Talk:Dhurandhar

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2025

[edit]

Ranveer as ISI agent Rasheedkhan123 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2025 (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. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 17:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2025

[edit]

Change the word 'Dharindar' to 'Dhurandar' Shantanujain18 (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2025 (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. jolielover♥talk 13:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, there was a citation with the spelling mistake.  Done jolielover♥talk 13:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

According to box office india the total budget is divided into 2 parts for this and its sequel, so specify that after the article for the 2nd film is made ~2025-38428-90 (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes its 140 for the 1st part and 110 for the 2nd ~2025-38547-24 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard if you would like an edit to be made on your behalf when you do not have access to edit. I've added {{Edit semi-protected}} for this reason, as it seems like a semi-protected edit request. NuggestNugtalk to me!contribs logsthey
them 00:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. NuggestNugtalk to me!contribs logsthey
them 00:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Screenplay credits

[edit]

Editor Shivkumar V. Panicker & Assistant Director/Co-Editor Ojas Gautam are credited for screenplay alongside Director Aditya Dhar, who is credited for the story. ~2025-38607-23 (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2025

[edit]

It opens around 25cr on its opening day. ~2025-38728-89 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhurandhar 3 is Up Next

[edit]

Yes ~2025-38626-92 (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Theriazz123: Can you explain this repeat of a disruptive edit by a new user, despite being explicitly told in the edit [summary] just before that {{ill}} exists for a reason. I already see you don't leave any edit summaries either despite having been at enwiki for a substantial time. Please desist and do not repeat this. Gotitbro (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kentfate: You have made two disruptive edits here despite being told to desist. If you do not know how {{ill}} links work, please do not bother with them. Gotitbro (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theriazz123: This edit [1] is blatantly false, it was a local Pakistan government operation. Please show a bit of competence and do not add blatantly false info like this. Gotitbro (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CrashLandingNew: You removed an {{ill}} link here without explanation [2]. These and the template exist for a reason, we already have a user blocked from the article space for doing this repeatedly. Again, please do not do this. Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rasheedkhan123: You have made quite a few contentious edits here: including [3] (dubious tags) and duplicating content already present in the article/section above [4] and [5] (twice after being reverted no less). You should desist immediately.
As for the duplicated content it is based on one anonynous source and no official statement, so I doubt its relevance for the article at all. Gotitbro (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

[edit]

budget is 280 cr ~2025-39288-54 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budget is 140cr of forst part.

[edit]

Budget is 140cr... not 280 Lucasattitude (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly mentioned in note that it shared with second part. Sources say that the combine budget of both films is 280 crore, that doesn’t mean that both have a split budget of fifty-fifty. Wikipedia doesn't work on assumptions. See Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 Sid95Q (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After inspecting both the source, there is No mention of budget being shared with second part the first source says 250 crore production budget with 30 crore spent on marketing while the second one says budget is 280 crore. Sid95Q (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
250 was the budget for the film which happened to get split into two films during the edit. A (shared with part 2) for the figure, as with deathly hallows, would make sense. ~2025-40074-70 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide a source for that. See WP:BURDEN Sid95Q (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For which claim? All sources pointing to a 250 crore budget minus marketing were posted prior to audiences walking into theatres and realising that the footage was split into two films. You obviously cannot make a sequel in three months. Hence, worth mentioning that the amount is spread.
and if a source is needed to verify that it was never intended to be a two-parter (beyond the trailer literally showing footage nowhere in the “first” film) here you go: https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/amp/news/bollywood/inside-scoop-real-reason-aditya-dhar-releasing-ranveer-singhs-dhurandhar-two-parts/ ~2025-40074-70 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if the movie is made in two parts would you show Rs.250 crore as cost in both , Dhurandhar 1 and 2? but the income you will split show?? thats absurd. You can mention Rs.140 cr as part one and $110 for part two. like you wouldn't include bahubali 1 and 2 income and production cost together. here it is mention 140 for part one https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/is-dhurandhar-biggest-hit-of-2025-has-ranveer-singh-aditya-dhar-600-crore-hit-beaten-chhaava-kantara-chapter-1-analysis-101765959059856.html so why you are inlfating the production cost. Why no real picture. ~2025-42114-35 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2025

[edit]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

, ,

Wrongly phrased statement, giving wrong impression.

