Talk:Dhoom 2

message: I recommend this article be deleted, till the movie releases, or atleast till its advertisements start appearing in the media. As such this article is nothing more than speculation. I am new here, so I'm really not aware of the procedure of deleting pages. Also, if Wikipedia does not mind articles on future films being posted, I'd still atleast recommend this article be extensively edited. I'd do it myself, but frankly, this being my first post, I'm scared! --Bluerain 13:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Bluerain|Bluerain]]

message: This page has been semi-protected due to large amounts of vandalism and uncited additions by anonymous users.  Protection is not meant to be a permanent solution, however.  It's only meant to be used for a short period of time.  Either myself or any other admin can remove the protection from the article on request or when it seems likely the vandalism has died down a bit.  Please note that I am not monitoring this article.  --Yamla 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: Why was this section removed? Fire 02:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumored plot

message: I removed the most contestable trivia (and left fact tags on the rest). I boiled the synopsis down to one para, removing advertising language, amateur poetry, etc. Zora 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  You have much improved the article.  --Yamla 17:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruthless trimming 

message: It is not kind to readers to post synopses that consist of long paragraph-less recountings of every single twist and turn of the plot. All that does is prove that the writer saw the movie. It's boring, it's impossible to READ, and in the case of a recent movie, it's unkind to people who haven't seen the movie yet. The spoiler warning is useless when everything is on the same page -- you see it whether you consciously choose to do so or not. If you don't like the current synopsis, expand it to two short paras and try to be concise and readable. Zora 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: Hi. Jus came across this article and saw the referenced link which says that the release of the audio in DVD format is an industry first. However, in the article, it is noted that this was done for the first time in India. I do not need any referenced sources, however I know that this is not the first time that an Indian film's soundtrack is being released in the DVD Audio (5.1) format. The first Indian film to do so is the 2004 Tamil (Kollywood) film, directed by Shankar and music directed by A. R. Rahman, Boys. I know this to be an incontestable fact since I myself have seen the DVD soundtrack in stores (Planet M, Landmark, even in Hyderabad). However, since Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines state that it is not truth, but verifiable, published content which is to be referenced in articles, I dunno what to do. If anyone could find the required references and make the appropriate changes, it'd be good. Thanks! aJCfreak yAkBaK 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Audio, a first?! 

message: I've just deleted a link to a site which apparently has posted clips from the movie of all the songs.  I looked through the site but cannot find any reference to it being official, which makes me strongly think that the site is violating copyright (and thus Wikipedia should not be linking to it).  If this site is somehow official then please indicate that and perhaps provide some justification for this link. Accounting4Taste 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just deleted a link to a site that has posted lyrics of all the songs from the movie.  I said in my edit summary that it was a pop-up farm, but I have to take that back -- it's just a fansite.  However, the posting of the lyrics is a total copyright violation AFAIK, so I believe the removal is justified.  Accounting4Taste 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clips of songs 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Someone wrote the following:
"The film lacked appropriate screenplay and logical flow of the plot. As a result this movie was a complete disaster at the box office and failed to keep the charisma of the original John Abraham starrer Dhoom which was a super-hit."
This is clearly untrue, as the film is known to have done very well in India, and is on the list of the highest grossing Bollywood films and that the original Dhoom was not a super-hit.
Trinindian83 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Box Office Disaster

message: How can we have a Bollywood article, pretty well filled out like this one is, but missing soundtrack information?  Its almost unbelievable. Was it removed on purpose? Wouldn't make sense because Lage Raho Munna Bhai, a featured article has OST info. BollyJeff || talk 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no response, I added it. BollyJeff || talk 03:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please help me to get an image of the soundtrack so that I can complete this correctly.  I am almost done cleaning up the article for resubmission, but would really like to have the soundtrack section complete with picture and info box. BollyJeff || talk 18:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No soundtrack? 

message: Dhoom 2 is an Indian film. Hence, the Indian box office has to precede the foreign box office. And whoever has written the box office section is seemingly a South-based editor, for he has only mentioned the collections state-wise (and that too only Southern Indian states, which are not major markets for Hindi films), when it should be declared for India as a whole, as in Box office records, first weekend, first week, etc. I cannot understand how this article reached GA without considering this! If I can, I will rewrite the entire box office section. In case I can't, I request another editor to completely rewrite the section so that it suits the article better.
Cheers!!! AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 09:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not completely rewritten, but I did make a few changes based on your suggestions; may do some more later. BollyJeff || talk 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office section written badly 

message: What is the problem in having that content in controversy section? the kiss thing did spark controversy that time. If you want, you can remove the line about marriage.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  03:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The case, which was filed to get publicity, got thrown out of court.. Judge ruled that it was nothing outlandish and had been going on forever. Sex and kissing have been existant in India from the time of it's inception-as evident by India's existence and the continuation of her booming population. Judge made it clear that: "just because someone is not pretty enough to get kissed by girls doesn't mean that he gets the carte blanche to file outlandish court cases"--Isaacsirup (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kindly provide a reliable reference. The one you have given is a blog, which is not considered reliable according to WP:RS. If you are going to cite population then sex and kissing has been existing in all the places of world whereever humans live. The controversy is not about kissing it is about "kissing on screen". So kindly use bit more rational and to the point arguments.  Plus, to cite an external website on talk page use format [websitelink.com somename] instead of  tags. That way you won't have to use  template. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  04:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned earlier, this obvious publicity stunt was summarily thrown out of court-the actors did not go to jail. So this information doesn't belong here. Even until then, onscreening kissing was nothing new to Bollywood. Two of the countless examples include Bobby (1973 film) and Raja Hindustani-both of these were bigger hit than Dhoom 2--Isaacsirup (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that kissing was not new in Dhoom2. In fact in Maya Memsaab, Deepa Sahi appeared topless also. So first I ask you again to provide a reference that the case was thrown out as publicity stunt. Second even if the case was thrown out of court, controversy did happen and does deserve a mention as it was definitely very notable. As important as she explained herself on Interview with David Frost--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  04:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Aishwarya Rai told David Frost that she was simply amazed beyond words by the case as kissing had been and continued to be norm in Bollywood till the very minute she was saying it In fact, appearing topless is also not new to Bollywood. Maya Memsaab is just one of many examples. This is a source that states that the case was dismissed: http://worldnews.about.com/od/indiathenewsfromindia/p/aishwaryarai.htm --Isaacsirup (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there is some confusion and you are not picking up my question. So I rephrase it. Do you think that kiss controversy was not notable?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  05:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would've been notable had it not been summarily dismissed by court. This is how it works on Wikipedia. The Indian media talks about Shahrukh's new haircut-but this doesn't make it notable enough to be included on Wikipedia--Isaacsirup (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know you are not going to agree, so lets leave it here and wait for someone else to check this. Cases do not go to court about Shahrukh's hair and he doesn't explain about it years later at an international interview. And how will someone who is less then a day old on WP, will know how things are done on WP?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  05:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess you meant "less than a day old." Maybe because this guy liked Shahrukh's new haircut and stubble XD--Isaacsirup (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Bollyjeff, since you worked a lot on this article. Can you give some opinion here. Also, can you check out Talk:Karisma_Kapoor#Sunjay_Kapur_or_Kapoor and give your comments.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  06:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dhoom 2. 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/20121127115503/http://ibnlive.in.com:80/news/masands-verdict-go-dhoom-2/26974-8-1.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/news/masands-verdict-go-dhoom-2/26974-8-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dhoom 2. 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/20120612135713/http://businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=3167 to http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=3167
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified