Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Proposed merge with Tollywood Highest grossing movies

Like List of highest-grossing Tamil films, I see no reason why Telugu films should have a separate article than the main Indian films one. Again, we do it by country and not by language within countries. The merger discussion from 2013 until 2015 shows why a single listing makes more sense and there is enough discrepancies between this page and List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Highest-grossing_Telugu_films to make watching both unwarranted. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I lean toward Merge: Seems like unnecessary child article with somewhat arbitrary figures, ex: highest opening, opening weekend, week... Whatever detail is warranted to include could be maintained here. These pages seem more like ethnic badges of honor, to me. Past discussions across various Indian cinema articles suggest that there is a push to associate certain films with ethnic identity and for each ethnic identity to be in competition with each other. I don't know that there is an analogue for this anywhere else in the film article world. Do we have lists for highest-grossing African-American films or highest-grossing Cuban-American films? My impression after having edited and gnomed at many Indian film articles, is that pages like these seem more like badges of honor for specific ethnic identities in India. Greater feedback from the WikiProject Film community would be appreciated, so I have invited them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge, per above. Like other individual industry pages of highest-grossing films, they are excessively detailed of trivial information. All industries can be outlined under the List of highest-grossing Indian films to keep topics inclusive and to prevent any prevailing vandalism/crystal balling. — EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• I actually support a Delete, the article isn't even appropriately titled. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge: Agree with the nomination. The sources aren't even always reliable. Coderzombie (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016

<! Kabali collection is mentioned wrong here. Please refer to {http://www.wholereultss.com/kabali-movie-first-day-box-office-income-1st-day-collections-of-kabali-rajinikanth/}<!

rkumaran05 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Antoronson05 - I'm a bit surprised that a person of such discriminating tastes would want us to use a faceless blog as a reference, but alas, we won't. Anyone can create a blog and print whatever nonsense he wants. We only care what reliable mainstream sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about anything. One tip-off that this was an insufficient source might have been the fact that http://www.wholereultss.com misspells "results" in their own URL. Hmmm... That's a thinker. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Change Prem Ratan Dhan Payo collections

Change Prem Ratan Dhan Payo collections from its collections given in this page to 365 cr.

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/movie.php?movieid=3125 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wadelison - You need to articulate a specific reason for making a change like this. I'd be more inclined to agree if you could explain why it should change from 432 crore to 365 crore. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe Boxofficeindia is a reliable website for giving box office collections of a Bollywood movie. Though Indian cine industry hasn't seen an accurate provider of movie collection like Boxoffice Mojo/Rentrak, the stats on Boxofficeindia tallies with figures given by trade analysts. Also, Boxofficeindia's citations have been used for other movie's collections given on this page. So, it must be used for Prem Ratan Dhan Payo.And as given in the DNA page, the 432cr stat is stated by Courier Daily, I ain't sure about its reliability. -Wadelison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs)

Wadelison - I tend to agree with you that the DNA reference isn't a strong one if they cite The Courier Daily. The Courier site I saw looks like a faceless blog. I don't know why DNA is reprinting their data, but DNA doesn't appear to be vetting the content. I'll wait a bit for other editors to discuss. The content has been in the article for months. I'm not sure who added it. I do see in earlier versions of the list that there were these references used [1][2]. So it seems likely that it did cross 400 crore. I don't think that Boxofficeindia.com should be used as a definitive source any more than any of the other sites should. BOI, however, has a tendency to stop reporting box office data after a while, and then their pages tend to become inaccessible over time, requiring constant additions of archive links. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be 400crs gross. Above two sources mentioned clearly says it grossed above 400crs. And those are considered reliable. It should be 400cores. 432crore seems manipulated. Ambeinghari (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Kabali collection(Indian box office)

Guys just do one thing delete this indian box office page from Wikipedia.This thing want work even a waste movies as per source and news won't be gaining that much amount.Have you guys watched sultan movie really did that movie is good.Think practically even there is story in dhoom3 even lots of films failed ex:-prem ratan dhan paying,kick,theri these are flop films lots of fans are still didn't understand how this films did well in box office.Now the same happening with kabali too.Lots media is just giving false trail.One cannot judge with media.Only way is fb review.Even we cannot go for box office collection just best better good movies. Vshek (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Vshek -  Not done - It's unclear what change your proposing, and really it sounds like you're ranting about films, which is not an appropriate use of an article talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So now it's time to update collection of kabali there are lots of viewers depends upon news on this page.We cannot keep on counting for the news on IBT or any other source in spite there is no media is publishing the box office collection of kabali.THANKS Vshek (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Vshek - I disagree. We can wait. When we have strong reporting from mainstream sources that paint a more realistic picture of Kabali's box office performance, then we can make the changes. So far we have one source that says it grossed over 600 crore at the box office, we have two sources that say it did not, and then we have a bunch of crappy sources reprinting the questionable data. It's hardly definitive. Also Wikipedia is not a news site, so we're not required to report the news. See also WP:NODEADLINE. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We have South Indian cinema reporter and tweeter "Sridhar Pillai" tweets about Kabali collections in twitter. He is kind of South Indian movie reporter like "Taran Adharsh" of Bollywood Hungama.

