# Talk:Don (2006 Hindi film)

why dont u guys add add more images of the movie . -touhid

Some one has added that dis is d first indian movie in which the villain ultimately wins...Even in Musafir,Sanjay Dutt emerged winner.i am deleting this part.
in the original don he dies, but in the new one he doesn't coz they wanna make a sequel Don 2, which will release in 2009/10. Upamanyuwiki 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
--Is that  even  a  reason  to  let  Don  live.They  could  mak  a  sequel  about  Vijay
Please add your signature and use a comma as it's confusing. I've added one now. Aaronsingh 17:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Trivia section is becoming too long, should it not be sub-categorized as "box office response", "usage of luxury objects", "possible hints on Don v/s Vijay" and so on?
--Ashish Sampat 18:07, 07 February 2007 (UTC)
Done..I've sub-categorized it a bit --GreatShash 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Don (Cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of the article be Don (2006 Indian film), since there is a Dutch film of the same name. The Internet Movie Database also named the film as Don. 115.133.19.216 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Don (2006 Hindi film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205213224/http://boxofficeindia.com/arounddetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3997&nCat= to http://boxofficeindia.com/arounddetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3997&nCat=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Don (2006 Hindi film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pavanjandhyala (talk · contribs) 14:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead
I am sure it is important to mention the cinematographer and editor here.
No mention of the film's budget here. Asking this because the BO gross is mentioned.
"It won Best Asian Film at the Neuchâtel International Fantastic Film Festival." -- Something is missing. Was it awarded or adjudged? Please mention it.
"The film was also nominated for nine awards at the 52nd Filmfare Awards, including nominations for Best Film and Best Actor for Khan." -- It is better to use "including the ones for..." to avoid repetition of 'nominate'.
Done but I think mentioning the editor and cinematographer would be too much.Krish | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Plot
Ramesh's murder is an important aspect of the film. It would be better to explain why Ramesh wanted to leave Don's gang.
"De Silva finds a look-alike named Vijay (Shah Rukh Khan) and asks him so the police can get close to Singhania." -- What was he asking him? Please mention it.
"Meanwhile, Jasjit (Arjun Rampal), Deepu's father, just released from prison, plans to kill De Silva." -- It is important to mention why he wanted to kill him.
"Having discovered his true identity, Don's associates turn against Vijay, but he escapes and, to prove his innocence, tries to recover the disc." -- It is better to break this line into two for a smooth flow.
"He receives a phone call saying that if he wants to see his son again, he will have to bring the disc to the men who are holding his son Deepu hostage." -- Two things.
Deepu is already established earlier as Jasjit's son. So, it is not important to say "his son Deepu hostage"
The word 'son' repeats twice in the line. Replace those two instances with suitable words.
"After Jasjit escapes with his son, he meets with Vijay and Roma and shares this information." -- meets Vijay should be fine. Meeting with usually happens with accidents.
"In a final twist, it is revealed that the real Don was alive all this time, and was pretending to be Vijay the whole time." -- 'all this time' and 'whole time' are phrases which aren't used in the same line usually.
In the lead, Isha Koppikar was listed as one of the key supporting actors. Her character finds no mention in the summary though. Same with Om Puri.
Done.Krish | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Production
Development

"In early 2005 media reported that Akhtar was planning the remake, but rather than confirming the news, he revealed that he was writing the screenplay based on the film but would make the decision whether to proceed only after completing the script." -- This line can be condensed like something on the lines of this: "In early 2005, Akhtar announced that he was writing the screenplay based on the film and would take the final decision after completing the script."
The quote of Akhtar in the second paragraph has two new things to say apart from what the first line did. They are: He found the film little ahead of its time. And, he thought so because of the narration, dialogue and the writing style. I feel that instead of using a long quote, it is advisable to use a sentence that accommodates those two new things.
"In order to suit the modern sensibility, several changes were introduced." This is the first sentence. In the next line, we have this "...the director said it was important to adapt the film in a way would suit the sensibilities of the modern viewer." Why twice explain the same thing? Any particular reason?
Done.Krish | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Casting

"The director said that Roshan's innocence was not right for the role, and instead he cast Shah Rukh Khan" -- "instead cast" alone should be fine without that 'he'.
"Khan, Chopra, and Rampal underwent extensive martial arts training from an expert from Shaolin Temple." -- the Shaolin Temple.
Filming

Farah Khan choreographed "Yeh Mera Dil" or directed the whole thing too?
Done.Krish | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No issues with the soundtrack section. Proceeding further...

Others
Any specific reason for not maintaining a separate section for the box office figures? In practice, box office and critical reception are shown as the subsections of the reception section.
Box office information is very less and so is the release and marketing information. So I thought it would be better to have one big section rather than two very small sections.Krish | Talk 07:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Please wikilink Chandra Barot in Masand's review.
Bollywood Hungama not wikilinked at first mention i.e. ref no 3.
Same with Sify at ref no 6, Rediff at 7, Induna at 52.
Induna doesn't have an article here.Krish | Talk 07:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Publisher missing for ref no 37.
Links are fine. No dablinks either.
Done.Krish | Talk 07:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Conclusion
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail:  Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

How does Category:Hindi-language films appear at the foot? It seems not to be linked anywhere in the article.  (I want to remove it as a supercategory of Category:2000s Hindi-language films.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

his popular dialogue, "Don Ko Pakadna Mushkil Hi Nahi...."
I've always been puzzled by the way he says "To catch Don is not only difficult, it is impossible" — as if it were an old familiar proverb.  Is there an allusion I'm not getting? —Tamfang (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here in reference to the edits by Thefallguy2025. Their edits have consistently displayed indicators of potential LLM output (some of their past edits have kept the chatgpt parameter in the refs), and so I am tagging them all as it is unlikely they suddenly stopped using it. 
Since their text remains in the current version of this article, and it is unclear how much review was done of the output, it all needs review for sourcing, tone, accuracy/hallucinations, etc. (This applies even to changes that are "just" copy edits, as AI copy edits commonly introduce editorializing, subtle factual errors, unattributed opinion, non-neutral language, etc., even when they claim otherwise.)
(The GA review came well before this.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)