Talk:Ready (2011 film)

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

About Name[edit]

I remember I read the name of the movie as nawaf Trouble some time ago, isn't it so?

Fanofbollywood (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ready-Front.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ready-Front.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image for this article before it is deleted.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ready-Front.jpg Deleted[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ready-Front.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Copyright violation: And another filmcover without permission.

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening here, can any admin please look into the matter[edit]

This guy Scieberking here is changing the article as per whatever he deems is correct. a few bullets:

  • Why is Gaurav Malani's (toi) review added here? Where is Nikhat Kazmi? and that review doesn't have a rating at all, only based on laguage one can manipulate the tone of the article the way he wants.
  • The guy is not letting anyone else contribute at all.
  • Using rude language.

Guys I can go on and on, but like everyone else (obviously unlike the said guy) we all have limited time, besides no one is getting paid here to contribute to wikipedia, if this is the behavior people will get out of a volunteer work, who is going to stick around?

Fanofbollywood (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhat Kazmi's review is not yet available on the website. As soon as it is available, I will definitely add it with rating. --- Managerarc™ talk 14:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See.. How silly it gets. I only tried to add, and successfully added, a well-referenced and neutral "Reception" section with proper references and all. Some guys wanted to add negative bias (even deliberately lessening and falsifying the awarded stars), while the other IP recently wanted to remove the negative movie reviews. Both entirely opposite, but somehow improper, approaches. And I was accused of using rude language (which I don't think I did pointing specifically to anyone) and page ownership (Wth? I even improved and readded other users' valid, notable reviews after proofing, and with correct formatting. See the diffs for reference). I'm done with this. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And FYI, Nikhat Kazmi, the senior editor, won't be reviewing Ready for The Times of India anymore, because Gaurav Malani, who also happens to be a TOI reporter, already has. Regards. Scieberking (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Scieberking I don't know from where you are coming, but no one here is big enough to have personal grudges against someone as big as Salman or for that matter anyone associated, it is an open platform, and people can contribute whatever they want (as long they have proper citations to back), AND IF those citations indeed give the article a negative tone then I do not find you justified removing those links and language. In the beginning when you started floating all that mess around, I politely left a message to you, and instead of giving me a proper reply you simply deleted my message. Anyway, I don't think you are the type to reason with, and for such people I am always game enough to take it to eternity. Fanofbollywood ([[User

talk:Fanofbollywood|talk]]) 18:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking (talk · contribs) asked me on my talkpage to semi-protect this page. After investigation, I have full protected the page for one day. I am not endorsing anyone's position here - but note that editors need to discuss subjective characterizations such as positive or negative reviews here on the talk page rather than endlessly reverting each other. I also want to issue a general warning against edit warring, and a caution against editing anonymously in an attempt to avoid WP:3RR. There's no reason for anyone to end up blocked over a movie premiere when a few days should bring clarity on the issue. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, but I think this is the way to go.Fanofbollywood (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a reason for being sad. And I highly respect you and your opinions as a fellow editor, Fanofbollywood. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the sentence "The film has received mixed reviews" from "mixed to positive reviews". I hope it looks reasonable and logical now. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Transplanted from User talk:Scieberking and User talk:Managerarc


