![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add telugu also in release languages list only tamil and hindi is added Hemanth12121 ( talk) 13:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
2.51.17.85 ( talk) 07:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC) THIS IS A TAMIL FILM. ALL OTHER LANGUAGES = DUBBING ONLY.
Ok Chinmayap7210 ( talk) 20:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I THINK IT IS IN HINDI ALSO. Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 09:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
What are the number of dubbed languages in the film, is it 13 or 15? Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 06:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Is the website www.diginewspoint.com a trusted news site to be added as reference? Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 05:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for blocking Androidbijay1 for advertising. But how did you get confirmed that he was promoting (his own) website?
Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 09:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Additional 100 crore spent on vfx work. Asj052 ( talk) 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/2-0-rajinikanth-and-shankars-magnum-opus-adds-another-rs-100-cr-to-films-budget-to-accelerate-vfx-work-4531601.html Asj052 ( talk) 17:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Request for semi protection due to repeated editing without reference. Asj052 ( talk) 08:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What? Have you requested a protection or want us to request it? Please be clear Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 10:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, what to do about the film's release date? Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 11:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Director of movie tweeted on July 10,2018 that movie will release on November 29,2018. Yogendra014 ( talk) 17:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
By seeing the teaser of all the three versions of 2.0, it can be confirmed that it was shot only in Tamil. The teaser has a scene showing a news channel named News7, which is operating in India only in Tamil language. There is no such channel called News7 in Telugu or Hindi. The 'Lifestyle' logo written in Tamil in the Tamil teaser has been removed in the Telugu and Hindi teasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.49.218.194 ( talk) 11:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the real budget of 2.0 is 552 crores (5520000000INR), this is not estimated, based on the poster launched by "Variety" a weekly American entertainment trade magazine on their first page quoting "India's first 75 million dollar VFX wonder", that's why when you convert 75 million USdollars to INR it will be 552 crores! this poster was shared by the Director, Akshay Kumar and Lyca Production (the Production company of the movie) Delak0923 ( talk) 16:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Please feel free to edit the plot as I have written the plot on the basis of just hearing the story from my friend. I know there are many mistakes in the plot. So just go ahead and add and correct it if necessary Gunjan Kayarkar ( talk) 07:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
unsourced box office figures added to the article-- Hjkl12345 ( talk) 15:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
800 crore box office in 4 days Jagadeep2020 ( talk) 00:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The collection world wide is 216 after day 2. Here is the source - https://boxofficecollection.in/box-office-report/2point0-2nd-day-collection-39122 2406:7400:B2:0:0:0:2:24E7 ( talk) 03:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@ RajFilmBuff: Can you or anyone else please explain the meaning of the "voiced by" labels next to some of the cast, like here? There is a glaring lack of context, so this doesn't make sense to someone who has not seen the film. Why do we have an actor playing a role only to have their role voiced by someone else? Is this because of dubbing? If so, that should be stated clearly, and it's also not terribly clear why we would care about a dubbed role, when that's not typically logged in most films. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"When Chitti returns to the lab, Dr. Vaseegaran inquires about the three huge parabolic antenna and comes to know that they were built secretly to send signals of negative energy into space with the hope of finding or communicating with other species" in this the signals were of "Positive energy" not negative.
"Ultimately they manage to destroy Pakshi Rajan (although they are tricked into believing this)." they actually capture him instead of destroy. Chiranjivi Mokashi ( talk) 08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Present poster is not up to the mark. Its look like some one cropped and collage them together. Please upload new poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.0.5.237 ( talk) 17:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Uh
"543 crores (or 54300 lakhs) is equal to 5430 million (5.43 billion)."
