Talk:Sultan (2016 film)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Controversy Actor Salman Khan was named IOA's Brand Ambassador for Rio 2016 Olympics and many from sports fraternity criticized the selection citing Salman's PR & YRF have done it for Sultan's promotions. Suhas626 (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Salman friend

Amit sadh name is not Govind His name is Akash Amit Chauhan097 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Govind:- Anant Vidhaat(Sharma) is Sultan's friend * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahup (talk • contribs) 04:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

Madhumandal121 (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC) http://www.thequint.com/entertainment/2016/07/06/movie-review-salman-khan-shines-but-sultan-is-predictable 7th July 2016

Please mention what you want to be added. Just providing a reference and hoping other editors to make sense of it is not appropriate. Cheers, Mr. Nair Talk 09:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to convert million to crores

Priyankmistry007 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

poster

The current poster is just a first look and not the theatrical release poster. which is this: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/images/id/537957/type/view/imageid/20228532/category/firstlook. How to upload it on Commons with proper licensing? Semanti Paul (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Genre chaining

Re: this edit from Semanti Paul, we really need to avoid excessive genre chaining. "Romantic sports-drama" doesn't seem consistent with MOS:FILM to me, chiefly because "romantic sports-drama" is not a common film genre designation, and MOS:FILM instructs to focus on main genre and subgenre, which we already seem to have with "drama" as the main genre and "sports" as the subgenre. Stuff starts to get sloppy when we start chaining extra genres into the lead. I also don't think the use of a primary source would be appropriate here, since we're relying on an actor's responses in an interview, an actor who is trying to sell tickets to the widest audience possible. Just as comedies can employ dramatic themes (Airplane!) without becoming a comedy-drama, a sports film could employ romantic themes and a romantic arc without being redesignated as a "romantic" film. What do the reliable secondary sources say? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"Sports drama" sounds better. Romance may be a part of the narrative, but the film, as a whole, is not really going to be addressed as a romantic one, even years down the line. With all the resources that we currently have on the page and elsewhere on the web, the prime genres are "sports" and "drama", that's it. Furthermore, can we call a film romantic just because it has two characters of opposite sex and who share few a romantic thread between them? We need more voices here. Not sure what other sources say. What do you think, Semanti Paul? Cheers, Mr. Nair Talk 15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Nairspect. This exact conversation took place at Talk:Rocky#Genre, where someone felt that Rocky should be categorized as a romantic sports-drama. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that "sports drama" sounds better and it will be touted as one in the later years. Besides, those three references right at the beginning give a very cluttery look to the article. I would rather have them removed. However, a film can be of more than one genre/sub-genre . Before it released, it was established as a sports drama. However, after reading some of the reviews, it appears that it was the love for Aarfa that triggered Sultan to take up the sport. And he gave it up when he became estranged from her. The romance is not just there for the sake of it and it does play an important role. Quite a few critics have underlined the importance given to the love story. I am still for adding the romantic part but sans those sources. And if consensus is established on removing that, I don't have any objections. :) Oh, and can any of you address the issue I raised in the previous section? Cyphoidbomb, Nairspecht--Semanti Paul (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Box Office India

The last time I used Box Office India as a source in a film article, I was re-directed to this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_5#BO of all BW films. Plus, I was accused of sockpuppetry, and my account was blocked till I fought off the charges. Since then, I have refrained from using BOI. But Ambeinghari has used this source again, calling it "more reliable and strong." It seems that Box Office India's reliability is very ambiguous,and the articles cannot be retrieved later unless they are archived. Plus, they post slightly different figures from all other sources, including leading Indian dailies and Bollywood Hungama. Should BOI be kept as a source, Cyphoidbomb? Semanti Paul (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semanti Paul, could you please show me the diff where someone pointed you to that discussion? Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, it's on my talk page: User_talk:Semanti_Paul#Box Office India. Semanti Paul (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's an old note. There's nothing inherently better about BoxOfficeIndia, generally speaking. It's not like anyone who favors it has run a data comparison to prove that it's "more reliable" than, say, IBT. How could you do that anyway, if all the box office data are estimates? That said, you might open a discussion at WT:ICTF to see how other editors feel about Hungama as a source for financials. I don't get the sense that it's terribly reliable for that, so in this case BOI might be a better choice. But as Ricky said in the User_talk:Semanti_Paul#Box Office India discussion, BOI is generally considered reliable, but it's one of several sources considered reliable. If we have a number of reliable sources with different opinions on the financials, sometimes it's better to present this information as a range. Some people think that higher ≠ more accurate, which is dubious. There is also the problem you've noted about BOI references going stale without archives. The Indian Cinema Task Force needs to have a lengthy discussion about references at some point in the future... Anyhow, hope this helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm keeping the reference for now. But the rate the film's been minting money, the figures are anyway going to change within the next 24 hours, so maybe then I'll remove that and update the gross. Also, the reason why I prefer BH is because it keeps giving the figures until the film has stopped running, which most newspapers don't. Semanti Paul (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