[edit]

Hi this statement in the article;

” The film draws inspiration from real-life events involving geopolitical tensions and covert operations conducted by India's R&AW, particularly those associated with Operation Lyari, 2008 Mumbai attacks, crackdown on gangs and criminal syndicates”

it’s jumbling and mixing many things into it giving the wrong sense of causality. RAW and India had nothing to do with lyari gangs and their operations and their encounters with Pakistani law enforcement and the government. similarly, Mumbai attacks have absolutely nothing to do with lyari gangs. this is a fictitious narrative presented in the movie, which is not factual. please correct this statement to reflect facts. ~2025-39982-97 (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

[edit]

@Sid95Q: About this. Lang cats for films have always been more flexible than those for the infobox and like (I remember discussions/precedent regarding these for American films employing not too copious Spanish, Arabic etc. usage). I would further argue, that this is especially relevant considering the plot milieu and setting here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will start a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force regarding this as it needs broader discussion because Indian films that are set in different regions often use dialogues from that region’s language many times like in Param Sundari but we still wouldn’t call it a Malayalam-language film. Sid95Q (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct we wouldn't call/describe that as a "Malayalam" film or this as a "Balochi" one. But we are not doing that (either in the lede or body), we are adding a single cat which shows notable usage of a language in a film supported by RS. Gotitbro (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be misleading and misuse of the category as per the source you provided few dialogue are spoken in the language and there is more use of accent than the language itself. Sid95Q (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I added the invisible comment was to guide readers as to how the cat exactly applies. I do not think it is misleading or confusing to add a cat for a language used in a film with a setting directly associated with it. I say this based not on a whim or personal opinion but on wide Wikiproject Film precedent. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please share the discussion page here, the one you are mentioning. Sid95Q (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall the particular discussions at the moment (these were for particular films) but can point you to plenty of precedent at Category:Arabic-language American films and Category:Spanish-language American films and so on. Gotitbro (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The language is primilary or one of the predominant language in the films added in these categories unlike here. The were Russian language dialogues in Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Black Widow (2021 film) but I can't see Russian language category on these articles. Sid95Q (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak of other articles that may not specifically follow this but I had a hard look at the American cats a while back (when going through, including among others, Category:Films by country and language) and the usage is especially apparent in the American Arabic, Spanish or even Chinese cats (plenty populated in articles where in most cases they are not the primary/predominant lang by far). This also holds true for lang cats for other countries. Gotitbro (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing credits

[edit]

Shivkumar V. Panicker & Ojas Gautam are credited for the screenplay alongside Aditya Dhar, who is credited for the story. ~2025-38607-23 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please bring sources for this. These appear to be editors for the film not writers (per extant sources). Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
www.themoviedb.org/movie/1291608
Both of them are credited here. ~2025-38607-23 (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CITEIMDB; IMDB, TMDB etc. are not WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Gotitbro (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of chapters

[edit]

I saw the Dhurandhar movie yesterday and there are 8 chapters that have not been mentioned in the plot. I sincerely request you to please include the chapters names and what happens in the chapters. ~2025-33536-32 (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The plot section was indeed divided into chapter sections but went over the WP:FILMPLOT limit, for now I have added a hatnote listing these chapters (as the chapter content is already summarized as a whole in the section). Gotitbro (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Budget

[edit]

The budget in the infobox reflects production cost only, per Template:Infobox film/doc. The cited source specifies ₹250 crore as production budget, with an additional ₹30 crore for marketing/permissions, which should not be included in the infobox budget. Omnivoid (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter name correction

[edit]

the 2nd Chapter is called stranger in the land of shadows not "lane" correction of typo ~2025-37358-40 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PART TWO BUDGET .

[edit]

when its declared that PART 1 BUDGET is 140 CRORES . Why are you writing the combined budget of part 1 and part 2 together . Would you write the collection of PART 1 and PART 2 together ? Then why budget is mentioned combined . ~2025-32596-52 (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who "declared" the budget is 140 crore. Sources say that the combine budget of both films is between 250 to 300 crore, that doesn’t mean that both have a split budget of fifty-fifty. Wikipedia doesn't work on assumptions. See Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 Sid95Q (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tens of articles mentioning this. I can link all of them . But don't have that much time . Here is the one you can read, by Hindustan Times . Mentioned the budget and landing cost of film as ₹140 crores . Click this link for Article ~2025-32596-52 (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ICTFMOS Sid95Q (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secection

[edit]

should i add paksitani actors slammed the film by --Sunuraju (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2025

[edit]

Change "Cast Order" - that is, put Akshaye Khanna's name above Ranveer Singh's ~2025-42405-38 (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No reason given for the proposed change. Day Creature (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical inaccuracy and political messaging

[edit]

There should be a mention of all the historical inaccuracies - there are a lot of them, the propaganda of the reigning right-wing party Bharatiya Janata Party and islamophobic statements throughout the movie. [6] Phoenixxfeather (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Film doesn't claimed to be accurate. It's already has disclaimer to be work of fiction. Lucasattitude (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Islamophobia you found throughout the film, film is literally based in Pakistan. Nobody say anything against Islam. just because people are loving the film in India, it makes it Islamophobic Lucasattitude (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lock status to avoid personal agenda driven vandalism

[edit]

The film is popular, divisive and hence drives several groups of people to constantly vandalize and "serve" their own vested interests. For all the praise the film did get, there are some active groups constantly trying to launch smear campaigns against anyone critical as is evident through the edits such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhurandhar&diff=1329021943&oldid=1329021025.