So Please refer his tweets about Kabali collections.Gsnewid (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Nah. That sounds like work. Someone else can do it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Highest Grossing film franchise/ series

What's going on here. Not even the columns are properly listed.. columns on one side boxoffice figures on some other side. And all figures mentioned in dollars. Indian films suits crore more than dollars. So many repair has to be made on this particular section. Ambeinghari (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2016

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/420

Tariqabhar (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016

"Please change Worldwide gross for Kabali" "Please change 350 crore (US$52 million)[16] to 524 crore (US$78 million)"

because, Kabali movie collection for 4 weeks is 524 crores as per the source 'http://fabnewz.com/2016/08/22/kabali-2016-total-lifetime-box-office-collection-till-date/'

Chandrahasan Devanboo (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done fabnewz.comis not a [[WP:RS|reliable source}} and the link you have given gives a 404 error - Arjayay (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add "Kotigobba 2" in highest grossing Kannada film section.

Kotigobba 2 has grossed 22cr till now. Please include in the highest grossing Kannada film section.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/kotigobba-2-box-office-collection-sudeep-starrer-strikes-gold-beats-record-yashs-690007#KC903ZaFVbShkqPk.97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

Update for Theri Collection:

http://www.galaxyreporter.com/2016/05/theri-total-collections-theri-collections-beats-record-thuppaki-katthi-vijay.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:80:C516:201:1879:3055:125A:3631 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done galaxyreporter.com is not a reliable source.

Baahubali Gross

One user updated Baahubali gross from 600 to 650 crs. Also provided IBTimes source. I know IBTimes is a reliable source, but in this case it doesn't seems correct. Is it acceptable?? Ambeinghari (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about your objection, Ambeinghari? In his edit summary, Bhuvannalla explained, "Changed the collections of Baahubali according to the latest standard reference source from 600 to 650 crores as the movie was released in many languages in recent times." Was it recently released elsewhere? Does anyone know how much it grossed? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Yes it was recently released in china on july. But the film was not a success there and almost collected 1 million on its opening weekend, which is close to 7 crore Indian rupees. After that the movie show reduction in screen and collections. Even we add 7- 10 crores it should be around 610 crs max. 650 is really impossible... here are both sources, pls check.

I don't know whether the second source is reliable, but the things it mentioned are true. So for me its another manipulated collections like Kabali...thanks.. Ambeinghari (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Recently Baahubali was released not only in China but also in Germany, Taiwan, many European countries and Latin American countries. So, I think IBTimes is not exaggerating the collections of Baahubali. It might have included the collections from all the countries. Even 650 crores is also not final. The number may increase further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Bhuvannalla can you show proofs showing Baahubali was released not only in China but also in Germany, Taiwan, many European countries and Latin American countries???? Ambeinghari (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ambeinghari, I found this, which says the film made US $630,000 in China after its first weekend, which would be about 4.2 crore rupees. I haven't done any more research on the matter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb i had done so many surfing on internet, couldn't find any thing related to 650crs gross. No official confirmation from the twitter handlers of movie or actors said about the release in Germany , Latinamerica etc... its a clear mistake. Boxoffice should be reverted. Thanks Ambeinghari (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ambeinghari, here are the resources showing Baahubali releasing in different countries like Germany, France, Taiwan, Peru, etc.

http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/baahubali-released-in-france-the-french-are-in-awe-of-prabhas-performance-2856639/

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/bahubali-germany-box-office-collection-ich-bin-baahubali-fails-make-it-big-opening-weekend-677222#wHYllSiP6wQIPlmq.97

http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/baahubali-the-beginning-makes-a-mark-at-chinese-box-office-2816858.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. That itself say the movie got bad collections in Germany and china. And good response in france but no boxoffice reports. 650crs is unbelievable. Ambeinghari (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

IBM Times is both wrong and right at the same time, since it's wrong in concluding, it's wrong finally. The source says the film grossed around ₹5.20 billion (US$62 million) domestically, it doesn't talk about the overseas then after, it jumps to the worlwide. Actually Baahubali collected around ₹700 million (US$8.4 million) overseas which takes the total worldwide nearly ₹5.90 billion (US$71 million), rounding it off to ₹6 billion (US$72 million) was somewhat less acceptable but now ₹6.50 billion (US$78 million), it's just a violation of Wikipedia terms.

