This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Indian This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force. India: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Please don't propose this article to be deleted. The film has already been filming as mentioned in the references. The title of the film is not yet decided. But will be decided soon when the filming will be completed . You can go through all the three news references it is a renowned film which contains bollywood's actor Ranbir Kapoor who is working in the industry from past 10 years and has given some massive hits. Please don't delete this article it is my humble request. TKSS (talk)

@TKSS: I don't know why I'm telling you this  ;) but see the PROD notice actually says: 'You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.' O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no character for richa sharma and rhea pillai Bhaarathy (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice an edit-war between Shimlaites and TKSS has taken place over the last few days. I'm astounded that neither one of you has opened a discussion about this yet, so I'm doing that for you here. As a general rule, the moment another editor reverts you, you should leave the article alone, open a discussion and get to the bottom of why you were reverted and seek out a consensus. Shimlaites, you added Hindi script to the article here, and were reverted, so the discussion about whether Hindi script should be included in the article should have been opened by you. But as collaborative editors any one of us could have opened the discussion, including you, TKSS.

As to the matter of the Hindi script, if the film is released under a Romanised name, like Dutt, the Hindi script should probably be excluded. The purpose of the |film_name= parameter is to indicate a film's name in its home country. If the film is widely released as Dutt, then we should leave it at that. PK should not have Hindi script attached to it. Jolly LLB 2 was widely released under this Romanised name. Film posters and newspapers refer to it this way, not by its Hindi script. By contrast, Drishyam was released with Malayalam script on its various posters and promotional materials,[1][2][3], so there's a solid reason to include the Malayalam script in the infobox.

The other matter remaining appears to be whether the word "(left)" appears in the photo caption. TKSS, were you actually objecting to this, or did you just do a blanket revert here, that inadvertently removed the word? If this is not a point of contention, you really should restore it, TKSS. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb i am very much convinced what you have said one thing i want to tell you it is very early to decide whether this film's poster will be in hindi or english so i think my revert no.1 is right as of my second revert i have reverted because i feel your version of caption in the article was more correct because the picture looks more in alignment. Regards, TKSS (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TKSS: The "left" has nothing to do with alignment. The text just indicates where Ranbir Kapoor is standing in the photo, i.e. on the left. The photo is aligned right in either version. Shimlaites' version vs your reverted version. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TKSS: First of all, stop reverting others' edit coz according to you "they are not nice looking", that is not how things are done on Wikipedia. I asked you to come on the talk page but you didn't bother, instead reverting blindly without any solid explanation. Do not revert till the discussion is on here, it is considered disruptive. Shimlaites (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cyphoidbomb Adding native script(native here being the language of the film, which in case of Bollywood is Hindi) is a norm irrespective of the script on the poster. Drishyam maybe a stand-alone case of its own kind, but using native script is norm, most film pages have the film title in the native script in the info-box like this, this, this or this. Shimlaites (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you have adequate experience to assert what community norms are. And it's certainly questionable to present this as the norm when you point to an article that you've added the script to yourself. There are already strong feelings among members of the Indian cinema task force about the inclusion (and exclusion) of Indic scripts in film articles in general, with some concerns centered on how the native titles are derived. Are they translations made up by Wikipedia editors or the actual native title? So maybe your best efforts here would be spent convincing TKSS with sources that the film bears a unique Hindi title. Re: Raise of the Red Lantern, this would justify the inclusion of the Chinese script. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced enough to know that film titles in native scripts are a norm on film pages. You picked one case where I must have added the script at some point of time in past, fine, what about others? Did I come up with this idea of adding the native script in the first place? No. It is a norm. Also, I prompted User:TKSS to start discussion through my edit summaries and messages on his/her talk page, but he/she didn't even entertain the idea. I took the initiative unlike User:TKSS who just blindly reverted without any edit summaries and left message on my talk page such as "it doesn't look good in the article", which is a clear case of POV. Shimlaites (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shimlaites: You're making an argument that because something appears at X, that means it must appear at Y. That's