? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 00:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, she was supposed to attend the Ra.One premiere. I hope you know that after Akon's association with this film, roping in Lady Gaga would be quite the trump card. However, she didn't come (as I stated in the article). I believe that point is quite relevant to the premieres section. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've removed the Gaga bit. Please see the edit summary for the reason. Scieberking (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I can prove that Indiaglitz is notable through this link. Please don't discard sources just like that. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 12:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't prove that IndiaGlitz is notable, but rather explicates that such sites are sort of amateurish productions. Read this for the criteria of notability for websites and online portals. Scieberking (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Requested semi-protection at Wp:RPP to the page for a period of two months so that the hype comes down. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't think the article will be semi-protected. Not much disruptive activity had taken place. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 15:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been quite some vandals lately and it will increase as the release date nears. So, I requested the sp. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article was protected before...guess it expired on the 6thof october... --Meryam90 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Its been declined as u said. :D Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 12:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

New Trailer

Just amazing!!! Watch this - believe me, u'll lose ur senses!

[2]

AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

New section

Firstly, I must clarify about the above message. It wasn't written by me, my younger cousin is currently visiting us and he happened to chance on my Wiki account. And a 11-yr-old can be quite naughty at these pranks. But yes, he is a big fan of Ra.One (like me), so I couldn't say no, could I?

Coming to the point, I believe that a new section titled Visual Effects must be made, in line with most major Hollywood film articles which devote a substantially big part of the article towards this section. Since Ra.One is certainly ground-breaking in the use of VFX in India, I think this section is very much needed. What say you guys? Shall I move forward with this proposition? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well actually I have LOTS of ideas for new sections, like post-production, VFX...but I don't think we have enough info to no? Ii don't want to create sections which contain only one paragraph that has a couple of lines...I think, for now, we add all info to dev section and then things will get clearer and we can divide it all...Oh btw, the Trailer IS AMAZING!!:p--Meryam90 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM might be helpful for you guys. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@Scieberg: Even though the link you gave does not mention VFX as a necessary section, is it necessary that the section shouldn't be there at all? I'm sure you have seen the Avatar (2009 film) or any X-Men article which has a separate section. Provided I get more info on the VFX part, I think we can start with the VFX section sometime next week. What say you? @Meryam: I think the post production part should come as a sub-section after Casting And Filming. And yes, the trailer rocks!! YouTube actually crashed because it saw around 20,000 hits in 4 hrs - that's why the number of views remained static at 315 (ridiculously low). God, Ra.One is certainly making all the right kind of waves, isn't it? Personally, can't wait for the film to release. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is rocking...check the new addition in promotion...recovered most its money prior to release...amazing na? and yes, VFX section which will be included in production, should be starting next week...lots to be added I am sure...I tried dividing filming and casting sections because they are big enough now but mister Bollywood dreams doesn't seem keen on the idea...I am in no mood for an edit-war or a long fruitless discussion....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that Casting and Filming should be split. I agree that Ra.One is big - really really BIG. But it certainly isn't THAT big either. And yes, I think we should try avoid any conflicts of interest unless it is absolutely necessary. And yeah, I saw the news about it recovering it's promotion costs. Excellent addition. Now let's get rolling! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ankit. Passionate discussions are almost getting near to WP:FORUM :-) Personally, I wish SRK all the best and hope Ra.One earns him a place up there in the so-called "100 Crore" club. I've just made my comment below about the "Visual effects" section. Scieberking (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition of new VFX section - Support/Oppose/Neutral

Guys, you can now put up your comments, suggestions and of course, your opinion here about the said section. If there is a clear support for the issue, I will start the new article straightaway. Cheers. And yes, in spite of any personal problems, please be neutral when putting up your opinion here. Remember, a very important part of this article is at stake. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I just went through Avatar article. I guess Ra.One too belongs of that standard. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wait till film's release. A new article may fail Wp:CONTENTFORK. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 13:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral - The film is in the standard of Avatar...the VFX section is a must, whether it should be added now or not, I am not sure ...will try to find as many info as I can to expend it..--Meryam90 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment/ Conditional Support - I think you can add all that stuff under a new sub-section (of Production), not an article, and name it "Visual effects", after the release of the movie. That wouldn't violate any wikipedia policy at all. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not talking about any article. I said that a new SECTION must be made within this article itself. Forgive me for any typos. Now can you please revise your opinions. I certainly know that Ra.One, or for that matter any other film, doesn't yet deserve a new article on its special effects. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that you asked for a section, but it was misunderstood. So was the unfortunate wikipedia policy; WP:CONTENTFORK. :-) Scieberking (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So what's your opinion now? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As I saw on Avatar article, Visual effects is under Production section. If so should be same here, I Support again. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was my plan. Thanks for the support. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2 - Production 2.1 Development 2.2 Casting and filming 2.3 Visual effects 2.4 Soundtrack

But, IMO, "2.3 Visual effects" should be added after the release. Scieberking (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Na Scieberking. Ankitbhatt plan is correct. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. You may be right but I've just expressed my opinion about that. Scieberking (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done: I have added a sub section called Visual effects, and have merged certain contents from filming under it. Do comment your views. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Karthik, I really appreciate your effort in making this section (especially that 137 hrs bit, where did you get it?). But may I make some rather big changes to it? For one, cinematography and editing don't come under VFX, they come under production or filming. Second, 3D is also not fit for the VFX section. I think that it will be better to remove them. But anyways, your prompt action shows that there will certainly be a great VFX section soon. Cheerio. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

VFX is obviously a part of Cinematography. Editing and 3D effects are kinda a different phase, though... I'd read somewhere that Ra.One was originally made in 2D. Scieberking (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Srk's interview with NDTV, carry on with your changes. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Karthik and Scieberg, can you see the article now? How is it? Any needed changes will be appreciated. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Scieberking (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Great. But can't state it perfect until it reaches Featured articles category or atleast Good articles category. Keep up the spirit. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! I'm not even thinking of that right now. I know exactly how tough it is to get a GA status for the article (I created and edited the article 2003 Afro-Asian Games, which was made GA). Though I feel WP:Film has lesser bars for getting GA status. WP:Sport just never seems satisfied! I'm just concentrating on adding content into this article to the maximum possible extent till the film releases. After October 26, we can think about taking it to GA or FA. :). AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine. Now all we need is the critical response, box office and accolades section which we can create after the release. But I hope a box office dispute doesn't arise like in Enthiran. That is more than just a barrier for GA. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravana

Does Ra.One means Ravana? Can anyone find a source, is it true? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One is a variation of the name Raavan. So there is a connection. However, the point put up in the lead certainly seems out of place to me. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I got no clue, in which section it can be used!! -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it's ALREADY mentioned, twice! one in the quote by SRK in Dev section and in the promotion section while talking abt the Ra.One look...seems enough to me...--Meryam90 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture from the Video game

This is a still from the Sony Video game, its' of G.One's character http://i.indiafm.com/img/feature/11/sep/raone1.jpg...I want to add it to the article, it's taken from Bollywood Hungama. What I am wondeing abt is, what license to use? Because Ive read somewhere that the site gives permission to use all content as free...I think an example is This So?!! It's free right? --Meryam90 (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at the licence carefully, it says: "All photographs used by this site from Bollywood Hungama parties/events with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters are exclusively created by their own photographers. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images, providing the site is attributed and a direct link running to the source on their site is provided." Since the image is NOT from a party or an event, it cannot be uploaded under the BH licence. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

VFX

Excuse me, but why is it that my edit on the number of VFX shots was deleted? Lately, I'm beginning to notice that my edits are receiving much more attention in matter of edit deletion than others. Just a thought, though I hope everything is fine. While I may not be as active as some other editors, it doesn't warrant such sort of quick reverts and deletes. And yeah, before everyone forgets, the VFX shots please. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I know how you feel!! It's awful when you add info and some peeps only find it useful to edit and cut your edits without actually contributing, but that aside, the article is shaping up well and that's the main goal we're all working for. Here is a source that contains most info abt the VFX shots and all other technical aspects of sort: http://www.boxofficeindia.co.in/ra-one-decoded/. Please do the needful as I'm swapped with my BBA right now and I can't find time to add all the info. Thanks and Keep up the good work, esp on the Chammak challo page. Really impressive job :D --Meryam90 (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article carefully as well as my edit summary, I just moved the info to a better location. It didn't quite flow that properly in its original place. I have no intention on deleting constructive edits as long as they are backed up with "reliable" sources. Plus it is best to avoid adding things like: "the first in Bollywood" too many times. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ here. While most of the contributions made by Ankit and Meryam are good, the article should read encyclopedic, not fanboyish. Scieberking (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

why would it be considered fanboying? when a thing is a first in Bollywodd, shouldn't it be pointed out as so? and most the contribution is actual facts, copy+past, not like we write stuff from our head or something. anyway, that's not the point here. All info on VFW added, so Ankit no need to worry anymore abt that . --Meryam90 (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I only meant to say that stating "X movie is groundbreaking in employing the use of A, B and C" is far more preferable than putting up something like "X movie was the first to use A. X movie was the finest to use B. X movie was the greatest ever to use C". I hope my point is taken well and understood. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware that my writing style is "fanboying", according to you. Your views and opinions, though weird, are appreciated all the same. Thank you. Perhaps you feel that I am obstructing the editing process of this article? I will gladly withdraw if any objections are raised as to my "fanboying". AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant nothing personal but was just trying to make a random point above, which I think should be apprehensible. Good editors like yourself are really very much appreciated and liked. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Budget

Now, as the filming of Ra.One is officially over with Rajnikanth's cameo shot done, I think the budget must now be considered. I have this source that tells that the budget of Ra.One is ₹ 160 crore.