A. Haque Sonash (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A. Haque Sonash Baahubali's domestic run is over long back. Whatever is added now is from overseas collections only as the movie got released in many countries as discussed above. The reference you have cited is more than one year old showing the overseas collections as 70 crores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2016

For the future, an article, that Enthiran 2.0 is beeing made in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi.

It will be to 100% the highest grossing movie for akshay and superstar, therefore already as precautionary.

Read more at http://www.ibtimes.co.in/enthiran-2-aka-2-0-release-date-rajinikanth-starrer-wont-clash-ss-rajamoulis-bahubali-aka-691345#S78WJx871DagCDw2.99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:6F5F:D65D:A855:8521:99CD:9F5E (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear what specific change you are requesting, or what improvement you are suggesting. Please be more clear. Talk pages are not for general chatter about the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2016

How could Theri ended by only 156 crore ?????

The movie was released on 14 April.

In your reference, which was released on 24 April

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dongroves/2016/04/24/tollywood-box-office-update-sarrainodu-scores-in-the-u-s-and-india/#41cc13e96880

the talk are about 156 crore.

But Theri ran 100 days successfully. How can Theri ended with 156 crore, if the article (released on 24 April) was released 10 days after the Film release (14 April)???

The movie was declared as blockbuster in Tamil Nadu. The movie collected over 10 crore in Chennai alone. http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movies/theri/theri-box-office-may-29.html http://www.indiaglitz.com/suriya-24-vijay-theri-captain-america-jungle-book-chennai-box-office-tamil-news-158501.html-slide5

Also Vijay ruled the box office in Kerela with a gross of minimum 15 crore.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/kerala-box-office-here-suriyas-24-5-day-vijays-theri-25-day-collection-report-678278

In this reference,

https://web.archive.org/web/20160610123456/http://www.catchnews.com/regional-cinema/50-blockbuster-days-for-vijay-theri-all-set-to-emerge-actor-biggest-hit-till-date-ilayathalapathy-vijay-theri-latest-box-office-news-1464936262.html

is the talk about more than 175 crore total collection, which is more realistic than 156 crore after 10 days, although it celebrated the 100th day run succesfully.

So far~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:6F5F:D634:4858:CBEB:B894:BA4B (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

It's unclear what you're asking or proposing. We can't take a dozen different sources that estimate different values at different times, and then mush them together to derive some sort of final value. That would constitute synthesis. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2016

Indiatoday published the box office collection of Enthiran about 350 crore

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/enthiran-2-first-look-rajinikanth-akshay-kumar-amy-shankar-sequel/1/752024.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:80:C516:201:D8A6:F344:4B0C:C9D3 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Kabali collection

Kabali Earned 650 Crore indian express proof http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/rajinikanth-kabali-box-office-collection-rs-650-crore-leaves-salman-khan-sultan-behind/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsksathiya (talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

120.150.194.36 (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Prince yädav

add the list of highest-grossing Indian films adjust for inflation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince yädav (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding adjusted for inflation

Hi guys if anyone is able to add adjusted for inflation section it wud b good😊 Nabeel Gm 02:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelgm (talk • contribs)

Hi Nabeelgm, you added this same basic comment to this page four times, and mostly in discussions that are unrelated. Do you have a specific reason for why you think it would be a good idea to add this column? Is there a precedent that you've found elsewhere at Wikipedia that has inspired this thought? Is this sort of thing likely to up-end the general order of the list? Will some films that were previously lower on the list suddenly be at the top? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

103.254.81.36 (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC) please update kabali's collection...

Not done: as you have not requested a specific specific change in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What would we update it to anyway? The values are disputed. Financial Express released some astronomically high figures, some unreliable blogs did too, IBT called out the high numbers as questionable, so did Firstpost... Who knows for sure how much Kabali made? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2016

A source for both Vijay starrer, Theri and Thuppaki. To prove, that catchnews.com is a realible source, i pick up some statements of the article, and proved the statements with some reliable sources.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160610123456/http://www.catchnews.com/regional-cinema/50-blockbuster-days-for-vijay-theri-all-set-to-emerge-actor-biggest-hit-till-date-ilayathalapathy-vijay-theri-latest-box-office-news-1464936262.html

In the article they said: "The Ilayathalapathy-starrer collected a record-breaking Rs 4 crore at the Chennai Box Office to see the highest four-day opening weekend ever in Chennai."