illogical, because there could be any number of reasons why something appears in one place and not another, or why it should appear in one place and should not in another. That argument hinges on an unfounded assumption that the introduction of the content at X was justified and correct. What if someone was totally unfamiliar with Wikipedia community guidelines and did it out of ignorance? What if they fabricated the content and added it to be pernicious? I don't know what the thought processes were that led to the addition of Indic script at Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. Only AKS2000 would know that, since it looks like they added it here. Perhaps they will enlighten us. But there might be a rational explanation that may not ultimately justify our inclusion of the content at Dutt. In the case of the Pakistani film, it's possible that the film was widely discussed with the Urdu title. Or maybe it was just added erroneously by this guy, who has a scant 34 edits under his belt and didn't know any better. Anything's possible. I've already addressed Raise the Red Lantern by providing a photo of the native script on a film poster. It might not be a bad idea for you to raise this question at WT:ICTF just so we get people who are interested in shaping community norms to weigh in on how and when we'd add the Indic script to the Infobox. Lastly, to address another point in your post, discussions don't begin in edit summaries. While TKSS was wrong to revert three times without providing an explanation, the community doesn't consider your edit summary to be the beginning of the dicussion. Discussions take place on talk pages. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb,Shimlaites I admit my mistake that i didn't clear the reason of my reverting on this article. The first reason is about the native script on this article i know some articles on wikipedia include native scripts in the title and some do not include native script in the article. In my opinion and according to wikipedia policies there are many articles which doesn't include hindi title in the infobox such as M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story which is also a biopic like this article and it doesn't require a hindi title in the infobox because it is on the name of the cricketer Ms Dhoni and it's name can be pronounced in english mostly. Like this article is based on a biopic film being made on indian film actor Sanjay Dutt. Plus this title of this film is tentative and not permanent as seen in this article so it needs to be not their on the infobox http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/give-me-a-title-for-dutt-biopic-get-a-high-end-phone-promises-rajkumar-hirani/articleshow/56250573.cms this is the link which is provided in the article itself. The alignment of infobox is ruining the picture so that's why i did second revert. Please solve my issue . RegardsTKSS (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what alignment issue you are referring to. You reverted this edit by Shimlaites, but this has nothing to do with the the infobox alignment as I've written above. The infobox is always aligned to the right. The image is aligned to the right. If we align the image to the left of the cast section it pushes all the bullets right. This is a stylistic choice that you should discuss with Shimlaites. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb ok i understand alignment and will talk to shimlaites but writing a tentative title in hindi is not correct you and shimlaites have to wait for this film's poster and final title to be released and then we all have to decide to put the title in hindi script or not. Regards TKSS (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TKSS Its a Hindi Bollywood film, and adding the title in the native script is perfectly normal. Your argument that it "doesn't look good" is not a valid argument and is a clear case of your POV. Shimlaites (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are widely referring to it with Hindi script? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "native script". Dutt is a Hindi film, it is implied, do we need to add a source which explicitly says that a film starring Ranbir Kapoor, directed by Rajkumar Hirani is a "Hindi film" and not otherwise? Hence the Hindi, technically Devanagari script. Shimlaites (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at Template:Infobox film ask that we add the native title of the film. If the film isn't being presented to natives as दत्त, then it would be a fabrication to add that as a native title. What would you do about Wedding Anniversary? Translate it to Hindi? Anyway, I think the discussion is going nowhere, so the discussion will probably need to be held in some wider arena, like WT:ICTF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, Shimlaites I don't know why shimlaites not understanding that this movie's title has not been decided yet and it is a tentative title or the poster has not released yet how come you are saying that i am not arguing validly . From how much i know wikipedia works on the reliability of renowned newspapers and magazine articles and also renowned books. if you don't know about reliability of sources then please study Please study this topic shimlaites. Cyphoidbomb how come you have not reverted shimlaites edit which he/she is arguing that it is correct as you can see that this film is currently filming and it's poster, teaser , trailer hasn't been released yet and a hindi script is not valid in this article now but it can get valid if once the poster comes out till then cyphoidbomb please delete hindi script from the article. Regards,TKSS (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TKSS