[3]

Can someone check and cross-verify claims? I'd be gald to see the budget figures in the infobox soon. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 19:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this rediff source could be used. It's an estimation, though. Scieberking (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here goes. We can't site the budget because as I asked Bottom line Media (the promotion company working on Ra.One) there is still no final call on what is the budget EXACTLY. Can't we just wait for official word from the makers?! --Meryam90 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Still nothing official but rumors. Now 200 crore! Scieberking (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If no official word comes after 15th October, I will add the 150-200 crore range myself with reliable sources, while also mentioning Anubhav's disaffirmation. If the advertising budget is being mentioned, which is also based on an unofficial figure (the Business Standard article doesn't use any quote from an official but puts forward an estimate, i.e. 35-40 crore), there's no way production budget could be shunned. Scieberking (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support : I think it's high time. However, I can see lots of loud and vehement opposition to this move in the very near future. Scieberg, be wary of quick deletions. And yeah, the marketing budget is ₹ 52 crore. It's offical. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 07:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this IBN article quotes Eros and makes it clear that 52 crore is the official advertising budget. On the other hand, the Business Standard one states it is in 35-40 crore range and, as I've said earlier, doesn't use any quote from an official.

The production budget is in the 150-200 crore range. This makes the total budget around 252 crore (max value)... Wow! We mention only production budget in the infobox, though. Scieberking (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we could use this source as it gives a firm figure and doesn't use terms such "rumored to be" and "estimated at". Scieberking (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

More photos needed

The Ra.One article is beginning to shape up excellently in spite of a considerable amount of time left for release. However, one thing is really setting back this article - the lack of good images to use here. For one thing, a VFX section in a film article without a photo of some VFX used is, according to me, lousy. My idea is to get a photo which shows the scene before addition of VFX, and one after. If not the former, at least the latter is a must. And the filming and promotion parts also need more images. As I have stated somewhere before, I am not going to try to get any images - I am something of a magnet for all sorts of copyright, attribution and free-content related problems that flooded my talk page once. I'm just not suited for getting usable photos, as I am still trying to cope with Wikipedia's image policies. So I request helping hands to add the work of getting photos in additon to info related to the film. Thanks and cheerio! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 05:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, but not under VFX section. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In spite of my wish, I added a photo under the VFX section. It's the only one I could make (yes, its created by me using perfectly free images). Please check it and give your views. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 09:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You too. Especially the McDonald's photo, over which me and Mr. Bollywood Dreams had a rather long and harsh "discussion". However, one small bit: The photos have that irritating Bollywood Hungama watermark. If you could find the same photos without that, it would be really great. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 09:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If I find image with out Bollywood Hungama watermarks, then there would be copyright issues. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Point. Still, is it impossible to find the same image somewhere in the free domain? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 10:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Will be damn difficult, still will try my level best. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done: Added two more photos with no copyright issues also without any watermarks. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Don't mind, but I collapsed all three photos into one. It makes the section look better, or else there seemed to be an overdose of SRK in the section. That sort of look will attract a lot of vandals in the future. Believe me, the trouble we had while editing My Name Is Khan because of the presence of SRK photos.... phew! I really back Meryam's idea of opting for semi-protection. This article will most certainly attract lots of hooliganism and defacing in the near future, especially at the time of release. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's ok. I had planned of merging three images into one with a template Multiple image. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OMG! U guys!! It's PERFECT!!! Uni schedule is tight, so thanks for doing such a great job with the article. And yes, Semi-protection is really a must...We'll make a request after the release. --Meryam90 (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

After the release there won't be that much of a need for protection. The verdict will be out by then, and so people will have to accept it. No point in trying to show the opposite then. The key time is the week before the release of the film. That's when vandals pop up in mass numbers. I suggest semi-protection from October 18 to November 18, if possible. That'll be enough, according to me. And btw, thanks for the compliment. Hope you have enough time to keep track of our edits and contribute to them. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey wait!! I don't think as of now we need any semi protection. Even after release, if there are any constant vandalism's regarding plot, reviews, box office, then we will demand for the same. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

For the article's sake, let's hope you are right. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 16:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

VFX

Phew! Finished a long update and size increase in the VFX section. Looking excellent now. I think the article is beginning to warm up really nicely now. I think now is the time to go full-throttle on adding info and photos into the article. That way, when the film releases, only the box office, critical reception etc. needed to be added, and voila! We will have a GA article at our hands. I know it may sound dreamy, but it certainly isn't impossible, is it? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 16:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No more time for photos, its time for videos and audios. Any ideas? Any views? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Audios and videos? Sorry, I don't get you. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've found an excellent photo to put up under the VFX section. But I'm not sure it is free. Can you please clarify? [4]. If it is, I am going to move the current photo in the VFX section to the post-production section, and put the last image in the webpage given above, in it's place. Cheerio! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an blog. I m sure we can use it. There is no disclaimer and hence no copyright issues will be there. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I've uploaded the new photo. Hope it's good. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome work. Perfect. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think that vandalism on this article has been started officially. An unregistered guy just came up and changed practically the whole look of this article - it didn't even look like an article!!! Seriously, I really wish we get protection for this! I feel it's really really necessary. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Chill dude, one vandalized edit in a day is not a consistent vandalism. We got revert option, don't worry as of now. Any further vandalisms, will report it and get semi protected. Good night -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo problems

Karthik, the photos you uploaded seem to have created a problem. Hope you can fix it. And btw, did you go to the Talk page of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films? I think Scieberg is going to open a Pandora's box full of controversies. I'm getting tired of trying to reason with dumb and lead-headed people such as Mlauba and others. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so i can fix it. I will try because as of mine concern, there is no copyright issues. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Audio problems! I uploaded the Criminal song into WikiMedia, but it's link is not appearing here. Please help me! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 10:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done: Do not use quote marks around song titles. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Kindly avoid personal attacks. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Did I attack you? If I did, I apologize. I didn't mean it; must have been my typing errors. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I meant that about "Mlauba and others". They're just trying to (voluntarily) do their jobs. Thanks again. Scieberking (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Budget in infobox

I agree that using INconvert is sufficient, but that way the infobox is expanding unnaturally. It will be much better if the infobox remained thinner and the two currency-versions of the budget remained in different lines. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 16:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you've browser compatibility issues. I've checked it on Chrome, Firefox and IE and it looks just fine. Scieberking (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I use Chrome :D AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ankit, everything depends on your screen resolution. The problem you facing is same what I face in my office pc, but not in my home. hence don't worry, even i use Chrome D. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ace crickter Rahul Dravid roped in for Ra.One by SRK???

Hi all, i came across a very interesting news that, ace cricketer Rahul Dravid is all set to do a cameo in Ra.One. He will be doing the role of a robot, which will do a fight scene with Rajnikanth's robot character Chitti. Is the source reliable which I will be giving at the end of my post. If reliable, I request registered users to put the news in with the source.

http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricket-articles/After-Rajinikant-Amitabh-Shahrukh-Khan-offers-Dravid-a-role-in-Ra-One/6738 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.44.218 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a reliable source. Also to state that Ra.One post-production work is complete. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw this article and I was just totally shocked! For one thing, I hate cricket an cricketers and consider it to be the world's most over-rated and corrupted sport. Second, hello! Post-production is so delayed that another cameo will force a delay in release, something SRK is intelligent enough not to cause. Also, as Karthik pointed out, the source is unreliable. Hence, no, this bit cannot be added to the article. @Karthik: No, post production is not over. In fact, from the looks of it, the film is far from completion. Just hope no untoward delays happen. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 11:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ankit, Sinha (director) tweeted yesterday, they're almost done....just 2 days to go. The film is all set for release now :D and yeah, those are false news, no way would they be added to the article.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The site is a fanpage, no doubt. It certainly doesn't qualify as an RS. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

@Meryam: Really? That's great news. Especially since there is some negativity regarding the film. Ah, but who cares about that? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (P.S Sorry for the previous typo :D )

Oh, and one other thing. Box Office India stated that Ra.One's "landing cost" will be ₹ 175 crores. Landing cost? What's that? And if there is a reliable source backing this claim, can we put this up as the budget of the film? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The total cost of a product once it has arrived at the buyer's door; means production budget. Also, you're right about the "delay reports. Scieberking (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Scieberg. But what is the Landing cost then? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I just gave the definition of "landing cost" above. Almost same as production budget, which we mention in the film infobox. Scieberking (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Then can we put this up in the infobox? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, since there's no objection about adding it. There's no certainty that an official budget would be announced after the film's release. In addition to that, there's NO Wikipedia policy that disallows well-referenced independent budget figure to be added. Scieberking (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Can't we wait for a report after the film's release? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there's no harm in it. Especially if it is explicitly stated that the budget is estimated. Since multiple sources are quoting the same figure, I guess it could be utilized until the producers officially announce the budget (which they may never do, just so as to hide any future losses and ridicule). AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but there's no need to mention "estimated" either. Even the budget figures on Box Office Mojo, which we use for Wikipedia articles of almost 75% Hollywood films, are mostly based on estimations. Scieberking (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Secret, we can wait for few other sources before or after release. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussions. There have been a plenty of sources already. Scieberking (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Then what are you waiting for??? Go ahead!! -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I'd pointed above the most frequent figure for the production budget of Ra.One is 160 crore, but BOI is often considered an authority here, so we went with that source anyhow. Scieberking (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

From whatever I've seen and heard, the most frequent budget figure is 175 crore. It is being whispered in the trade circles that the actual budget may overshoot even that. At best, conservative estimates put the budget at at least 180 crore, rest depends upon how delayed the post-prod is. But this is technically original research (I got this info from an insider) so I can't put this up. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. 175 crore looks fine. Scieberking (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! I believe somebody just removed the budget from the infobox? Should I put it back or should we wait for consensus? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Have just added it back. If someone deletes something without further discussion, and against consensus, then that's just not right. Scieberking (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

God, there was soooo much vandalizing today. My head hurts from all the edits...This is just NOT right --Meryam90 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I could have got it semi-protected in hours before that, but a request was made on the noticeboard, where most vandalism-related cases, unless they're humanely impossible to revert, are usually rejected. Scieberking (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection

As the film is nearing its release, I can see the page is now getting affected because vandalism's. I have requested page for protection at the request page. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I fully support this idea. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes dears, I also fully support the idea of semi-protection of this page. After all, it is a movie of great happenings, and it needs to have a protected page.