To prove that statement, indiaglitz reported:" In the capital city Chennai the film has collected a whopping Rs.5.53 crores in its first week."

http://www.indiaglitz.com/vijay-samantha-theri-collects-rs-47-crores-in-tamil-nadu-in-first-week-tamil-news-157283.html

In the article they said: "On it's opening day, Theri collected Rs 29 crore..."

To prove that statement, www.ibtimes.com reported: "Vijay's "Theri" has got a great start at the worldwide box office. The Tamil movie has raked in Rs. 28.96 crore worldwide from over 1200 screens on its first day."

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/theri-worldwide-box-office-collection-vijays-film-shatters-first-day-business-records-674925

In the article they said: "The Ilyathalapathy-starrer has also crossed the coveted Rs 100 crore in just six days..."

To prove that statement, www.ibtimes.co and indiaglitz.com reported the same.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/theri-first-week-box-office-collection-vijays-film-grosses-rs-100-crore-7-days-675600

http://www.indiaglitz.com/vijay-samantha-theri-collects-100-crores-in-just-six-days-tamil-news-157353.html

In the article they said: "Theri was a blockbuster in Kerala too as it minted Rs 17.50 crore at the Box Office..."

To prove that statement, today indiaglitz published the gross of Tamil movies in Kerela..

http://www.indiaglitz.com/vijay-theri-rajini-kabali-suriya-24-vikram-iru-mugan-kerala-box-office-collections-tamil-news-167556.html

All in all, this should enough to prove,

https://web.archive.org/web/20160610123456/http://www.catchnews.com/regional-cinema/50-blockbuster-days-for-vijay-theri-all-set-to-emerge-actor-biggest-hit-till-date-ilayathalapathy-vijay-theri-latest-box-office-news-1464936262.html

the reliability of this page.

Please update Theri and Thuppaki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:80:C500:6601:94F5:2ECF:440C:8916 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Why is Thuppaki in the last order of Tamil movie Ranking?

Thuppaki was the highest grossing movie of 2102 in South India. The Star Director and the South Indian Actor Vijay created a massive collection overall. For example in Chennai alone, the movie collected over 13 crore, one of the best grossing movies alltime in Chennai. http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movies/thuppakki/thuppakki-box-office-jan-06.html

This Source say, that thuppaki made 180 crore worldwide.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms

Also the Producer said, that Thuppaki collected 187 crore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvrIIK_x9k

Please change Thuppaki´s worldwide grossing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.217.65.154 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - We do not use primary sources (the film's director, producer, distributor, lead actor, etc) for controversial information. A film's producer would have every reason in the world to inflate claims of success. Behindwoods does nothing to help in the discussion. The two other sources you've provided attribute the claims to the producers. The data must be independently verified to be considered. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Eros has nothing to do with Thuppaki. The Producer is Kalaipuli S. Dhanu (V.Creation) and the movie distributed by Gemini Film Circuit,j eros international has nothing to do with this movie.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.217.65.154 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If Eros has nothing to do with Thuppaki, then what value does their opinion have in the article? They're not a news organization. They're not media analysts. They're a film distributor. Why would we care what an unrelated film distributor has to say? What makes them experts on Thuppaki's financial performance? I don't understand the rationale. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A leading distributor, like Eros International will know, how strong a movie have performed at the box office. A leading distribution Company will also have their own trade experts, otherwise they couldn´t distributed films, if they don´t know if they make profit or lose money.

And if you read the article, it is said that Eros International "announced the release of financial results for the quarter ending 31st December, 2012." That means Eros International summarized the movies, which performed well in the year 2012. Another reason that Thuppaki was a success is, that the movie released in Tamil and Telugu.