Yeah, I'd tried to develop consensus earlier with this sort of compromise, but no one really replied on the talk page. On average, the film has got mixed reviews (positive reviews from two leading critics such as Komal, Taran etc. and mostly mixed responses). Regards, Scieberking (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thing needs to be discussed first. How to identify whether a film has received positive, negative or mixed reviews. As far as I can see there are more negative reviews than positive.--- Managerarc™ talk 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think mixed reviews would be ok.--- Managerarc™ talk 09:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 10 critics,on an average they have given 2.7/5 stars(if calculated on average)..so it is definitely negative.But some of the reviewers have given 4/5 stars.So it is better to write negative to average.--abhishek (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4/5 (80%) is considered average and not good. On the other hand, 2.7/5 (55%) is considered poor and not average. That's pretty illogical I guess. Scieberking (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if editors have patience to discuss thing rather than just keep on doing disruptive editing.Edits are done without any summary/reason provided!!!!Discuss before edit sensitive things.--abhishek (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have previously agreed that the film received mixed reviews and besides 2.7/5 is not negative, its average. I can't understand how it is "better to write negative to average" when there are several positive reviews also. Also please take a look at WP:ORDINAL: As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals. --- Managerarc™ talk 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception is excessively long.It can be trimmed down well.No need to write 4-5 lines of what critics said,only conclusion must be enough.--abhishek (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the trimming of that section but the quotes cannot be altered like that the way you did. An ellipsis (...) is used if any text is removed from in between the quotations as per WP:QUOTE.--- Managerarc™ talk 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Scieberking (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts.---Managerarc™ talk 13:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More notable reviews[edit]

A few more notable and major reviews that I think should be added in the "Critical response" section:

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we didn't get to this request earlier. The article is no longer protected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First day business[edit]

This should be added in the "Box Office" section:

Ready has become the second highest opening day net grosser of all time (after Dabangg 14.5 crore; ahead of Tees Maar Khan 12.89 crore), as it collected 13 crore nett on its first day.

Source: Ready Territorial Breakdown: All India First Day 13 Crore. BoxOfficeIndia.com Scieberking (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we didn't get to this request earlier. The article is no longer protected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third highest-grossing domestically[edit]

The source, which clearly mentions "READY is now the third highest Hindi cinema grosser ever, behind 3 IDIOTS and DABANGG", is reliable enough to back up a FACT. Here are the top 4 films according to nett gross (not gross) collections:

1- 3 Idiots: 202,57,00,000
2- Dabangg: 181,00,00,000
3- Ready: 130,00,00,000
4- Ghajini: 114,67,00,000

This is further verified by the all-India (domestic) distributor share which is 64,00,00,000; third highest ever after the 99 crore of 3 Idiots and 77 crore of Dabangg. BOI

Scieberking (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Taran Adarsh is a top critic, but he is by no means a reliable source for Box office figures or verdicts. The ONLY source for Box Office information on any Bollywood film is Box Office India, as it is costumed for all bollywood film found on Wiki. Hence, the film is a Blockbuster as stated by BOI and should be declared as so, and the verdict of Mr.Adarsh should be removed because putting it here is biased.Meryam90 (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Adarsh is a leading trade analyst of Bollywood, and his box office analysis on Bollywood Hungama (previously IndiaFM) is far more reliable than that of BoxOfficeIndia (while I agree that less notable website is being used on most articles, and somehow, should be used... doesn't mean Taran's analysis should be avoided). You need to read WP:RS and WP:IRS. Furthermore, the policy is "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." BOI is not a recognized organization, but a website, and does not have a business face. Calling Taran biased is like labeling Roger Ebert as "one-sided". Scieberking (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taran's verdict of the Box office performance of any bollywood film is hardly taken into account. (yes, I agree, He is a leading trade analyst of Bollywood) But the majority of the trade analyst of Bolywood which I can provide you with their "verdicts" regarding 'Ready', agree on the one provided by BOI. and saying BOI is only a website is like regarding Box office Mojo as so. and I wasn't calling Mr.Adarsh as biased, I was amplifying that the unusual use of his opinion (here on WIKI) regarding box office performance of a film as biased.Meryam90 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BoxOfficeMojo is a reliable site and owned by Amazon.com. Seems like you've not read the above policies. On the other hand, BOI is quite dubious, weakly reliable, and doesn't have a business face. Not saying BOI shouldn't be used, either. In such case, both sources could be used to demonstrate differing analyses (much like what we do in the "Critical reception" section). Scieberking (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

359324062136446[edit]

359324062136446 117.20.115.76 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ready_(2011_film)&oldid=1201275960"