Sthitadebasis (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking something completely unrelated, but I may not be able to devote as much time as I usually can for this srticle, for about a day or two. This is because I am currently nominated for Adminship. I hope you can take some time to put up your views. The site link is [5]. And please be impartial. This isn't a favour. Cheers! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey all the best, hope everything goes well with your request. I'm with you always. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh Ankit that is great!! :D like Karthik said, I'm with you. and Please, This page REALLY needs to be protected.--Meryam90 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya Meryam90, i again saw certain vandalism which was reverted by cluebot. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that edit was fun! Produced by Salman Khan and starring Shahrukh Khan... :D Scieberking (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

that IP user just wont rest and let it go huh?!! My God!! and yeah, who is that "Noor" he keeps adding to the cast?--Meryam90 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, maybe his girlfriend. Scieberking (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

@Scieber LOL Good.One :p and YAY!! finally Semi protected!! Oh Thank God :D --Meryam90 (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Great news! Thanks Karthikndr and Luna Santin. "Good.One", huh? That seems to be the name of my character in Ra.One. :) Scieberking (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No mention, but only protected till November 1. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NO worries. If vandalism persists, I will get it protected for another two weeks. Also, I've got watermarks removed from all Ra.One-related images. Scieberking (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Great job Scieberking, I am not an expert in Adobe Photoshop as you are. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, getting the protection was fantastic. Great job Karthik. And Scieberg, thanks a lot for removing those watermarks. They made the photos a bit of a joke. Regarding the budget, I think we need a very large consensus about putting up the estimate or not. And btw, thanks for your support, I appreciate it. However, I failed. No problem, just gives me more energy to strive on! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Next time you get nominated, you will pass. You will need to work on the things discussed in the oppose sections of your nominations. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was the work of one of my employees - a part-time designer :P Scieberking (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Between, I have created an article on Armaan Verma, check it and do work on it to. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@Karthik: Yeah, I will, soon after I get off my obsession with Ra.One :D. And btw, an article on Armaan Verma????? He's just debuted! It'll be really difficult to get any info on him at all. But nice work all the same. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Budget of 175c

The budget in the infobox i.e 175c, isn't even confirmed by the BOI source. It just says "The landing cost will probably be around the 175 crore plus by the time it is releases everywhere.." To respect the standard of Indian films, I suggest that we refrain from adding the budget and gross the main infobox and restrict it to the BO section. What do you guys think? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Something is better than nothing. Budget according to many source revolves around ₹180 crore (US$22 million), so i don't think so its wrong to display as ₹175 crore (US$21 million) as of till now. And Landing cost means "total cost of production till the time it is distributed" for your knowledge. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please read WP:CRYSTAL. All the figures are speculated and remember the Enthiran dispute, in which both budget and gross were moved from the infobox. It would be improper if we did not follow the same policy here. I know the landing cost definition, but I had highlighted the word "probably" to bring the unconfirmed figure into notice, in case you missed it. User:Scieberking posted an authentic source from Zee News earlier stating 160c and that was not a rumour or any sort of speculation (acc to the source). And what do you mean by saying "Something is better than nothing"? Did you mean to express that you would insert anything into the article rather than putting well sourced info complying with wp's standards? Think like a wikipedian dude!!! Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 17:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source, we will update. You will to read all previous discussions about budget too. We have to adjust with the resources available friend. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why so serious? :) abt the budget that is...I understand the need to have 100% accurate news...but if U'd check 80% of films that have budget up on their infobox, they all state sources that use words such as: "estimated', probably. I notice this a lot actually. So let's chill abt it, film is only 7 days away, I m very sure there will be an official release regarding numbers since the budget itself has become such a talked abt subject amongst trade and the public...

I'd say, let us keep it the way it is...we'll get back to it once the film releases. One week isn't a very long time :D --Meryam90 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right Meryam90, that's what I am saying from many days, just wait and watch! -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New photo added

Just in case anybody questions the source, it's from a blog. Here is the link:- [6]. Please scrutinize at will, and tell me if any problems persist. Regards AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kolkata premiere

Why is there no mention of the premiere in Kolkata, when it was undoubtedly one of the most important ones in India? [7] Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 12:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah what? Premier? there is and was NO premier in Kolkata...There was only a city tour--Meryam90 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A premiere with "e", which it was not. Scieberking (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sry about that. Fixed it now and why cannot it be mentioned in the article when it was a promotional event? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Big updates

Okay guys, lots of record-breaking news for Ra.One hitting the net. For one, the 3,500 screens figure changes from worldwide to all India now. I saw this in Box Office India, and they are not wrong about release volume ever. Even then, I will find some more sources to back this up. Second, Ra.One will have 95% of all shows where it is being screened, beating Bodyguard and 3 Idiots by wide margins. Now it's time to start cracking! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's great and really exciting, Ankit. Let's hope Ra.One rakes in at least 300+ crore to snap up blockbuster status. Scieberking (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Scieber, 300+ NET? because if u're talking about a NET gross...that would snap it an ATBB status...--Meryam90 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ATBB? Are you serious? It will be considered super-hit, considering the ENORMOUS scale of the film and it's publiscity. Anything more than 350 crore should get it BB status. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But there are really big problems considering the volume of release internationally. No two sites seem to agree on a single number. Some say 1000, some say 2000, others say 500 or 600. What do I do now???? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope Meryam, I really hope Ra.One makes at least 300+ crore, considering the recent all-time blockbusters' scenario (only those declared by BOI):

• 3 Idiots - production budget 35 crore, worldwide gross 358 crore, 2126 screens worldwide (nearly 10x)
• Dabangg - production budget 42 crore, worldwide gross 213 crore, 1600 screens worldwide (nearly 5x)

Scieberking (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Ankit- Take the maximum (and most reliable, ideally TOI, IBN, HT) value buddy ;) I guess 300+ crore would be sufficient for blockbuster status. Scieberking (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Guys, you all are becoming almost astrologers. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Scieber Nahta, Ankit Adarsh and Meryam Kazmi... LOL Scieberking (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of my mom. She's really into astrology. And by Adarsh you mean Taran right? Thought he was a trade analyst? Or do trade analyst and astrologer mean the same thing? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup! Trade analyst and astrologer mean the same thing, they are always wrong. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah (twistings of Komal Nahta, Taran Adarsh and Nikhat Kazmi). Both do predictions and analysis. Sometimes dishonest, though... :P Scieberking (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

They aren't always wrong. At least, I think so. But I actually don't follow these guys much, so I'm no expert. And anyways, no astrologer can say that Ra.One will flop. By the looks of it (provided post-prod gets completed on time) we shoul have a BB at our hands. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL U guys...Production is DONE, Sinha just tweeted, film will be ready for Diwali :D --Meryam90 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great: 1. Indian media was making up stories so as to portray they won't be able to release 3D on this diwali... Scieberking (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the actual number of screens, this Kamal Jain interview is very important:

We are doing it in more than 3000 screens in India and more than 500 screens overseas. So, it is somewhere between 3500-4000 screens worldwide release for the film

Scieberking (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't seen this:- [8]. Now that's called a record release! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! What's more important, this one is the latest report so far. Scieberking (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

HC Dispute

In all fairness, I think this court order deserves a mention somewhere, just like what we did with Chetan-Aamir and Anu-Pritam controversies in 3 Idiots and Ready respectively. What do you guys think? Scieberking (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Random Access one

Random Access one should be mentioned [9]. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, are you sure that Random Access 1 refers to the movie also, and not just Rampal's character? If you are convinced, then go ahead and put the full name back :) Lynch7 13:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Random Access 1 refers to movie and not Rampal's character, hence added up again. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One ==> Random Access one IS Rampal's character!! that is a fact, but since the movie is named after Rampal's character, it can be put as an explication to WHY the movie is named as so..--Meryam90 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer we not mess up the opening sentence or the lead with these small trivial tidbits :P Lets decide on something and keep it squeaky clean. Lynch7 14:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to keep it, that's an good info acc to me. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Random Access is needed - SRK himself has stated the full form in many interviews. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Advance ticket sales section

