In this edit I have removed promotional fluff content in agreement with this edit by TheRedPenOfDoom. Blockbuster, superhit, hit, blah blah blah are all terminologies used to promote or trash films. There is no clear encyclopedic meaning to "Blockbuster" or "Super hit" and we shouldn't be using this phrasing as though these labels are facts and giving undue weight to one or two periodicals' opinions. If X periodical decides, based on their home-grown rating system to call a film a "hit" or a "super hit" or a "blockbuster", that's fine, but then we need to directly attribute that label to the source and present it as a quote. "X periodical called the film a super-hit for selling NNN million tickets". Such a statement would belong in a Critical reception section along with other content that balances the viewpoint. Beyond that, the inclusion is promotional fluff and needs to go. Just like we would never say about a western film, "Jupiter Ascending was rotten" simply because Rotten Tomatoes found the film to have received a generally negative critical response. We've talked about this a few times at the Indian Cinema Task Force. If the argument is that since it's sourced it should be included, may I point you to WP:V a policy that states unambiguously, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Cyphoidbomb Then why this "blockbuster" and puffery in this article is kept even with a box office figure from a source with unverified reliability ??, few months ago there went a war and finally the content was kept without consensus.--27.97.24.155 (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
- 27.97.24.156, you are asking me to explain why somebody else did something? I can only speculate, Could be anything. Good faith mistake? Good faith ignorance? Overzealousness? Maybe a paid editor who's on a campaign to promote the film? Who knows. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
.svg)