Is this not out by a factor of a 1000 or so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.162.102 ( talk) 15:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Cyphoidbomb:,
In the Bollywood Hungama source, The actual overall budget of 2.0 is Rs 552 crores, and that too after all the VFX being done all over again since the original VFX were of very poor quality. Also, the film is far more expensive than the usual 3D films in India. Most films in this country using that format are first shot in 2D and then converted to 3D. 2.0 was shot in 3D”
, says the source. The main point is that who is the source? Is it director Shankar? Lyca Productions staff? Or What? In the previous source, they said Akshay Kumar name is Dr. Richard, which is founded by source. That is completely false information which is claimed by Shankar during interview with Rajeev Masand. He also claim that the film bugdet is $75 Million. Here is the source
https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJQ5CQlIGBA . So what should we do? Should we believe source that close to the film or director Shankar? Thank you,
Siddiqsazzad001
<Talk/>
13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Verifed: 400 crore is the old bugdet. After completed their VFX work, the graphics visual seen very poor. Later they shifted their VFX studio at DNEG. Thats why they needed more 143 crore. Interview Source: ( https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJQ5CQlIGBA). 75 million mean 543 crore ( https://twitter.com/shankarshanmugh/status/1039068601536339968/photo/1). All the sources are properly verifed. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The funny part is, that you can't demonstrate any evidence for any figure for Indian movies because of the lack of any official body for Indian box office numbers, but you still claim that it has been demonstrated. It makes zero sense to meWell it makes zero sense to me either. What are you trying to say? I genuinely don't understand what your complaint/argument is here and I'm not sure how your comments that seem to be pro-Hindi paranoia are helpful in this discussion. Also, was it ever proven definitively that 2.0 was not shot in multiple languages? I'm not talking about the armchair detective work that some Anon tried to present in September on this page. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background: There are no official reporting agencies for budget or gross figures in Indian cinema. News outlets must rely on their proprietary methods for estimating these values, and sometimes outlets' values conflict.
Some reliable sources, including Times of India [1] have estimated this film's budget at ₹543 crore ( ₹5.43 billion). Another source generally considered reliable, Bollywood Hungama, has cast doubts on the high figures being reported, presenting a budget estimate of ₹400 crore ( ₹4 billion). [2]
Should we:
Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"The best source is the producer himself"and
"The most reliable box office numbers come directly from public companies"is totally inaccurate as indicated by the TOI article, and demonstrates little understanding of the way Indian cinema figures work. (See Kabali and the fiasco caused when some news outlets swallowed the demonstrably incorrect box office figures. ThaThin's invocation of the phrase "POV speculation" seems to conflating Wikipedia policy with secondary source editorial policy, and their sudden appearance in this discussion after 4.5 years of silence is very perplexing. The most prudent approach is the present the content in the form of a range, although now that I know that the 543 crore figure came from the director, I don't think that it should be included in the range, and whatever the last lower estimate is, should be used instead, although I'm not clear on what that value is. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 04:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"It seems like you are trying to defend Bollywood Hungama as a "reliable source" blindly believing in its reliabilty because disruptive people use it on wikipedia."← This doesn't make one iota of sense. I'm defending Bollywood Hungama because disruptive people use it? Huh? What does that even mean. I don't need to "defend" Bollywood Hungama. It is a widely accepted source at Wikipedia. Period. If you have a problem with the source, you are free to pursue whatever discussion you wish to pursue about it at WT:ICTF. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The director shankar himself had said in a interview in a leading channel that the budget is around 450 crores.. Harin0905 ( talk) 08:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
It does not matter official or unofficial, Wikipedia gives liberty to write any fact as long as it can be found in news sources and verified. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have one more solid argument to back my claim and it is when we google the term "Robot 2" and click/tap on News option in navigation, it brings quiet a useful amount of results. So the term "Robot 2" is of importance here. You say it's an unofficial name that was used by Hindi-speaking areas informally and that Robot 2 isn't a common English name for it. I say, isn't IBT foreign wrt India? Why is it calling 2.0 as Robot 2? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@ ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Please provide me with any WP policy where what you claiming is written. This is reckless, look I found another source calling 2.0 as Robot 2. Please understand that nobody will support me, nobody did, I always walk alone. So please don't play the consensus card with me, I will seriously fail here. I have pretty fairly understandable claims with me. They are: The given 3 sources saying Robot 2. The Google search for Robot 2. The English and Hindi regions are much more bigger than Southern India and both of them call this film Robot 2. So why are you people ignoring reality? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this an argument at all? Why are you confusing the talk page stalkers. Also Robot 2.0 is not a working title. Don't say that you are assuming it that way.
Oops! Next time when I undo, I will add Robot 2.0. Thanks for pointing that out. Wait, if Robot 2 was wrong name then you could have yourself reverted it back to Robot 2.0. Also remember that my claim has still got two sources and different ones. Still, none of your above explanations nullify the fact that the film is indeed known as Robot 2.0. I am at disadvantage here since I can't read Tamil/Telugu. If I did then I would have had sources in those languages too.
Harsh Rathod
Poke me!
14:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Here is the list of more sources in plain English (because this is English Wikipedia) which further strengthen my claim:
@
RajFilmBuff: You say Robot 2.0 only appears in one English-language newspaper, the International Business Times (India) and has one English-language source and that appears to be the only source that exists. I ask, did you google the term Robot 2.0? Please always do your homework before making such claims because "reputation is better kept than recovered." -
Dr. Phil
@
Cyphoidbomb: The film is completely made in India so please keep Hollywood logic(s) out of here.
@
ThaThinThaKiThaTha: You say: If we hadn't a context in the content body, we wouldn't even know, that they mean this film. I'm only assuming that you did perform proofreading (Truth I don't know.). I ask did you read all the available sources carefully while writing content for this article or just cherry-picked a handful of them which were larger in terms of words?
Harsh Rathod
Poke me!
09:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Here are more:
There are more but I'm curious what excuses you will come out about these sources. I'll post more after your next reply. You shouldn't reply for what is not intended for you. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC) @ RajFilmBuff: I think now I have two (business and economic times) independent, unique, reliable and trustworthy sources in my favour. Is this sufficient or more is required? What is the end date of this discussion? Will it ever end? This name is neither a nickname (as explained by Cyphoidbomb) nor working-title (which is completely different) or abbreviation as you explained. It is just that this film is also known as Robot 2.0, that is all. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@ RajFilmBuff: First you said there is no threshold amount of sources and when I provide them you change to there are so little sources. It is not that I am not willing to listen but it you people who aren't willing to compromise. Not a single one of you said let's put it somewhere else in the article. I want to put it somewhere else in the article. Since the fact is backed up with sources, it is significant. Is it okay? Now let's see what more excuses you people have. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this type of practice okay? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Zee Biz is not a reliable source for worldwide box office collections of 2.0. A trade website data is needed. times of india quote figures of
Box Office India. that can be used .
https://www.zeebiz.com/india/photo-gallery-20-box-office-collection-worldwide-total-till-now-bollywood-hindi-kollywood-chennai-earnings-rs-800-crore-rajinikanth-76254
the worldwide figures of 2.0 is no where touching even Rs 700 crore. its in Rs 665-670 crore range.
-- Insaafbarua ( talk) 17:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 2.0 earned more than 800cr Anurag Anand 1815131 ( talk) 23:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.14.105.242 ( talk) 08:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add telugu also in release languages list only tamil and hindi is added Hemanth12121 ( talk) 13:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
2.51.17.85 ( talk) 07:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC) THIS IS A TAMIL FILM. ALL OTHER LANGUAGES = DUBBING ONLY.
Ok Chinmayap7210 ( talk) 20:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I THINK IT IS IN HINDI ALSO. Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 09:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
What are the number of dubbed languages in the film, is it 13 or 15? Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 06:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Is the website www.diginewspoint.com a trusted news site to be added as reference? Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 05:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for blocking Androidbijay1 for advertising. But how did you get confirmed that he was promoting (his own) website?
Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 09:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Additional 100 crore spent on vfx work. Asj052 ( talk) 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/2-0-rajinikanth-and-shankars-magnum-opus-adds-another-rs-100-cr-to-films-budget-to-accelerate-vfx-work-4531601.html Asj052 ( talk) 17:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Request for semi protection due to repeated editing without reference. Asj052 ( talk) 08:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What? Have you requested a protection or want us to request it? Please be clear Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 10:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, what to do about the film's release date? Aggarwala2727 ( talk) 11:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Director of movie tweeted on July 10,2018 that movie will release on November 29,2018. Yogendra014 ( talk) 17:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
By seeing the teaser of all the three versions of 2.0, it can be confirmed that it was shot only in Tamil. The teaser has a scene showing a news channel named News7, which is operating in India only in Tamil language. There is no such channel called News7 in Telugu or Hindi. The 'Lifestyle' logo written in Tamil in the Tamil teaser has been removed in the Telugu and Hindi teasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.49.218.194 ( talk) 11:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the real budget of 2.0 is 552 crores (5520000000INR), this is not estimated, based on the poster launched by "Variety" a weekly American entertainment trade magazine on their first page quoting "India's first 75 million dollar VFX wonder", that's why when you convert 75 million USdollars to INR it will be 552 crores! this poster was shared by the Director, Akshay Kumar and Lyca Production (the Production company of the movie) Delak0923 ( talk) 16:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Please feel free to edit the plot as I have written the plot on the basis of just hearing the story from my friend. I know there are many mistakes in the plot. So just go ahead and add and correct it if necessary Gunjan Kayarkar ( talk) 07:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
unsourced box office figures added to the article-- Hjkl12345 ( talk) 15:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
800 crore box office in 4 days Jagadeep2020 ( talk) 00:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The collection world wide is 216 after day 2. Here is the source - https://boxofficecollection.in/box-office-report/2point0-2nd-day-collection-39122 2406:7400:B2:0:0:0:2:24E7 ( talk) 03:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@ RajFilmBuff: Can you or anyone else please explain the meaning of the "voiced by" labels next to some of the cast, like here? There is a glaring lack of context, so this doesn't make sense to someone who has not seen the film. Why do we have an actor playing a role only to have their role voiced by someone else? Is this because of dubbing? If so, that should be stated clearly, and it's also not terribly clear why we would care about a dubbed role, when that's not typically logged in most films. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"When Chitti returns to the lab, Dr. Vaseegaran inquires about the three huge parabolic antenna and comes to know that they were built secretly to send signals of negative energy into space with the hope of finding or communicating with other species" in this the signals were of "Positive energy" not negative.