It's really NOT needed here...I took it out, because it more like promotion more than anything really, I feel like U guys are adding EVERY SINGLE thing U find!! Let's not forget there will be a LOT to add after release...So try to keep it light for now, plus let's not add every rumor, even tho it may be written by a RELIABLE SOURCE" we know how Indian press is, more like copy + past...and they're not the most honest...confirmation is a beautiful thing :) --Meryam90 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm alright with no separate section, but I certainly think that at least three days later it MUST be put up. Because then there will be a TON of news, and we will not be able to keep up with adding info to this article. I made the section keeping in mind what our future work on this article may lead to (a lot of painstaking work, believe me). Maybe as of now, we can keep it out, but I vouch for it being brought back again after much info has been gleaned. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Even i don't think advance bookings will be necessary unless it sounds promotional. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems that Ra.One advance booking has nearly been booked up in the limited places it has opened. Guess we have a BB even before release :D. However, what worries me is the fact that there is a TON of negativity surrounding the film. I'm getting insecurities about the film bombing. I hope nothing of that sort ever happens. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, Ankit. The film is going to smash all records, at least in the overseas markets, and hopefully in Indian territory also. Scieberking (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone seen Kamal Nahta's tweet abt Ra.One!!! amazing! And negativity surrounding the film?!! I practically LIVE on this movie...I an guarantee U. Fear NOT :D added info abt toys and social game from here: [1] if any of U find some good info I've missed, please add.--Meryam90 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Film length

I just saw the PVR website, and they have put the length of the film at 160 minutes. I'm going to put this figure up now. In case there are any objections, please comment here first to arrive at consensus. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been reported that the length of the 2D version will be 160 minutes, while the 3D version will be 90 minutes. Source: Daily Bhaskar. Scieberking (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think that sounds good enough, you'll just need to place this code in the infobox:

| runtime = 160 minutes <small>(2D)</small><br>90 minutes <small>(3D)</small>

Scieberking (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a veritable mania here for tickets!!!!! Some thatres started bookings in 6 AM, at 2 PM they are ALL FULL. Can't believe it! I may not be able to see first day :( :'(. Most unhappy! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 11:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So you gonna watch the spicy 2D version with full masala, LOL. Scieberking (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

But the theatre people are saying that the 3D version of Ra.One is the same length. There are no cuts. And the theatre timings also suggest that the 3D version is the same length as the 2D version. I think we need to wait until release till we can put up the length of the film. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest update: for an hour we had power cut. Before that, 26 Oct and half of 27 Oct were full. After power cut, 26 Oct to 30 Oct ALL FULL!!! Is it just me, or am I actually experiencing the biggest tsunami ever? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:RaOneCriminal.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RaOneCriminal.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Censor ratings

I think that a major change is necessary. While in the news it was given that Ra.One got a U, in all the theatre bookings the rating is U/A. I can't find any reference explicitly stating that Ra.One has U/A, but it's there for all to see. Can somebody please cross-verify? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We will go with the source. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fun cinemas Give it U [ 1 ] PVR cinemas [ 2 ] and all other sites for bookings give it U rating :) --Meryam90 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but BookMyShow is giving U/A. Perhaps that's unreliable. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

BookMyShow is unreliable indeed, the ones I posted are the official sites for some of the biggest multiplexes...So, the rating is U..I don't know why that site is giving the false info tho --Meryam90 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sequel

In my opinion, it is too premature to have a section called "sequel" due to three reasons: 1) The film hasn't even released yet and we don't even know what the reaction to the film will be. 2) According to the source provided, Khan says that "it is presumptuous to start on it already. But if we can pull off this film and the character (G.One) to the extent that we hope for, then we want to do it again." 3) Please look at WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 00:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A source Gulf News says that even Sinha has confirmed of sequel, see here. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

5000 screens

Seems to be the final number of screens worldwide. 3500 in India and 1500 overseas. Scieberking (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we'll stick with that as of now (unless SRK further expands in the overseas market later on). By the way, 5,000 screens is supposed to be a record for any Indian film. Shouldn't we add this bit to the article, as it's a notable achievement of the film among it's many others. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 08:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you Ankit. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, should be added. I guess that's the widest release ever for any Indian movie. Scieberking (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

London premiere

Phew! Been really busy giving a complete make-over to my previously-lousy Userpage. It's in a somewhat better shape than before, but definitely needs sprucing up a bit. The other matter gripping me, the London premiere of Ra.One. I have found only ONE site that is giving live updates on this premiere (which, by the way, seems to be an srk-kareena affair all the way, added with loads of chammak challo). Is this premiere low-key? I thought this was to be the biggest of all the premieres. If anyone can keep updating me with more London info, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks in advance! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so we need detailed info on premiere's. Then it will be like a news article and also article will become then too confusing. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

May the Divine Light of Diwali Spread into Ur Life Peace, Prosperity, Happiness and Good Health. Wishing you a very happy, safe and eco-friendly Diwali!

Will look forward to watch the film and add a plot section with your help. At the same times friends, we all have to put our shoes to update info's about the film reviews and box office. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Same to you. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and wish you the same. Regarding reviews and box office, I'm at it day and night. Especially since it's a holiday today. Reviews are pretty good, save one or two naysayers. Looking forward to watch the film tomorrow. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 06:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Production Budget Redux

• SRK kinda confirmed 150 crore as the actual figure: "One has to realise it is a special dream film and a mix of all genres together. I did not make a Rs. 150 crore film just like that. It’s an emotional experience." Hindustan Times

• According to Kamal Jain, Group CFO of Eros International Media, the ambitious project of Ra-One was completed with a budget of Rs. 150- 175 crore. NDTV

Scieberking (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So should we change the budget then? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 06:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we use ₹150- 175 crore. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

Please change the statement -"Upon release, Ra.One received generally negative reviews from critics." to "Upon release, Ra.One received generally positive reviews from critics."

AswinRavindran3 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Most unfortunately, an audacious and biased vandal is trying his best to downgrade the film and call it negatively reviewed. I apologize for any wrong impressions. The change has been performed by another editor, and rest assured, action will be taken agains the erring editor. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 11:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

already done. Ankitbhatt, please change next time the template to answered. Thanks. mabdul 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:SRK Arjun Ra One.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SRK Arjun Ra One.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception and box office

Let's straighten out the rules so that no disputes, edit wars and conflicts could arise in the days to come.

• We'll only use notable reviews from reputed newspapers and magazines (preferably those that already have Wikipedia entries). That means no IndiaGlitz, no BehindWoods and no ratings from ReviewGang (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and IMDb ratings should be used instead).
• For daily, weekendly and weekly box office figures, we'll use BoxOfficeIndia.com.

Please put forward your views on this. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

From Behindwoods, and IndiaGlitz, we would get info's on Tamil and Telugu release. Other than that, agree with your thoughts. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the BO source, NO Taran...I strongly believe he is unreliable --Meryam90 (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Meryam - Maybe your opinion will change if he declares Ra.One an ATBB. Just kidding, nothing serious. Scieberking (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL U mean like he ALWAYS does with the Khans' films? :p Naaah, I'd still be against his judgment--Meryam90 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC) :)

Negative critical reviews should not get deleted as they were twice by Ashermadan, the last one here. Deleting only the bad news is a violation of WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't Hyderabadi portal fullhyd.com's reviews rarely mentioned in wikipedia entries? 117.195.153.174 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC) hyderabadi

Word of Mouth

Hey, it seems Ra.One gets thumbs up in Delhi, Mumbai. Seems WOM is pretty good for this movie. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 09:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bodyguard record out of reach for Ra.one on boxofficeindia.com http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3605&nCat= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.233.204 (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

hehe I THINK NOT ==> http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3604&nCat= & http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3602&nCat=

--Meryam90 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It was never meant to cross Bodyguard. Not with Diwali Pujas and all. I was just talking about WOM. And BTW, why is the talk page now saying Ra.One (flop)??? Perhaps our biased salman-lover gurucoolguy is up to his mischief again! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 05:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocking the user

I vehemently put my foot down regarding this one matter. I strongly feel that GuruCoolguy is a vandal of an extreme nature, who is trying to use a legitimate Wikipedia account to falsify facts. he is clearly an srk-hater, and severely hell-bent on calling the film negatively reviewed. He has even gone to the length of slapping charges against us, and putting this matter in the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Before any harm is done, I demand this editor to be blocked from editing this article. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 11:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want that this your gets blocked, please explain the full situation at WP:ANI. mabdul 13:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The user Undertakeranshu, who was responsible for the move of this article to Ra.One (flop), has been indefinitely blocked from editing in Wikipedia. This is in light of his use of sockpuppeting, extreme bias, repeated vandalism and a history of bad conduct. In addition, he blanked my talk page and replaced it with obscenities, as a "revenge" for me nominating him for blocking. This is a warning to User:Guru coolguy, or for that matter, anybody who is thinking of vandalising Wikipedia for your own selfish needs. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 06:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Honest review

This is a honest review from Hollywood - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ra-one-review-shah-rukh-khan-253499 Another honest review from Tamil Nadu - http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-reviews/reviews-2/oct-11-04/ra-one-review.html

Another epic review from a Rajini fan - http://behindwoods.com/features/visitors-1/oct-11-04/ra-one-shah-rukh-khan-27-10-11.html

Please update the plot section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.60.53 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

70 crore first weekend declared by Eros - http://www.indiainfoline.com/Markets/News/Ra.One-breaks-all-box-office-records-for-any-Hindi-film-till-date/5277192228 -

Saw the movie

First, my personal opinion of the film : MIND-BLOWING!! I mean, I was just wowed! Dizzyingly beautiful, fantastic performances and just out-of-this world special effects. However, direction could have been a little better, and plot a little snazzier. But overall, I'd give it 4/5. MUST WATCH.