According to your word, i think too, that Eros has nothing to do with the team of Thuppaki. I rather think that they are proud, to announce a tamil movie , which entered the "100 crore mark", in which Rajinikanth or Kamal Hassan hadn´t acted

http://reporter365.com/highest-boxoffice-collection-tamil-movies-list.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.217.81.43 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds dubious. Why on earth would a distribution company release information based on pride? More likely, they're the Hindi distributor of the film, which is what this site says. While I wouldn't consider that a reliable source for inclusion at Wikipedia, it suggests to my satisfaction that Eros isn't independent, particularly when IBT noted that the Eros's stock prices increased, riding "on the 'Kabali' box office success". Why would their stock go up if they were unrelated to the film? So, no. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong list

List on Malayalam film is wrong, 9th one is jacobninte swargarajyam Sreerag18 (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Warrior3219 comment

Hello please can you update Bahubali as the highest grossing movie of all time. Follow the below link: Oops... 'PK' Is Not Actually India's Top-Grossing Movie Ever - Forbes Warrior3219 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Warrior3219: You didn't provide a link. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, Think Warrior3219 is referring to this : http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/08/14/oops-pk-is-not-actually-indias-top-grossing-movie-ever/#f281d7f2a3fc Audit Guy (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

In terms of celebrating the birthday of my article of over 1 month, and you remove my article with no reaction. I reposte my article...

A source for both Vijay starrer, Theri and Thuppaki. To prove, that catchnews.com is a realible source, i pick up some statements of the article, and proved the statements with some reliable sources.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160610123456/http://www.catchnews.com/regional-cinema/50-blockbuster-days-for-vijay-theri-all-set-to-emerge-actor-biggest-hit-till-date-ilayathalapathy-vijay-theri-latest-box-office-news-1464936262.html

In the article they said: "The Ilayathalapathy-starrer collected a record-breaking Rs 4 crore at the Chennai Box Office to see the highest four-day opening weekend ever in Chennai."

To prove that statement, indiaglitz reported:" In the capital city Chennai the film has collected a whopping Rs.5.53 crores in its first week."

http://www.indiaglitz.com/vijay-samantha-theri-collects-rs-47-crores-in-tamil-nadu-in-first-week-tamil-news-157283.html

In the article they said: "On it's opening day, Theri collected Rs 29 crore..."

To prove that statement, www.ibtimes.com reported: "Vijay's "Theri" has got a great start at the worldwide box office. The Tamil movie has raked in Rs. 28.96 crore worldwide from over 1200 screens on its first day."

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/theri-worldwide-box-office-collection-vijays-film-shatters-first-day-business-records-674925

In the article they said: "The Ilyathalapathy-starrer has also crossed the coveted Rs 100 crore in just six days..."

To prove that statement, www.ibtimes.co and indiaglitz.com reported the same.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/theri-first-week-box-office-collection-vijays-film-grosses-rs-100-crore-7-days-675600

http://www.indiaglitz.com/vijay-samantha-theri-collects-100-crores-in-just-six-days-tamil-news-157353.html

In the article they said: "Theri was a blockbuster in Kerala too as it minted Rs 17.50 crore at the Box Office..."

To prove that statement, today indiaglitz published the gross of Tamil movies in Kerela..

http://www.indiaglitz.com/vijay-theri-rajini-kabali-suriya-24-vikram-iru-mugan-kerala-box-office-collections-tamil-news-167556.html

All in all, this should enough to prove,

https://web.archive.org/web/20160610123456/http://www.catchnews.com/regional-cinema/50-blockbuster-days-for-vijay-theri-all-set-to-emerge-actor-biggest-hit-till-date-ilayathalapathy-vijay-theri-latest-box-office-news-1464936262.html

the reliability of this page.

Please update Theri and Thuppaki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:80:C50C:C401:25F3:F9F1:4E15:F17F (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Premam gross

Re: this edit by Ananth sk who resubmitted content after it was challenged by Charles Turing, I think it's a bad idea to use slideshows like this as references. Slideshows aren't really journalistic articles and are almost certainly assembled by interns and lesser staff, not necessarily by reporters. Another thing to consider is that just because a number is higher doesn't mean that it's any more accurate than the last number that was there. They're both estimates. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I resubmitted the content after it was challenged by Charles Turing because all the three references stated that the the collection of the movie was above 60 crore and one among them specifies it to be 63. If slideshows like this as mentioned above are not reliable resources to be used as references, please ignore the change that I made. Apologies for that edit . Ananth Sk (talk) 5:30 , 1st November 2016 (UTC)