The whole "tentative title" is another issue, if it is actually not the title, then why has it been put on the page in the first place? If the film's makers are not calling it 'Dutt', then why is its page on Wikipedia calling it so? It should be titled "Rajkumar Hirani's untitled" or something similar. Shimlaites (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shimlaites if tentative title is an issue then i think it should be changed to Untitled Sanjay Dutt Biopic because i know it was my fault to move this film article to dutt i was at hurry to expand this article and one thing you should know that hindi script should not be written till the poster haven't released of the upcoming film. Shimlaites please understand my point of view and change this article to Untitled Sanjay Dutt Biopic.TKSS (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue to me doesn't appear to be the tentative title, (which is sourced) it's the reverse conforming of a Romanised title to Devanagari script (your point well noted, Shimlaites), when that's not established as the native title. With English (or at least English-shaped words) being so prevalent in India, it's not out of the question that a Hindi-language film would have a Romanised title and that would be the end of that. By contrast, though the title of Drishyam in Malayalam is ദൃശ്യം, we don't change the title of the article to "Visual" just because that's the title English speakers would understand. Anyway, I think the discussion could be improved with perspectives from other Indian editors, so I'm inviting Bollyjeff and Anupam. Bollyjeff (if I remember correctly) tends to edit Hindi film articles. Anupam says specifically that he's interested in adding "Hindi and Urdu (Devanagari and Perso-Arabic) scripts to Bollywood film and song articles", so I'm curious what he has to say on this very specific matter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is not called 'Dutt", at least by its makers. I don't know which sources are we talking about here, but 'Dutt' is actually just a title given by some sections of media. The film, as of now, is referred to as "Sanjay Dutt's Biopic" by most commentators. So it is an issue, even User:TKSS is confessing that she/he moved the title in a "hurry to expand this article", so we should also consider moving it back to that title.Shimlaites (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me to comment User:Cyphoidbomb. In the past, I gladly added Hindi-Urdu (Devanagari and Nastaleeq) scripts to Bollywood film titles and would be happy to continue doing so if you would like. Many Bollywood movies in the past included Roman, Hindi (Devanagari), and Urdu (Nastaleeq) scripts in their covers, e.g. Image:Awaaraposter.jpg, Image:Waqt 1965 film poster.JPG, Image:Padosan film poster.jpg, etc. This is because Hindi-Urdu is a pluricentric language and just like Serbo-Croatian, the colloquial spoken language is the same, but the script used to write the language is different. The text Bollywood, published by an academic publisher, Columbia University Press states "Bollywood films largely use Hindustani: a combination of Hindi and Urdu widely understood throughout north India." In light of this fact, I believe both Devanagari and Nastaleeq scripts should be added to infoboxes of articles and if this is welcomed, I'd be happy to help do this. If consensus is against doing so, then I'm fine with leaving the articles alone too. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: I think that the addition of multiple scripts would be controversial, given that resistance to multiple Indic scripts in the lead resulted in WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and previous discussions like this have expressed concern for what might be designated "official" scripts. So let's please not jump the gun here. And anyway, this narrow forum would not be the place to establish a consensus for wide additions. The question specific to this article is about whether or not it is appropriate to use a native script in the infobox, and if so, what the trigger would be for this particular article. If the Romanised "Dutt" is the working title tossed about by the trades in India, where does "दत्त" come from? From what I can tell, one person is pushing this as the "|native_name=" when so far nobody's been able to establish what the natives are actually calling it, other than as the Romanised "Dutt". Hope that makes sense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyphoidbomb, the word "Dutt" is a Hindi-Urdu word written in the Roman/Latin script. In Devanagari, the word "Dutt" appears as "दत्त" and in Nastaleeq, the word appears as "دت". I do not object to the use of Devanagari (and Nastaleeq) being used in the infobox since most individuals in the Indian subcontinent would write the word in these scripts, rather than in the Roman/Latin script. I hope this explanation makes sense. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 04:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dutt" is not a Hindi-Urdu word, its a proper noun, its a name, which I am sure is of Sanskrit origin, which is a non-issue. The language which is identified with Bollywood is Hindi, which uses the Devanagari script, so I don't think Nastaleeq should be added. Shimlaites (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cyphoidbomb, I think that "one person' being talked about is me, so let me reply. First of all, Dutt is not even the working title, the film doesn't have any title so far and is referred to as 'Sanjay Dutt's biopic' by most commentators and Bollywood trade analysts. Even User:TKSS is confessing that she/he moved the title in a "hurry to expand this article", so first step should be to revert the page back to its earlier title. Also "दत्त" is the Devanagari version of 'Dutt', again in its native script. Romanised "Dutt" is used by Roman script using English media and "दत्त" is being used by Devanagari using Hindi media. It doesn't mean they are two different words. Shimlaites (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