Since I have seen the movie, I'm going to upload the plot. Cheers! And please, if you wanna enjoy an experience on screen, don't see the plot. You'll be blown away! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't liked the story. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cast could be mentioned in the brackets. See 1 and 2. Both are featured articles. Scieberking (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The story was meant for kids to understand. One can clearly see the video game concept was simplified so that the mass centres could understand better. For the city people, the major attraction will be the stars and the VFX. For masses, it'll be the stars and the romance. Songs common in both cases. Anyways, story was just alright. But one doesn't exactly have the time to fell the story na? Its paced to be like Raftaarein - like a train :D. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done: Scieberking regarding casts. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reports suggest it will have a record second day: Ra.One Creates History In East Punjab On Day Two. Scieberking (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone write out the full plot please, including the ending. Let it not be a teaser. Lynch7 08:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do so as soon as I can. A little busy in real life. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

FAILED TO BEAT BODYGUARD

it has failed to be bodyguards first day collections, so it would be really helpful if u add this cuz ppl were hyped to see who will win at the BO, so its obviously bodyguard, this movie flopped, you should see the audience reaction, plz add this, cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.243.182 (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The film failed to beat Bodyguard because of Diwali festivities, which affected afternoon and evening shows. And as for public reactions, they are generally positive, with some mixed and negative reactions as well. It certainly isn't comparable to 3 Idiots, but is far better than Bodyguard. And you talk like as if you want Ra.One to flop. Wait. The film's BO status will be declared after two weeks. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 09:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did Meryam90 remove the bit from Times of India which said that Ra.One failed to beat Bodyguard in first day receipts? The edit summary was unconvincing: "thi article is abt RA.ONE, not bodyguard, we're not the press to compare, we state facts". The Times of India is the press and they did compare. The article is about Ra.One and its impact, so comparisons are normal fare. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove it and I stand by it, because wiki is about stating facts. Wut rule says we should state if a film's numbers have beaten an other? many trade analyst even share the view that the comparisons are unfair and unneeded esp for this article. ==> http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/shah-rukh-khan-s-ra-one-vs-salman-khan-s-bodyguard-resting-the-debate/

The press are doing the comparison because of the famous so called fight between the two khans...which does not concern us here at wiki. I believe. --Meryam90 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A simple fact is that the first day receipts of Ra.One were less than Bodyguard. The comparison was stated in a big newspaper. Your notional analysts who share your view are apparently not working for the Times of India. The rest of the world compares things, and this article compares things. The only reason I see for removing the bit is WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it was not positive for Ra.One. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Times of India isn't the "HOLY" source of news in India...I'd take a word of a trade analyst over that pf a "simple journalist" --Meryam90 (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And yet Times of India is a reliable source we can use. The financial fact they published is verifiable. The comparison is notable. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The financial fact they published is verifiable? Do U know they have published a story in their FIRST page saying that Ra.One broke bodyguard first day record, which led Eros to release a statement stating the actual figures...reliable?! laughable is more like it! Check for urself: http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/eros-clears-air-over-factually-incorrect-ra-one-box-office-report/ --Meryam90 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 29 October 2011

Please change 37.43 crore to 62.50 http://profit.ndtv.com/news/show/ra-one-collects-rs-62-50-crore-in-opening-two-days-184919(reliable source) Prinshapv (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Prinshapv (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)  Done. Lynch7 04:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 30 October 2011

Sureshvk (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC) i would like to add few more lines to the plot, as i have seen the movie.

Write it here, below this, and one of us will add it. Lynch7 06:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I Will be happier person, if any of one do contribute to the plot. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 30 October 2011

Please change 57 crore to 63.5 crore..and include international collections yet to be confirmed.http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2011/ra-one-first-day-collection-box-office-report-271011.html Prinshapv (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Prinshapv (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done: As of consensus reached if you see our earlier discussion, we have only decided to use Boxofficeindia.com for box office infos. However, if Eros International release a press statement about collection's, sources like The Times of India, Hindustan Times, CNN-IBN, kinda sites may do. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The four day total has been seen to be 75 crores net. Also above you have spoken about a press statement from eros. In that case, search the net. They have made a statement regarding the opening day figures in India to be 18.5 crores net. 25asheshsharma1989 (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The PLOT

It's half finished...either someone update the full thing or let us remove it for now, because it's so confusing when only half the film is written!!! --Meryam90 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya someone needs to correct this plot, i think it is do descriptive and the section is not even finished. Meatsgains (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception section

I've made a few comments on the WP:DRN board, but I've also looked at the current Critical Reception section in this article. Honestly folks, it's a mess. You've got too many review quotes in there and it's a nightmare to read. We're not a marketing site for the film, so we don't need quotes from EVERY reviewer. Focus on the summary of the critical reception. List the review aggregate sites and their ratings. I'm not saying gut the section, asGo through the reviews and spot the common elements in them and reduce them to a single mention at most. Try to look for especially insightful quotes - if it's just typical critic stuff, it doesn't need to be on WP. We summarize information to make it easier for people to get an overview of the subject. ReviewGang is probably going to have every review current linked in our article, so using that as a ref will point users to them indirectly. At a minimum, please put some paragraphs in that section!

I looked at WP:FILM and there's a film article currently going through FA review that might be helpful for editors here to look at. Atlantis: The Lost Empire#Reception, and the link will go to the reception section. Might be helpful, might not, but it's an article that's considered very good and going for the Featured Article level, so as an example it's great. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed neutrality tag as there's clear consensus to keep "mixed to positive". Scieberking (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm gona go forward with "mixed reviews", with not "positive to mixed", nor "negative to mixed". As I got two sources stating the same. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The tag should remain while the dispute is listed at the dispute resolution board. If there is indeed a consensus now, ask an admin to close the discussion on the dispute resolution board and then remove the tag after the discussion has been formally closed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We need not look at sources explaining what the reaction was. We have reviews in front of us, and most of the are positive (and now another one was added). Rotten Tomatoes says 86%, there must be a limit to this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do look at sources explaining what the reaction is. That's what Wikipedia does. Look at WP:SYNTH, which is what you're trying to advocate. As for Rotten Tomatoes, two problems there. One, RT itself says "No consensus yet" which you didn't note. Please don't ignore something like that trying to prove your case. Two, please read through the MOS for films, specifically the reception section. For foreign films, reviews from the country of origin are strongly preferred. RT's rating is based on US reviews, so it's not very helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Karthikndr and Ravensfire here. Scieberking (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw something out there, it might be viable to add a subsection under critical review for the american critical review. If we're getting enough of them, and especially if there are some Indian reviewers comparing to Hollywood films, it could be a useful section. Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this, moving the overseas reviews after the positive and negative local reviews. Gonna see about tweaking the review details a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 31 October 2011

The total earning of Ra-one is not 170 crores...it's showing wrong data..

Sunildhindwal (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: 170 crores gross was revealed by producer after a press meeting. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 31 October 2011

Please add this important review:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-30/bollywood-s-khan-stumbles-as-superhero-in-india-s-costliest-movie-review.html and http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=37681

First is very famous and second is famous nepal newspaper

175.110.233.204 (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Sorry, I am unclear as to what you would like me to change, can you please clarify this for me? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

add this two reviews to critical reception section where all are. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P. and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MyRepublica are famous

How should this be worded in the article? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

in the end of this section (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ra.One#Overseas_reception) plz add:

Pratish Narayanan of Bloomberg L.P. gave the film 1 star and said "While no one was expecting “The Dark Knight” from this film’s makers, they could potentially have matched the entertaining and goofy “Hellboy.” Sadly, Khan and director Anubhav Sinha fail to understand the idiom of superhero cinema." Avash Karmacharya of MyRepublica also panned it and commented "The movie falters badly with its plots, subplots and execution. The biggest problem of the movie, however, is the lack of a solid storyline." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.233.20 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 November 2011‎

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The protection has since expired, so feel free to make the edit. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

i cannot it is protected plz add.

will do, wait for few minutes. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Gross

http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/Eros-International-Ra-One-accordfintech-3504577130.html?x=0

box office collection now is 221 cr.