"Ultimately they manage to destroy Pakshi Rajan (although they are tricked into believing this)." they actually capture him instead of destroy. Chiranjivi Mokashi ( talk) 08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Present poster is not up to the mark. Its look like some one cropped and collage them together. Please upload new poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.0.5.237 ( talk) 17:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Uh
"543 crores (or 54300 lakhs) is equal to 5430 million (5.43 billion)."
Is this not out by a factor of a 1000 or so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.162.102 ( talk) 15:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Cyphoidbomb:,
In the Bollywood Hungama source, The actual overall budget of 2.0 is Rs 552 crores, and that too after all the VFX being done all over again since the original VFX were of very poor quality. Also, the film is far more expensive than the usual 3D films in India. Most films in this country using that format are first shot in 2D and then converted to 3D. 2.0 was shot in 3D”
, says the source. The main point is that who is the source? Is it director Shankar? Lyca Productions staff? Or What? In the previous source, they said Akshay Kumar name is Dr. Richard, which is founded by source. That is completely false information which is claimed by Shankar during interview with Rajeev Masand. He also claim that the film bugdet is $75 Million. Here is the source
https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJQ5CQlIGBA . So what should we do? Should we believe source that close to the film or director Shankar? Thank you,
Siddiqsazzad001
<Talk/>
13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Verifed: 400 crore is the old bugdet. After completed their VFX work, the graphics visual seen very poor. Later they shifted their VFX studio at DNEG. Thats why they needed more 143 crore. Interview Source: ( https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJQ5CQlIGBA). 75 million mean 543 crore ( https://twitter.com/shankarshanmugh/status/1039068601536339968/photo/1). All the sources are properly verifed. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The funny part is, that you can't demonstrate any evidence for any figure for Indian movies because of the lack of any official body for Indian box office numbers, but you still claim that it has been demonstrated. It makes zero sense to meWell it makes zero sense to me either. What are you trying to say? I genuinely don't understand what your complaint/argument is here and I'm not sure how your comments that seem to be pro-Hindi paranoia are helpful in this discussion. Also, was it ever proven definitively that 2.0 was not shot in multiple languages? I'm not talking about the armchair detective work that some Anon tried to present in September on this page. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background: There are no official reporting agencies for budget or gross figures in Indian cinema. News outlets must rely on their proprietary methods for estimating these values, and sometimes outlets' values conflict.