|film_name= is for the film's native title. It is absolutely possible for a Hindi film's native title to be the Romanised version of the Hindi word. Why wouldn't it be, if there are so many Hindi film titles that are actually English? Native title does not always mean we have to use native script, and not every Hindi film needs this parameter filled out. Changing the subject, I've moved the article to Untitled Sanjay Dutt biopic, because 1) "Biopic film" is redundant, as biopics are biographical films. 2) "Biopic" is not a proper noun, so it doesn't warrant capitalisation in the middle of a sentence 3) "Film" shouldn't be in parentheses anyway because you'd say "Untitled Sanjay Dutt film", not "Untitled Sanjay Dutt (film)". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia: you removed this content here. I would like to say that I have seen similar information being given in other articles, though they are generally related to casting. But, it is a process of development of the film and I think it should be there. Plus, it was covered by reliable sources too! Vivek Ray (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@South Indian Geek: Hi, I was wondering about this edit of yours. Can you tell me why was it removed? I mean, why can't both the reviews be mentioned in the article? Thanks! Vivek Ray (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have nothing personally against its inclusion, but the Reception section seems balanced enough currently. The inclusion of 2 reviews from the same publication might alter the balance in the favor of one opinion and could also borderline on WP:UNDUE, although I am not certain about the latter. Of all the reviews for the film out there, why mention 2 from only this one publication? Hope this justifies it. South Indian Geek (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@South Indian Geek: Hi! I understand your view, but what exactly do you mean by 'balanced'? Are you counting the number of positive and negative reviews? The publication has released two contrasting reviews. So, don't you think it might be more neutral to include both? How would including two reviews alter the balance? And moreover, it has been already mentioned that reviews were 'mostly positive' and citations have been given to support that. I think it's more than enough to sum up what exactly is the opinion. Thanks Vivek Ray (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was referring to the number of positive and negative reviews. Sorry for not being quite clear earlier. As I mentioned, per WP:UNDUE, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. My thinking was somewhere along these lines. That being said, I am nether supported or opposed to the inclusion of the review. South Indian Geek (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@South Indian Geek: Well, I feel including one more unfavourable review will not change anything. Moreover, upon reading the whole of WP:UNDUE it seems I might be right. Also, you have added another source to support the opinion of the majority. (Cheers for that!) And since you are neutral about the inclusion of the review, I might just go ahead and add it. Thanks Vivek Ray (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think there might be other positive reviews supporting the general opinion which has not been included. I will add them if I come across, any and if they are RS. Thanks! Vivek Ray (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so, go ahead. Thanks, South Indian Geek (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have added the review there myself now. Do check for any errors. I don't think adding more reviews will be necessary now as the section is already huge and only getting bigger. South Indian Geek (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@South Indian Geek: Ah, thanks a lot for the edit! And yes, you are right about the size of it. I think we will have to copyedit it else it might end up becoming a quotefarm or something like that. Thanks Vivek Ray (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanju Movie Review : Ranbir Kapoor Is Ready To Give His Biggest Opening https://directordada.com/sanju-movie-review-ranbir-kapoor-is-ready-to-give-his-biggest-opening/ Directordada01 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Unclear what this request means. Also, "directordada.com" is not a website I've ever heard of. Please don't try to spam your website at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence in the last paragraph of the "critical response" section contains a spelling error. The word 'pefromance' is spelled incorrectly and should be changed to 'performance'. 