Revenue earned in InfObox must me Nett amount or gross amount? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, budget and gross shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox, as per past consensus on the Enthiran talk page. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 09:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But in Bollywood, gross are more readily available today compared to other film industry within our country. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because it is readily available from a source doesn't mean that there will be no contradicting source. But I must say that its time they were removed and moved to box office section. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 10:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Waiting for opinion from other's. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

NOPE, all BW films have the Budget & gross up on infobox, Ra.1 wont be any different...it should remain there :D --Meryam90 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its worth discussing this issue anymore. Better to get more opinions here. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the whole reason why chose not to include box office and budget figures in the infobox for Enthiran was because there are absolutely no reliable sources for such information pertaining to Tamil cinema or any other south Indian film industry. That led to the deletion of the related "highest-grossing films" articles as well. However the consensus was to keep the list of highest-grossing Bollywood films because we decided that Bollywood box office details could be taken from a few reliable sources. Ra.One is a Bollywood film and if its box office details are reported in that source we've been using for other Bollywood films, then they can most definitely be included in the infobox. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Release date

There were a couple of recent reverts aroudn the release date. Please take a look at WP:FILMRELEASE. Here, I think the infobox should only have the release date in the producing country. Given the exposure of the film and the comparisons to Hollywood, including the worldwide release date in the article text makes a great deal of sense. Beyond that it's just trivia. We link to IMDB so readers can get details like that. Ravensfire (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh - probably should have looked a bit deeper. The film was released in UAE first? Whoa ... So, from FILMRELEASE, "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." I just assumed the film was initially released in India. Bad Ravensfire. Bad! So there should be two dates in the info box: 10/24 noting the release in the United Arab Emirates; 10/26 noting the release in India. The article text should still mention the world-wide release on 10/26. Beyond that, it's up to the editors here as to what is notable. If the consensus here is that a particular premiere is notable, include it. Very possible here as it seems the multiple premiere's were chosen specifically for international exposure.

See The Hurt Locker for an example of how this looks. It's a bit odd, but (to me at least) so's the premiere in the UAE. I'm going to go ahead and make the update. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to as earlier it was, same to Avatar (2009 film). -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

agree with Karthik, the previous one looked better...let us keep it as according to Avatar (2009 film)--Meryam90 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Was trying to head off a possible edit-war and point out that more than one release date is acceptable. I think three is a bit much, but what ever works. Ravensfire (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo

Guys you wouldn't believe what BOM has said about Ra.One. Check it out! [10]. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 06:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Again Sequel section

We don't need any info about sequel as of now, coz it;s only Hindustan Times mentioning it. And not official though they claim it to be. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Crunching the numbers

Editors, your attention please. I sense a huge problem regarding not only this article, but all the articles involving the Indian Rupee. The BO numbers for Ra.One, coming from various highly reliable sources, are beginning to make my head spin.

Now, according to the present template INRConverst, I did a calculation and found out that the conversion factor used is:

US$1 = ₹44.7

First things first. This is grossly outdated and totally false. The Rupee has never been this strong against the dollar in the last one year. Second, this conversion factor is leading to totally crazy BO numbers.

By BOM, Ra.One earned 33.4 million overseas (which means including India, excluding US). From BOI, Ra.One earned 1.65 million in US. That takes the world total to 35.05 million. Now, using the present conversion factor, we get:-

Ra.One gross = ₹157 crore

This figure is severely different from the Eros figure of 170 crore. Now, my solution to this will be as follows. I belive a chnage of conversion factor is required - from 44.7 Rs to 49 Rs, which is roughly the present conversion rate. Now, utilising this conversion rate, we get

Ra.One gross = 172 crore

which is in excellent agreement with the Eros report. Also, all the other bits will automatically make sense. For example, BOM reported that Ra.One grossed 28.3 million in India. Converting using 49 Rs :-

Ra.One India gross = 138 crore

which is in good agreement with Eros report of 133 crore. Also, the overseas bit will come as:-

Ra.One overseas gross = 34 crore

again in fantastic agreement with Eros report of 33 crore. Please note, all figures are GROSS, not NET. Hence, BOI net numbers will obviously not tally with the BOM numbers, as the latter is gross BO collections. Hence, I strongly suggest the INRConvert template to make a change in the conversion factor. Thank you all for bearing with my lengthy monologue. Hope you see the light soon. Cheers! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 07:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I m confused, and anyways welcome back to the article. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the place to discuss this: Template:INRConvert and Template talk:INRConvert. A note on the page says: "The actual Rupee-Dollar exchange rate is manually copied each week by a Wikipedia editor from the U.S. Federal Reserve reported data and posted into this template." Good luck to you. BollyJeff || talk 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Conversion rate updated to October 28, 2011 value. Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot

There's some good news and some bad news. Good news : I'm back to writing out the plot. Bad news : It's SO LONG. And I haven't even reached interval time!! Can someone help me edit this plot section? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Will help you out. Grant me some time. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

haven't even reached interval time?!!

Phew guys, at this rate, the Plot section will need an article on its own lol, seriously, it's huge!!

Btw, I think we should work on the cast section as well, the details of every character...will start--Meryam90 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, the plot is TOO BIG :(. Can't help it. I just can't seem to summarize. And believe me, there is LOADS more. That's why I'll need help trimming it down. LOL, at this rate we could become actual film editors! And yeah, Meryam, get started on the plot part. Let's kick some fat ass (of the Hollywood film articles). AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would love to help, but I haven't made the time to actually see the movie :P Lynch7 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking

Hey friends, I guess we must also request Scieberking to consider working for this article. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Improvise

Lucifer is a moniker. Barron Industries is a game publisher. Akashi and Pi-by-2 are avatars of Ra.One. The main weapons of Ra.One and G.One (at all levels) is the fireball.

Please improvise the article context/vocabulary accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.56.244 (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, its an electric ball, not a fireball. Second, so many unnecessary details will only add to the length of an already huge plot section. I'm working the plot out in my sandbox, so once it's ready I'll put it up for scrutiny. In case your points do not appear in it, please bear with it as it is really tough to bring a 2500 word plot into 700 words. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What no plot

The article just goes on and on about how much money was spent in the film, the production the reception, the actors, but there is no plot or what the movie is about, generally when searching for a film in wikipedia, is because you wanna know what said film is about, not just if its the most expensive movie ever. 189.143.244.158 (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The first show of the movie should be over by now, so let's just wait for a good samaritan to run home and type out the plot. Lynch7 06:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The plot won't appear by magic. You have to wait. After all, Ra.One has barely released. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 07:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The plot section is a little vague (description of Lucifer in the first few lines doesn't explain who he is - the programmers son) and it stops half way through the film! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.25.18 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:RA One VFX before after.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RA One VFX before after.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

however sometimes this can be proved wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.235.7 (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

New section

Ive made a new section entitled "Analysis", in line with all the really good film articles like Avatar and My Name Is Khan. The section has just begun, so I request everyone to PLEASE PLEASE NOT DELETE IT< and I will provide more than ample references to be used in this section. In case any of the facts mentioned in the section have references in the article already, I would appreciate it if you could help me dig them out. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it in MNIK, and quit frankly, I don't think It's needed...I mean, for Mnik I would understand, many peeps don't cosider it a HIT...but Ra.One is a clear HIT according to BOI so, why the need to that one? I think we should put it up for vote.

Personally, I disagree to the need of such section...

Umm, firstly, whoever you are, please sign yourself in the end with the four tildes. I am too lazy right now to see the History, as I just came back from a horrible exam :( . Second, excuse me but did you say CLEAR CONSENSUS? You must be ill-informed. While BOI and some other websites have classified it as a hit because of its collections, some have called it below average or outright flop as some distributors will inevitably lose money. That's the reason I made the section - to balance out all viewpoints and put enough info to make sure. Third, even AVATAR has a commercial analysis section. Being the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide, would you say that was unnecessary? No. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 November 2011

http://cinema.currentweek.net/2011/11/raone-first-week-collections-220-crore.html

Srkwiki (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I believe this is in reference to the request immediately below. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 November 2011

The Box office collection of the page "RA.One" is not correct.http://cinema.currentweek.net/2011/11/raone-first-week-collections-220-crore.html. It will be 170 crore(five days world wide gross.)Some people are trying to make it wrong!

Bose.soumya1 (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The INfobox is currently showing 192 crore (US$38.94 million)(9 day worldwide gross) --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One budget

Is Ra.One really less expensive than Enthiran? The sentence that states this in the article's intro does not have a source that explicitly states the same. For the record, Enthiran 's budget was reported to be ₹132 while the article says Ra.One 's budget is ₹135, making Enthiran actually less expensive than Ra.One. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Indian film budgets is that before release, they float around in hugely overestimated rumors and after release keep coming down. I remember that certain newspapers claimed that Enthiran cost 200 crore to make! I was stunned. The budget will be difficult to get hold of. The only thing we can say with absolute certainty is that it is Bollywood's most expensive film. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Why is there a neutrality tag on this article? Is some editor again taking issue with the declaration of Ra.One as hit, and wants to prove otherwise? I am sick and tired of dealing with such editors. I want to remove the tag, but some ill-meaning editors will take me to Wikiquette or something else if I do so, so it's best I leave it here. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Meryam90 and I have both left brief messages on the tagging editor's talk page asking them about the tag and directing them to start a discussion here about their concerns. If there's nothing in a couple of days, pull the tag. Tags like that, especially at the article level, need discussion to stay around. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The same editor also did a drive-by tagging on another article today, so I'm holding both to this criteria. They are an infrequent editor, so I would just ignore the day and in two days if there's no response, pull it. Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit

Just allow me a few minutes. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for GA

I went through the article and hereby would like to suggest that it should be nominated for GA. If any problems or issues are there please resolve it. I see that the checklist for B-class has one cross. Please see where the problem exist, else whole article checks out fine. See GA criteria. ASHU^IND 06:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can who has majorly contributed to the article can nominate it for a GA. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 06:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it really good enough to get a GA? I think it'll be more realistic if we first aim at getting the B, and then the GA. However, I'm very happy to hear that editors are considering this article worthy of getting a GA classification. There are some things to be ironed out, and once those are done we will get started. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 07:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll list it for Peer Review now, and hopeully a helpful editor will come and review it soon (the backlog is large). Lynch7 08:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. I had asked Erik (from WP Films) to peer review it, but he was ill so I don't think he saw my request :(. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping WP:FILM would have a distinct list of GA criteria they tend to use, but it's really just WP:MOSFILM and the usual GA stuff. I glanced at some of the recent GA film articles and this is looking fairly decent. The reference list is huge, but unless there are some sources that have the same information there isn't much that can be done there. A concern is that the ref list will be growing a lot as the awards season hits.