Some reliable sources, including Times of India [1] have estimated this film's budget at ₹543 crore ( ₹5.43 billion). Another source generally considered reliable, Bollywood Hungama, has cast doubts on the high figures being reported, presenting a budget estimate of ₹400 crore ( ₹4 billion). [2]
Should we:
Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"The best source is the producer himself"and
"The most reliable box office numbers come directly from public companies"is totally inaccurate as indicated by the TOI article, and demonstrates little understanding of the way Indian cinema figures work. (See Kabali and the fiasco caused when some news outlets swallowed the demonstrably incorrect box office figures. ThaThin's invocation of the phrase "POV speculation" seems to conflating Wikipedia policy with secondary source editorial policy, and their sudden appearance in this discussion after 4.5 years of silence is very perplexing. The most prudent approach is the present the content in the form of a range, although now that I know that the 543 crore figure came from the director, I don't think that it should be included in the range, and whatever the last lower estimate is, should be used instead, although I'm not clear on what that value is. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 04:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"It seems like you are trying to defend Bollywood Hungama as a "reliable source" blindly believing in its reliabilty because disruptive people use it on wikipedia."← This doesn't make one iota of sense. I'm defending Bollywood Hungama because disruptive people use it? Huh? What does that even mean. I don't need to "defend" Bollywood Hungama. It is a widely accepted source at Wikipedia. Period. If you have a problem with the source, you are free to pursue whatever discussion you wish to pursue about it at WT:ICTF. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The director shankar himself had said in a interview in a leading channel that the budget is around 450 crores.. Harin0905 ( talk) 08:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
It does not matter official or unofficial, Wikipedia gives liberty to write any fact as long as it can be found in news sources and verified. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have one more solid argument to back my claim and it is when we google the term "Robot 2" and click/tap on News option in navigation, it brings quiet a useful amount of results. So the term "Robot 2" is of importance here. You say it's an unofficial name that was used by Hindi-speaking areas informally and that Robot 2 isn't a common English name for it. I say, isn't IBT foreign wrt India? Why is it calling 2.0 as Robot 2? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@ ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Please provide me with any WP policy where what you claiming is written. This is reckless, look I found another source calling 2.0 as Robot 2. Please understand that nobody will support me, nobody did, I always walk alone. So please don't play the consensus card with me, I will seriously fail here. I have pretty fairly understandable claims with me. They are: The given 3 sources saying Robot 2. The Google search for Robot 2. The English and Hindi regions are much more bigger than Southern India and both of them call this film Robot 2. So why are you people ignoring reality? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this an argument at all? Why are you confusing the talk page stalkers. Also Robot 2.0 is not a working title. Don't say that you are assuming it that way.
Oops! Next time when I undo, I will add Robot 2.0. Thanks for pointing that out. Wait, if Robot 2 was wrong name then you could have yourself reverted it back to Robot 2.0. Also remember that my claim has still got two sources and different ones. Still, none of your above explanations nullify the fact that the film is indeed known as Robot 2.0. I am at disadvantage here since I can't read Tamil/Telugu. If I did then I would have had sources in those languages too.
Harsh Rathod
Poke me!
14:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Here is the list of more sources in plain English (because this is English Wikipedia) which further strengthen my claim:
@
RajFilmBuff: You say Robot 2.0 only appears in one English-language newspaper, the International Business Times (India) and has one English-language source and that appears to be the only source that exists. I ask, did you google the term Robot 2.0? Please always do your homework before making such claims because "reputation is better kept than recovered." -
Dr. Phil
@
Cyphoidbomb: The film is completely made in India so please keep Hollywood logic(s) out of here.
@
ThaThinThaKiThaTha: You say: If we hadn't a context in the content body, we wouldn't even know, that they mean this film. I'm only assuming that you did perform proofreading (Truth I don't know.). I ask did you read all the available sources carefully while writing content for this article or just cherry-picked a handful of them which were larger in terms of words?
Harsh Rathod
Poke me!
09:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Here are more:
There are more but I'm curious what excuses you will come out about these sources. I'll post more after your next reply. You shouldn't reply for what is not intended for you. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC) @ RajFilmBuff: I think now I have two (business and economic times) independent, unique, reliable and trustworthy sources in my favour. Is this sufficient or more is required? What is the end date of this discussion? Will it ever end? This name is neither a nickname (as explained by Cyphoidbomb) nor working-title (which is completely different) or abbreviation as you explained. It is just that this film is also known as Robot 2.0, that is all. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@ RajFilmBuff: First you said there is no threshold amount of sources and when I provide them you change to there are so little sources. It is not that I am not willing to listen but it you people who aren't willing to compromise. Not a single one of you said let's put it somewhere else in the article. I want to put it somewhere else in the article. Since the fact is backed up with sources, it is significant. Is it okay? Now let's see what more excuses you people have. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this type of practice okay? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Zee Biz is not a reliable source for worldwide box office collections of 2.0. A trade website data is needed. times of india quote figures of
Box Office India. that can be used .
https://www.zeebiz.com/india/photo-gallery-20-box-office-collection-worldwide-total-till-now-bollywood-hindi-kollywood-chennai-earnings-rs-800-crore-rajinikanth-76254
the worldwide figures of 2.0 is no where touching even Rs 700 crore. its in Rs 665-670 crore range.
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
-- Insaafbarua ( talk) 17:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 2.0 earned more than 800cr Anurag Anand 1815131 ( talk) 23:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2.0 (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.14.105.242 ( talk) 08:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)