70.49.11.50 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence, "Additionally, the film was criticized for its glorification and supposed image cleansing of its protagonist, some noting it as a 'propaganda film'", in the article's lead, there are a couple of errors. First, the phrase "propaganda film" does not appear elsewhere in the article, except in #Production where the director says that it isn't a propaganda film. It has also been contested by multiple sources (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/opinion-entertainment/sanju-sanjay-dutt-biopic-ranbir-kapoor-5242852/) and hence that quoted phrase "propaganda film" needs to go. Second, no where in this article is there a mention of "glorification" of the protoganist. The critical response section instead notes the opinions of critics who, while agreeing with the supposed image cleansing, note that the protoganist is not whitewashed. That too needs to go. I am proposing this sentence in place of it instead: "Additionally, the film was criticized for its supposed image cleansing of its protagonist." Thanks, 31.215.112.35 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda film has been added yet again in a new edit in both the lead and #Reception, this time with two User contributed HuffPost sources which are used to support other information regarding potential image cleansing. Neither of these added sources in #Reception mention propaganda film, yet this has been prominently displayed in the lead. The wording of the newly added text in this edit also doesn't seem neutral. Please remove the unsupported information and consider the reliability of the user contributed HuffPost sources, which seem to be providing a biased overview and not taking into account prominent viewpoints (like the Indian Express article linked in the previous message). Thanks, 31.215.112.35 (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: This information seems subject to an edit war on the article with 2 reverts taking place. Please restore the article to its stable version. 31.215.112.35 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this site https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sanju/ says negative things about the film but no mention here. i saw this sites used in other bad/panned bollywood films, used to make them good. pls add this. also the film it getting blamed for making sanju look good and for blaming others for his deeds but no mention here. it must have been done to market this film from pr people. it us unfair.https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/rss-slams-sanju-rajkumar-hirani-for-whitewashing-sanjay-dutt-image-,https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44721645,https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/sanju-panchjanya-rss-official-newspaper-criticises-rajkumar-hirani-for-whitewashing-sanjay-dutts-reputation-4723131.html,https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/twitterati-feel-that-sanju-is-trying-to-whitewash-sanjay-dutts-image/articleshow/64833334.cms,https://www.mid-day.com/articles/sanju-movie-review/19563164,https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2018/07/sanju-cherry-picks-and-whitewash-sanjay-dutts-life/,https://www.masala.com/sanju-movie-reviewit-s-more-propaganda-and-laughs-and-less-facts-265927.html,https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2018/07/the-sanju-propaganda/,https://www.dailyo.in/arts/sanju-teaser-sanjay-dutt-ranbir-kapoor-ak-56-rajkumar-hirani/story/1/23739.html,https://www.indiatimes.com/entertainment/celebs/some-pour-love-for-ranbir-kapoor-s-sanju-while-others-accuse-the-film-of-being-a-propaganda-348449.html,https://www.mensxp.com/entertainment/celebrities/46055-11-dark-chapters-from-sanjay-dutt-s-life-that-rajkumar-hirani-didn-t-show-us-in-sanju.html,https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/sanju-whats-missing-in-hiranis-dutt-biopic-from-madhuri-dixit-affair-to-political-debut-with-samajwadi-party-4652141.html,https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/130718/sanju-glorifies-criminal-womaniser-drug-addict-sanjay-dutt-rss.html,https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/bollywood-news/sanju-should-not-be-glorified-former-mumbai-police-commissioner-satyapal-singh,https://www.thebetterindia.com/139085/sanju-trailer-winning-hearts-should-biopics-glorify-stars-vices/,https://www.indiatimes.com/entertainment/celebs/more-people-express-disappointment-over-sanju-think-it-s-an-attempt-to-whitewash-sanjay-dutt-s-image-348495.html,https://thewire.in/film/sanjay-dutt-rajkumar-hirani-ranbir-kapoor-sanju-film-review,https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/sanju-movie-review-ranbir-kapoor-is-superb-but-what-a-startlingly-dishonest-sanjay-dutt-biopic-this-is-4629331.html. so no sensible pwople work on this site or this is a paid website for film promotions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.91.10 (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read Sanju#Reception? Most of the negative reviews in Rotten Tomatoes have been included in it even though it itself isn't there because only a small amount of reviews are included in it. Rest of the websites are describing that a right wing political magazine (which isn't a reliable source) criticized the film, the opinion of a police inspector on it, what Twitter users feel about it. 2.51.19.149 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update box office to 528 crore. Here's the website from Bollywood Hungama, the current source from Bollywood Hungama has stopped live updating. In lead, remove citation needed and add this. Also, here, the user removed valid criticism summarized in Sanju#Critical reception. Please revert back. 2.51.19.149 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks Vivek Ray (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update "Pending" in accolades section to "won" for Best Director, Best Film, Best Supporting Actor and add Vanguard Award for Kapoor. Change the rest to nominated.[4] 2.51.21.102 (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please ping me if it was done incorrectly Waddie96 (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

27.34.70.141 (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

music = A. R. Rahman
Rohan-Rohan
Vikram Montrose Triace0627 (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]