Something that could be interesting to add for GA would be a section in Critical Reviews after Overseas focusing on the comparisons made by the reviewers to Hollywood effects movies. Many of the overseas reviews I read at least touched on that. There's some of that already in the section, but pulling it into a single section would highlight something that seems to have been a focus for the film. If there's anything from the director or producer about going for this the section would be even stronger. Ravensfire (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if Krrish can be called a GA, I see no reason why Ra.One can not..--Meryam90 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait guys. I haven't done the Analysis section yet. I really want it to match the one in Avatar. At least partly. And I will be putting all comparisons, public reactions, expectations and everything necessary to really complete this article in a nice rounded manner. But the problem is that I'm feeling so lazy :D. Better get to work. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's amazing, I just read all this news now. Hey Ankit, regarding Analysis section, original research tag is looking so ugly. I got a source today and will be working on it from tomorrow. Finally we reaching our goal, me happy. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's great :). AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, when i suggested for nomination article got a biased tag, and I would like to ask, what the hell is this Analysis section?? As for Ankit article is already assessed and passed as a B-class article. ASHU^IND 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what? Sorry, but I totally didn't get you. It isn't B-class by WP:Film yet. And you will found out what the hell the analysis section is after I finish it :D . Cheerio! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is way too early to talk about GA now. Let the full impact of the release gel for several months, all disputes be resolved, and let the number of edits per day die down to a trickle. The article has to be stable as part of GA requirements. BollyJeff || talk 15:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One article is way too good not to get a GA status right now. :D. Really, we need more Indian film GAs. There are so few, and even fewer FAs. But yes, stability may be an issue. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Phew! Finished a really big block of editing over the lead section. It actually looks better than the Avatar lead! I've modeled it on the Scream article, which is also a GA. However, I have a big grievance - the infobox is so FAT. I am going to change the figures used in the infobox from INRConvert to Indian Rupee. Please try and understand - the lead is looking bigger than it actually is because the infobox is taking up valuable space. I will put the $ figure in the next line. Please, for the sake of the upcoming peer review, let's try to keep everything as perfect as possible. Let's co-operate and make this one smashing article. Cheers! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Work! Regards and Cheers! -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

With the addition of Subhash K Jha's review, all the notable reviews for the film have been placed in the article. I have made calculations and found the breakup as:-

Positive - 17

Negative - 13

This gives the Indian critical reception at 57% (mixed). I have put the figure in the article. I happened to talk to an editor who had worked on several film articles, and stated that since this figure is calculated based on perfectly reliable sources, it does not qualify as original research. If any grievances are felt, please discuss the issue here. Thank you. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I tagged (but have now reverted) that addition before reading this, but I still think it should not be here. It is original thought or opinion even to say "all the notable reviews for the film have been placed in the article". There are plenty of sourced statements and figures already here about reviews being mixed (maybe even too many), so there is no need for an unsourced statement that cannot be understood without going to the talk page, which most readers will not do. BollyJeff || talk 20:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

Update its boxoffice segment . 49.249.165.90 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --NYKevin @878, i.e. 20:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

Please add these two sentences at the end of the section "Critical reception"

General public's opinion of the movie was also mixed. While some felt the movie was "Disappointing" and a "waste of time", others felt it was a "visual treat" and a "good Diwali gift". Pulseofbollywood (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pulse of bollywood is not a reliable source. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

221 crore

The gross of the film is 221 crore. I am going to change it. Please do not change it back to 192 crore. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the previous consensus in mind, only an official PR from Eros or a worldwide gross figure from BOI must be cited. Scieberking (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

box office collection - 221 cr

http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/Eros-International-Ra-One-accordfintech-3504577130.html?x=0 Aanuragsharma (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

At least by my eyes, it is certainly Not done:. I don't know why, but Scieberg is not taking Yahoo! Finance as a reliable ref, which is pretty strange as Yahoo! is a reliable source. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I've already stated on your talk page: The above link is a press release by Accord Fintech Private Limited, an information company based in Mumbai, India, and not by Eros, or even anything official. It was distributed by Contify.com, a content aggregation website, and syndicated by Yahoo! Finance. Official releases could be found here or anything from BOI will do. Thanks again. Scieberking (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Any individual, or a company like Accord Fintech, can get their press release featured on Yahoo! Finance via third party agents like PRWeb and PRNewswire, or by using other methods. That's how it works. Scieberking (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But if it is reliable enough to be published in a site like yahoo, it is worth it, isn't it? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not something by Yahoo! staff and with no editorial oversight. Scieberking (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

GAN

I think we have made quite a hell of an article over here. In view of that, I suggest nominating this page for a GA review, and I sincerely hope that it passes with flying colors. Any further discussions will be done in the GA nomination page. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you don't have to say something like "just giving you the news", but great news nonetheless. You're not spamming my talk page, buddy ;) You're always welcome. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Critical response

Why is all the website names italicized in this section, like Bollywood Hungama, Rediff.com, Sify etc? We have to italicize only the newspaper names and magazine names. I changed the font once but User:Karthikndr reverted my edit saying "Hey you are a new editor to the article & i appreciate it, however i request you to consider reading talk page as we had reached certain consensus." I didn't see any consensus or discussion regarding that in this talk page. And I suggest Karthikndr to read any featured/good article about films (Taare Zameen Par, Inception etc) for reference. DdraconiandevilL (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for views from others. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, DdraconiandevilL is right. Websites aren't italicized. I'd removed the italics myself, but someone put em back idk when. Scieberking (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I think that non-print media reviews should not be italicized. Hence, I support unitalicizing (if even a word like that exists :D ). AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ra.One/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ashliveslove (talk · contribs) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• This article is been reviewed by two or more reviewers. Any other reviewer who might want to help is welcomed.

Main Points to review about this article Check if this article is biased/look more like promotion/been positively written/need to be shortened.

• Review

Links

• • All links are working fine (no dead links).
    • What about ref. 136? It wasn't working for me. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 22:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks about that. I guess its been marked as dead link. Might have been dead after I made a check. ASHU^IND 05:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dead-links are still present in the article. Either they should be replaced or completely removed from the references. ASHU^IND 09:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No more dead links. Also cleaned all references as per WP:REF. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Corrected the disambiguation links found.

Resolved

Image issues

• Ashu asked me to look over this review and while I haven't had time yet to give it a good look I just want to point out that File:Ra-one villain.jpg needs to contain a valid fair use rational to be used in this article. I will comment more later. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That image is a screenshot, and hence guess it licensed well. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It is a non-free image so needs rational to be used in this article. This is one of the requirements for good status criteria 6a so is not negotiable. It has rational for Ra.One (character), however if it is to be used in this article it needs one specific to this article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Provided a valid fair use rational to be used in Ra.One article. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues

• I am concerned that large portions of text, a lot of plot and lead seems to be very close to this source [11]. The duplication detector shows a high number of matches[12]. The information is copyrighted (All Rights Reserved) and it does not appear to be a mirror of Wikipedia. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay I think they copied it from us. This edit introduced the content and it is slightly different from the version on Ente Cinema. AIRcorn (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • Hello hello! Its the website which has copied from Wikipedia. Please don't misjudge our hard work. If to be copied, there are many better sites. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I believe you. See my above comment. Sorry for the implication. AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This problem was resolved. -- ASHU^IND 10:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception

• I see that there's about triple positive reviews than mixed reviews, and double for the negative reviews. I think you could prune the positive reviews. (comment by User:Ebe123)