390.85cr

Vendata v (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Crores or millions

Ambeinghari see I personally don't have any issues. But I am an Indian citizen and I understand the million system. Also, Sultan has not just released in India. It has released overseas too. People are watching it all over the world. They are going to check out the article. And they'll be confused because neither have the figures been converted into dollars, nor have they been counted in a system they can understand. At the risk of bothering Cyphoidbomb again, I'm going to ask what he/she thinks about this and hopefully we can reach a consensus. Semanti Paul (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here:

1) The {{INRConvert}} template that Ambeinghari used here is problematic. Please note the conversation at WP:ICTF. There's no obvious reason to convert rupees to US dollars. Why not Euros? UK pounds? It's completely arbitrary. Additionally, the INRConvert template is only accurate until the exchange rates change. If we're using INRConvert in a 2009 film, we're converting 2009 rupees to 2016 US dollars. Some casual editors have started using the inflation calculation switch in the {{INRConvert}} template, but look at the result:

₹50 crore (equivalent to ₹126 crore or US$16 million in 2023)

That's too much information to mash into the |budget= or |gross= parameters. Also Template:Infobox film says nothing to encourage the use of inflation calculators in the infobox.

2) MOS:NUM says:

"Sometimes, the variety of English used in an article may necessitate the use of a numbering system other than the Western thousands-based system. For example, the South Asian numbering system is conventionally used in South Asian English. In those situations, link the first spelled-out instance of each quantity (e.g. crore, which yields crore). (If no instances are spelled out, provide a note after the first instance directing the reader to the article about the numbering system.) Also, provide a conversion to Western numbers for the first instance of each quantity, and provide conversions for subsequent instances if they do not overwhelm the content of the article. For example, write three crore (thirty million). Group digits in Western thousands-based style (e.g., 30,000,000;"

This would tend to suggest that "crore" is fine, although it is confusing to everybody who isn't Indian, and I believe there might be conflicting guidelines elsewhere, although I'm not sure about that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Background Score by Julius Packiam

Julius Packiam has composed the background score of the film. His credits are missing both in the infobox and music section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabiKadaloram (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Source? Semanti Paul (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Source: Trailer credits. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPxqcq6Byq0&feature=youtu.be&t=189)
Additional Sources:
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/07/06/sultan-movie-review_n_10827830.html
2. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/bajrangi-bhaijaan-movie-review-by-audience-live-update-639513
3: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebrities/features/type/view/id/8913/
4: http://www.newsutra.com/entertainment/some-of-the-best-reviews-of-sultan-2016-movie/

Therefore do add credits in the infobox as follows:
Songs:
Vishal-Shekhar
Background Score:
Julius Packiam

Thank you.115.249.188.97 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sultan: a fictional character

The wrestler is fictional, there is no any real wrester whose story matches with the plot of this. Pls refrain from using real story based plot. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Counting from its thirteenth day to sixteenth..."

What's with all the day-by-day box office information?

Counting from its thirteenth day to its sixteenth day, the collections were ₹4.08 crore (US$610,000), ₹3.72 crore (US$550,000), ₹3.42 crore (US$510,000) and ₹3.51 crore (US$520,000).[4] Thus, the film raked in an estimated total of ₹278 crore (US$41 million) after its second week.[49]

The gross domestic collections for sixteen days were ₹386.06 crore (US$57 million).[4]

What's significant about the thirteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth days? Seems arbitrary to me. We typically care about a film's opening take, the first weekend, maybe the first week, and then the lifetime gross. I certainly don't see this level of detail in high profile US film articles, which have far better and more consistent tracking of financial info. Seems like we're trying to pad the article by delivering day-by-day breakdowns that are ultimately beyond the scope of Wikipedia's intentions. That what we are left with is also a wall of currency and currency conversions, is another matter... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

These are completely irrelevant and unencyclopediac material, somewhere between simple fluff and intentional media-feedback-driven advertising. DMacks (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

DMacks, thanks for commenting. I've made the changes here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2016

Spider krunal (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC) "Sultan Looking At Near 340 Crore Recovery! The GROSS business of the film is now around 420 crore nett which is just 2 crore less than Bajrangi Bhaijaan. The distributor share of the film will also close at around 160 crore which is also 2 crore less than Bajrangi Bhaijaan. The recovery of the film will go close to a huge 350 crore. The domestic theatrical recovery (share) will be 160 crore, Overseas theatrical recovery will be around 66 crore. The satellite rate is 65 crore and music is 15 crore while digital and other rights will bring in around 40 crore. This adds up to a massive 346 crore."

SOURCE-http://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=2232

Not done: How can a source report a film's gross while using nett figures. Gross and nett are two different things in accounting. I don't even know what BOI is trying to say, and my guess is that you don't either. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)