Talk:Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!

Article name?

Our name is spelled Kaun, which is the more common and correct transliteration, but the film title seems to be spelled Koun. We should probably move the article to the Koun spelling to stay consistent. I'll do that if there are no objections. - Taxman ^Talk 16:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection Radha Raju Ahmed (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dixit precedes Khan in the intro credits. We follow the credits order. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! → Hum Aapke Hain Koun...! — Correct title is Hum Aapke Hain Koun...! So...... Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! should redirect to Hum Aapke Hain Koun...! rather than present situation which is reverse... — Cruz-iglesia (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article quoted the title's Devanagari spelling हम आपके हैं कौन , whose standard transcription is "hama āpakē haiṃ kauna", or with the usual Hindi omissions of short "a", "ham āpkē haiṃ kaun". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shouldnt it be moved to Kaun(two dots)(Exclamation mark) instead of the present three dots? - Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Dont know why the above move was rejected. The poster clearly shows the spelling as "Koun". Will move it now. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Chocolate Limejuice

Was this song inserted in the film after the premier? I think i have heard something like that, that this song was added later on. I dont have any reliable sources though. If someone finds it, do add it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! → Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! – Requesting to move current page to this new prposed title as the poster itself uses the spelling "Koun", instead of present "Kaun". Also the poster uses only two dots before the exclamation mark. (Trivial, but true!) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support : Official title. Further clarifications can be made through Google searches. Only two dots and 'Koun', not 'Kaun'. X.One ^SOS 14:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support : Google search results: Kaun = 162,000 ; Koun = 1,660,000 -- Screen shot from film shows it as Koun..! see here BollyJeff || talk 14:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support : Poster and screen shot says it all !! Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 18:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: BollyJeff | talk

Comment A bit sparse on production isn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I searched a long time for production info. There are millions of articles, books, etc, on how wonderful it is, and how much money it made, but next to nothing on the making. BollyJeff | talk 18:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A pity that, there's not one of the British Film Institute short books on it like the others?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "It tells the story of two Indian families and the relationships between them as their children are married to one another. It celebrates Indian wedding traditions. Madhuri Dixit and Salman Khan played the lead roles." It is a bit repetitive, try. "Starring Madhuri Dixit and Salman Khan, it celebrates Indian wedding traditions by relating to the story of a married couple and the relationship between their families."

Soundtrack

• "featured veteran playback singers. " -Such as, I know they're linked in the hidden box but mentioning Lata etc here would also be appropriate.
• "The song became one of the most popular film songs ever, and was on the charts for over a year.[4] The soundtrack became very popular " - rep of popular
• "It is ranked number 29 all time best by Planet Bollywood" -awkward, please rephrase.

Reception

• No link for Liberty Cinema?
• It became the highest grosser of all time.[16] Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! is one of the biggest grossers -rep of grosser
• "e, and is considered one of the greatest blockbusters ever in Hindi cinema,[17] and Box Office India described it as "the biggest blockbuster of the modern era." -rep of blockbuster, superfluous prose here, you can simply say it was cited as one of the biggest blockbusters of the modern era.

Reviews

• Is that really all the critical commentary that exists on the movie? It's rather meagre. Surely there must be reflective Times of India. The Hindu. Rediff etc reviews on the film? Filmi Geek doesn't strike me as an ideal source, at least if you haven't got any credible reviews from the customary ones to support it. Merging analysis into reception would at least strengthen it, both are weak on their own.

Legacy

• "The film was so success that " -successful?

References

• Convert digits to words for dates to be consistent.
• Ref 36, a book should be placed in bibliography and page numbers given, and if there's any others like it (ref 6 etc) do the same.