I was wondering on the same. I too feel the reception section should and can be shortened. ASHU^IND 14:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we considering creating a new article for the same? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to do that else reader will have to jump back n forth to read complete article. I suggest removing reviews of lesser known newspapers. For example Gulf News, Divanee Magazine and Oneindia.in are minor sites and sources which are not that well known to Indian audience compared to TOI, Dainik bhaskar, Bollywoodhungama and other Major newspapers. ASHU^IND 14:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Avatar got same amount of reviews. What about that, which is also o GA.? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with the Divanee magazine bit, but Oneindia and Gulf are well-reported. Please note that Gulf was the first reviewer of the film, and it did so in the Dubai premiere. BTW, you have cited only the positive reviews. Surely you aren't saying that such unrelaible reviews exist in the mixed/negative reviews section? I don't think we should pare down reviews just so as to reduce the positive reviews. Come on, after the hell of vandalism regarding bad reviews and flop status around Ra.One, we'll only be feeding fire to the gloaters. Please, let's keep the reception section as it is. See Avatar. It has about the same amount of reviews as Ra.One and is a GA. Not all of them are as well-known as Roger Ebert or Rachel Saltz. That doesn't mean we don't consider them. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't discuss about Avatar here, we are discussing about Ra.One. When your first line of reception says mixed reviews then make them mixed and not biased to positive reviews. And one more suggestion, if Gulf news states from Dubai then it should be in your Overseas section. ASHU^IND 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We must discuss Avatar because the pattern of this article is basically taken from that and Scream. Hence comparisons must be made to understand why the reception is so. And btw, we are not biased to give Ra.One a more positive outlook. The "mixed" tag has come because the negative reviews were extreme in nature, for eg. a reviewer gave Ra.One not even one star, while others have given 1.5, 2, etc. with several bad comments. The mixed tag is not due to the count of positive vs. negative reviews. And while Gulf News reported from Dubai, they are an Indian website. What I meant was that they were the first Indian reviewer to review the film, and they did so after attending the Ra.One premiere in Dubai. Hope this clears everything up. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ankit. We must consider discussing Avatar article then. Strongly support Ankit. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all let me remind you that this is not the way a reviewer reviews a GAN i.e by comparing with article. You can't expect that if you copy everything from a GA article will make yours a GA too. Now in Avatar you can see that the first line says well received. Now see in your article and compare yourself if you are so eager about that. They have well balanced their article from global point of view i.e where ever the film had its inspiration. Now coming to your article, review is not a voting process where you show your support or condemnation. You can merge the mixed reviews and negative reviews for instance to balance the reception, else you'll have to say in the beginning only that Ra.One gathered mixed to positive reviews from critics community. ASHU^IND 09:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first guideline editors are given before nominating an article for GAN is "See some other GA article and fairly review it - ask yourself whether it has the structure, prose, refs etc. that another GA article has. Regard a GA/FA article as something, but not exactly, a benchmark and work towards making your article just as good." That is exactly what I am doing. And the point about "Mixed to positive" reception literally created hell on Earth for us! It ended up being taken to the WP:ANI, and then Wikiquette, and was finally dropped in favor of mixed. I doubt anybody would want to go through that horrible process again. And btw, I am eager to get Ra.One to GA. I have worked hard on it, and hence I expect some result too. Please do not belittle my concern for this GA review. Ra.One does have a well-balanced point of view. You aren't reading the negative reviews at all, only then will you understand that we have not spared any negative comment for the film if it has been made. We are not biased, and I am not voting on any matter regarding the reception. And the splitting of the mixed and negative reviews was done to help ease the readability of the section. The only place where comparisons between Avatar and Ra.One stop is the verdict - the former received universal acclaim, while the latter received a mixed response. Hence the multiple paras. Thank you. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem with that. I saw your reviews at WP:ANI. Just chop off the lesser known reviews. Rest all is fine in your Reception section. ASHU^IND 14:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do my best in this regard. Thanks. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

ASHU^IND 18:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• In "Shahana Goswami, Dalip Tahil and Chinese-American actor Tom Wu appear in supporting roles, along with Rajinikanth, Sanjay Dutt and Priyanka Chopra making guest appearances.", since "in supporting roles" is plurial, "appear" must be too. (Sorry if error)
• "Ra.One was jointly produced by Eros International and Khan's production company, Red Chillies Entertainment.[3] Initially expected to hit theatres on June 3, 2011, the release of the film was pushed back to the Diwali weekend of October 26, 2011 due to extensive post-production work involving special effects and 3D conversion. The film faced uncertainty regarding the preparedness of the film for release, with several rumours and media stories that the film would not be completed on time.", So on the second sentence, it seems like a new paragrafe.

Sorry, didn't get you. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So for the last sentence, could you like "blend it in" the rest? ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 11:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This problem was resolved, after moving it into the last line of second para. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot

• "Akashi (Wu) provides the moves, Jenny the programming,"... There should be provides or does.

Resolved

Boxoffice

The starting line says As of November 4, 2011, Ra.One has grossed INR192 crore (US$38.94 million) worldwide. Refer to boxofficemojo and correct the fact. Use the conversion if necessary for currency and state the same reference in infobox. ASHU^IND 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's now 220 crore. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, ELSE I'LL SIMPLY REMOVE THEM FROM GA REVIEW. ALREADY ARTICLE HAD BEEN SPAMMED AND I DONT WANT SPAMMERS SPOILING THE REVIEW

Final Analysis

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   yes. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No such concerns here. Article has been searched thoroughly for such references. Whatever problems were found, were discussed and resolved. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All such aspects have been covered. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes. Issues were there but were resolved. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are proper till the review date and well captioned. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Keep up the good quality of Article. Don't let it delisted.
Regards.
ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your kind review. Will won't let the quality fall down. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ashu. Assuredly we will not let the article fall in it's quality. I appreciate the time you took to participate in this rather lengthy GA review. AnkitBhatt^WDF 13:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Facebook poster

I don't think such a poster qualifies as a WP:RS. Even the last update from the distributor, Eros, and the official website, RaOnemovie.com, shows 170 crore worldwide collection. Scieberking (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, but it grossed 192 crore in two weeks and that is again an Eros release. I suggest leaving all BO fugures as they are, until the GA review process gets over. Then we can comb through and find the perfectly reliable source. 220 crore, though announced, has not received official backing and hence mustn't be used. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

Ra one done gross income more than 250 crore you must update it . 49.249.165.184 (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Source? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 19 November 2011

Up date income 49.249.167.247 (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 19 November 2011

Ra.one's total 21-days' gross is 248 crores http://indianfilmsupdates.blogspot.com/2011/11/raone-3-weeks-world-wide-gross.html http://cinema.currentweek.net/2011/11/raone-three-weeks-collections-share.html http://www.firstpost.com/topic/event/raone-raone-movie-week-3-box-office-collections-video-u1nojZQ2Mmw-91609-2.html

If not 248 the according to Boxofficeindia your most trusted bollywood website, two-weeks' gross is 221 so please change the gross. Raonebest (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Though I doubt the reliability of the mentioned sources, I think it's time a discussion is held on this matter. AnkitBhatt^WDF 17:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Closer to" 230 crore; Kamal Jain statement

Well, the 230 crore gross with the cites provided may be okay to use, but I will remove this uncertain, official figure as soon as the one from BOI is out. They provided misleading statements about the budget (both SRK and Jain stated 150 crore, and much later 135 crore) and now they're doing the same with worldwide gross. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the neutral, independent and third-party worldwide gross from BOI. Scieberking (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Final peer review

Editors, I think its time we have one final peer review to fully iron out all possible flaws regarding it. In this way, I hope that we can reach FA status for it very soon. I require consensus to go ahead with this move, so please, feel free to support/oppose this move. NOTE:- In case there are still some grammatical or such errors, they will be discussed under peer review, hence please do not hold that as a reason for opposing the review. Thanks! AnkitBhatt^WDF 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is currently under Peer Review here. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of a much bigger, more detailed pre-FA review. Can we continue the review in this itself? Anyways, I'm just asking for consensus. AnkitBhatt^WDF 16:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We must continue with the review going on currently. Ruhrfisch just from yesterday started reviewing it. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, let's graduate it to a FA peer review :D. Perhaps I should inform him that. AnkitBhatt^WDF 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Split and create new Marketing article regarding this. It'll reduce it to greater extent. ASHU^IND 17:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Might consider waiting until after the award season is done. From the scope of the film, I'm guessing that various nominations for effects, etc are given, plus the potential for others. If there's a good chance of a lot of publicity and activity, waiting until after that for FA would make sense. Ravensfire (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh YES! please do. I've been thro a lot of FA articles (films and otherwise) and I 100% think this one NEEDS to be a FA. Period :D but I do agree with Ravensfire, let's wait till past the awards season, which should be around May?...If you can't wait till then, go ahead now :D I still think the article is good enough, even without the accolades section --Meryam90 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I also say wait. The article is just not complete without awards, assuming it gets any :-) This also gives time for the final gross figures to come into light. BollyJeff || talk 19:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Ravensfire, Meryam90, and BollyJeff; should wait for a while. Maybe it gets an Oscar (or is it an Aascar?).. who knows :P Scieberking (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, thought I'd put my input in here with respect to request by User:Ankitbhatt, even though I don't commonly edit this page. But I must say this article looks awesome at the moment. However I do see tiny errors in punctuation, spelling, wikilinking, etc. (example, YouTube and not Youtube, or adding commas where appropriate). I caught a few yesterday and managed to clean-up whatever I could. Other than those, I think there's absolutely no problem in bringing this page to FA and I wish the regular editors of this page all the best. I do advise to keep pace and get to FA step by step (i.e., conclude current peer review and begin FA review once that is done). I also agree with submitting the article for FA once a possible "Accolades" section has been completed in the article, so that massive editing during film awards times doesn't interfere with the article's chances of obtaining/maintaining GA/FA. Slow and steady wins the race. :) EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much guys for such quick consensus. Sure, I can wait a while, though it'll be tough. Btw, Ra.One should sweep all technical categories, hence I do think you guys have a point regarding the Accolades section. Punctuation, spellings etc. will be taken care of in a fully detailed PR, so let's wait till then. So then, consensus is to put this on hold. Cheers! AnkitBhatt^WDF 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

http://boxofficereport.net/ra-one-4-weeks-worldwide-lifetime-collections/ Bodyguard's total Nett is 183 and it is declared all time blockbuster in India and super hit in overseas in its Wikipedia page. Ra.one's total Nett is 171 and it is declared just a hit in India. Also overseas collection is more than 10 million. So you should correct it to Ra.one declared a blockbuster in both India and overseas. If not an all time blockbuster, it should definitely be declared a blockbuster at least. Raonebest (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Not an reliable source, also original research are not accepted in Wikipedia. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)