There's a need to adhere to: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:No Advert. A protection status might be helpful - open to suggestions! Actuallysatyam (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Actuallysatyam After 20 days of release, you suddenly realised that it's has agenda.. Citing 2-3 selective reviews, can't be generalised overall. You can add in reception rather than putting in lead with selective approach. Lucasattitude (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand what you're trying to say. What can't be generalized? Reception, lead?
The point of Wikipedia is to strive for maximal truth - not to do ad hominem attacks onto me (or anyone else) just because there is a disagreement to what you hold dear. I haven't "realized agenda" like you put it. Such bad faith discourse isn't something I am going to participate in. Godspeed. Actuallysatyam (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuallysatyam I know Wikipedia that's why you should discuss here first before anything adding for your pov. The 3 sources you have cited are just reviews like others, on the other hand dozens aren't highlighted such things. So selecting few and then generalising is something looks intentionally justifying your pov.
You can add in reception subheader, they are already added.
You came and added before any discussions. Lucasattitude (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be engaging in an edit war with you and the 3 sources are just as valid as the other sources and are substantial enough to justify their own section. For your sake, there are now 5 refs - more than what is there for it's positive reviews. I hope that satisfies your standards! Actuallysatyam (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuallysatyam so you don't have answers. You can't add your POV until discussions here. You simply can't generalise. It wasn't added till now but today you found it propoganda Lucasattitude (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand it doesn't matter what I and you feel?
Do you have the intelligence to comprehend the fact that if I add a change it doesn't mean it's my personal vested interest against a particular thing but rather that I am striving to keep the page a balanced one?
I have told you this repeatedly, I have no vested interest in this film or against it - I have a vested interest in keeping Wikipedia a site that reliably reflects information. I want it to be free from trolls/brigades that seek to derail the reliability of this site to serve THEIR agenda. You have no real dissent towards my edits other than "it's late".
This is not my personal "POV" and neither should it be reflecting your "POV" - Wikipedia exists to reflect the truth that includes statements for and against any particular thing.
Please don't reply to me, anymore. I can't be bothered with this. Good luck. Actuallysatyam (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuallysatyam you simply discuss before anything according to your personal pov. Calling anything propoganda isn't a small statements. It wasn't added till today since you have arrived. By this logic.. every movie is propoganda for somebody. so stop adding opinions
Discuss here with other editors and then conclude it. Lucasattitude (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough people add Edit semi-protected

[edit]

Is there a template to help more people use it? And should such a template be added? NuggestNugtalk to me!contribs logsthey
them 00:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update box office

[edit]

925cr as per bollywood hungama ~2025-37358-40 (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political POV: Be descriptive/not judgmental/ NPOV

[edit]

Individual/ selective geo-political critics is not overall sentiments of the movie. Words like simplistic, commentators is biased writting/ inflammatory information. "The film’s depiction of India–Pakistan relations led certain commentators to criticise its handling of political themes and historical context in a simplistic manner"; Represents under Reception or Critical response & not in main introduction as WIKIPEDIA Policy. Entire sentence frame is subjected to discussion; however, currently moving the same --> under reception. Avoid disputes/ Conflicting/ Disruptive/ / Unconsructive edits based on personal/ political views. Sunuraju_talk,19Arham_talk, Sid95Q_talk, Actuallysatyam_talk, Lucasattitude_talk, Canilup_talk, River Back_talk, YeedyYaada_talk. SakuraSmart (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide source of those "certain" individuals that did the criticism in "simplistic" manner without attacking a particular govt, person and gender and ideology.
Don't add anything that is subjected to discussion until and unless an objective ground is reached to declare the event publicly.
Avoid gaslighting and affirmative actions that can lead to unconstructive emotional outbursts that can demotivate creative judgment. Canilup (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTCENSORED Sid95Q (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I provided two reputable sources. If you had bothered to check this before jumping on this bandwagon you would have seen this! (: 19Arham (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understand the paragraph, before providing the perceived views. WP:FILMLEAD/ WP:NOTCENSORED rules, such sentences features under Reception/ Critical response heading and not in the LEAD section of the articles. The paragraph should be in WP:NPOV mode, before placing in the article; which is responsibility of the editor to trim/ concise it as per Encyclopedia. SakuraSmart (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user thinks by just stating it's by "Wikipedia Policy" without citing any specific policy we are supposed to believe them. Please elaborate as to how my sentence is biased against a particular country and prevent yourself from making such claims without proper evidence. Thanks. 19Arham (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert and whitewashing

[edit]

Lucasattitude, I have no idea what this edit summary means: "It's already added in release subheader. what's the point of adding it in lead". What is a release subheader?

Notice that you have undone three separate changes amounting to 1760 characters. Each of them needs to be explained. And, such reverts have to be policy-based. I am sensing WP:OWN behaviour here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my changes have been reinstated. Since there has been no response here, I will be reinstating the rest as well.
On the whole, I sense an effort to cover up the fact that this is a political film. We don't do such WP:CENSORing here. The bans in Pakistan and GCC countries, and the brouhaha over Dhruv Rathee's review [7] suggest the political undercurrents. India did not send a spy to Karachi (in the film) in order to clean up its underworld. It sent it to infiltrate the supposed terror networks. The current write-up is whitewashing this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]