Aside from the lack of content in parts (especially reception) which you'd expect, the prose is a bit sloppy in parts. I copyedited it a bit but it could use further polishing. It's quite weak considering the status of the film which surprises me given your previous excellent FA quality work Jeff but I think we can squeeze it through GA. I doubt it can ever be brought to FA status without more detail though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is definitely more to be found for the analysis section, but I wanted to leave something for a possible future FA upgrade. I will look again for reviews, but most that I saw just rehashed the plot, and did not provide much useful insight. I will work on your other points shortly. Thank you. BollyJeff | talk 21:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping me when you think you've finished.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How is it looking now? I found a recent article that had some production information and added that. I fixed most of your points, but I cannot for the life of me find any new reviews. I found a small amount of text in an existing source to use. I may merge the 'reviews' and 'analysis' sections into a 'critical analysis' section, unless you think it's a bad idea. There exist more sources that I would consider analysis material, not really reviews per se. BollyJeff | talk 13:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks a bit better. Refs 25-28 need publisher info.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"The film was so successful that it literally gave the term blockbuster new meaning in India. " could use a citation or a rewording as it looks a little POV at present.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It was an attempt at engaging writing. The backup statement and source are immediately following. Not good enough; drier is better? BollyJeff | talk 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment – Sorry for butting in guys, however there is a documentary from Rajshri productions itself about the making of this film. Here it is from their official YouTube channel. Quite a huge amount of info there. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I knew about this, but I do not speak Hindi. Are you willing to help? BollyJeff | talk 17:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Jeff you could watch it and take notes? I'm prepared to pass it as it is but it does badly need some production info so it would be great if you could find more info from that documentary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure Jeff, tell me what kinda help you need. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked it out in part and it didn't really seem all that great. A lot of it just had music and footage and then there was some Hindi discussion but it didn't seem about actual production. Probably though if you watch the whole thing it would contain at least something which can be gleaned. Perhaps somebody who speaks Hindu could watch it and take notes?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree it didn't appear that it was going to be a treasure trove of info. Are there any more things for me to do here now? BollyJeff | talk 12:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm going to pass this as it's technically sound, but it's really hard to think that 30s and 40s Tamil movies have a lot more production info than a 90s film which is considered to be a major picture of Bollywood!! About time somebody wrote a book on it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is very strange. Anyway, thank you for taking over the review. BollyJeff | talk 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Order of credits

Dixit should be before Khan because that is the official order in the credits of the film itself. See here. BollyJeff | talk 17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess user Syed alters the credits not to follow the rules, but to satisfy himself and millions of similar-minded egoistic fans of Salman by glorifying the actor. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Salman is doing just fine; he doesn't need their help. BollyJeff | talk 18:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Can I get some help here? We have another one going. BollyJeff | talk 18:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=304&catName=TGlmZXRpbWUgQWRqdXN0ZWQ%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=350&catName=QmlnZ2VzdCBCbG9ja2J1c3RlcnMgRXZlcg%3D%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=313&catName=TGlmZXRpbWUgQWRqdXN0ZWQ%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429080308/http://recipeguide.indiatimes.com/awards2001/ex_screenplay.htm to http://recipeguide.indiatimes.com/awards2001/ex_screenplay.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!. 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/20140313025522/http://www.hindustantimes.com/brunch/brunch-stories/animal-kingdom/article1-816328.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/brunch/brunch-stories/animal-kingdom/article1-816328.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140321174935/http://www.hindustantimes.com/brunch/brunch-stories/movie-magic/article1-836983.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/brunch/brunch-stories/movie-magic/article1-836983.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!. 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/20140311054035/http://www.frameworkonline.com/Issue42/42vv.html to http://www.frameworkonline.com/Issue42/42vv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Financial data

@Maestro2016: Hey there, I notice that you made some changes to the financials here a couple of weeks ago. I don't think Limca would really qualify as a reliable source. I don't see any substantive discussion about it at WP:RSN, but there's no presumption that they do any actual verification, unless you know something that I do not, which is possible. Given that sources like Box Office India have gross estimates far lower than the 200 crore claim that we see here at India Today for instance, I think there's a legitimate question as to where this 200 crore figure comes from--was this box office sales, or did this also include other revenue streams like rentals and consumer media sales. At worst, the figures should probably be presented in the form of a range, since there is no definitive agreement on the figures, or at least not per the sources I was looking at. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It's not just Limca Book of Records, but the 200 crore figure is also backed up by India Today and Guinness World Records, which gives $63.8 million (nearly 200 crore at 1994 exchange rates). The Film Journal also gives an estimate above 200 crore. That's four different sources giving around 200 crore. The only source which gives a significantly lower number is Box Office India, which appears to be the anomaly here. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

I think name of Salman khan should before Madhuri Dixit Nene because he get more screen timing in this movie than Madhuri Dixit,he share a lot of screen timing with renuka Sharma,alok nath,Manish Behl and many more cast 2409:4063:4CA3:E1DE:0:0:5009:6210 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: From what I've seen while looking into this, she has top billing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As per the actual film credits, order looks fine.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 06:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)