Not only about the slideshow, some sources states that it collected 60 cr, and some other says it to be over 60. All these are just estimates. There are always some odd sources for every film that states a different figure. For Premam I have came across such sources which cites 63cr, 67cr and even 75 cr, but haven't seen another single source supporting it, and sometimes contradicts themselves in another report. See this source for Drishyam from The Economic Times, it says "According to various traders' estimates, Drishyam was the first Malayalam film to collect Rs 100 crore at the box office..." - this is another example. Without fact checking, If we are citing these odd reports then we can easily manipulate any box office figure. Currently Premam is cited with sources from 6 different news agencies that reports an estimated 60 crore worldwide. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A certain amount of critical thinking is necessary as well, because in some cases, the sources might be reporting the totality of what the film made, including other revenue streams like rights sales, which we would not want to factor into the gross. Gross = box office ticket sales only. It's incumbent upon good editors to treat financial figures with great circumspection, and not make the assumption that simply because a number is higher or newer, that it is more accurate. Estimations are estimations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tollywood collection - Janatha garage to be at 4th

Janatha garage collection has to be modified Sreeitsme007 (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Please provide reliable sources to support the changes you think should be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

Shanshah12 (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC) 3 | style="background:#9fc;" |* Pulimurugan | 2016 | Vysakh | Mulakuppadam Films | ₹75 crore (US$9.0 million) |

References

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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The number 75 doesn't appear in the article and the title from what Google Translate tells me says Pulimurugan "to hit 60 crore" as if it hasn't even crossed that yet. So where does 75 crore come from? Dubious. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Malayala Manorama,Reporter According to these reports by two leading regional medias, the movie had already grossed 75 crore. Ananth Sk (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Veer-Zaara removal

In this edit I removed Veer-Zaara from the Highest-grossing by year table. The BOI reference did not resolve and a quick check of Archive.org did not turn up a useful reference. The data was silently restored here by Taniya94, but there were no new references added, and the BOI link still did not resolve. Taniya did not respond to my comments on their talk page, so I have again removed the data as insufficiently supported. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on Taniya to provide an appropriate reference if the content is restored. I have found some info at Archive.org at this link, but 1) the data is a bit conflicting as there are two Gross values, and 2) the source does not say that the film was the highest-grossing film of that year, which presents an additional and significant problem. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, Bollyjeff, and Charles Turing: and anyone else... I'm looking at this archive of a BOI report on Veer-Zaara. I'm having trouble understanding what is being communicated here because there are two "Total Gross" values, one significantly higher than the other. Also, since the data was being proposed for inclusion in a "Highest-grossing by year" table, do you have any thoughts about how we can determine if this film was the highest-grossing film of 2004? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This says its the highest of 2004: BOI Bollyjeff | talk 19:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Forget that dead confusing source, there is a better written and a live url of it in BOI. For knowing the highest-grossing films in a given year, there is an option in BOI. See the 2004 list here. Both the sources tells only one gross value, ₹97 crore worldwide. The later reference will be useful in this case, as it cites Veer Zaara as the top grosser with figure. Hope this resolves the issue. --Charles Turing (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. The archived source from Bollyjeff indicates 58 crore. I'm not able to see the other sources, as BOI is having difficulty resolving, but I'll check later. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Regional Languages films into a section

I propose the inclusion of all regional languahes films into a section "Highest grossing regional languages films". Including all (highest grossing films, highest grossing films by year, highest grossing franchise) in the same list is making it a hotchpotch. Please catagorize it. Taniya94 (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion. I don't think that "regional" is a strong idea, because it tends to redefine the scope of the article sections, which are focused on language. You run into problems with films that were produced in multiple languages when you redefine what "region" the film belongs to. What about "Highest-grossing films by language"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a very good idea. We can proceed with this. Thanks for responding. Taniya94 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Baahubali in Tamil list of highest grossing

Baahubali is a Telugu film with Telugu actors,made by Telugus.

Baahubali: The Beginning was produced in Tollywood, the center of Telugu language films in India, which is based out of Hyderabad. The film series is touted to be the most expensive in India till date.In February 2011, S. S. Rajamouli announced that he would star Prabhas in his upcoming movie.[14]

-this is from Baahubali's own wiki page. It is not a Tamil movie and should not be in Tamil list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C4:4001:4748:DD9:5334:CD4B:BB3F (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed in depth before. See the talk page archives. This isn't a list of Indian films organized by ethnic film industries, this is a list organized by languages. Baahubali was filmed in multiple languages, so it's listed under both languages. Sorry if that conflicts with your worldview. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Cyphoidbomb on what he has said. It is a telegu film and should be removed out of Tamil section

Rahrumi (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you don't agree with me, since I did not propose removing Baahubali from the Tamil list. The film was made in multiple languages, so it should be reflected in both. This was already resolved after a lengthy discussion. We're not here to puff up ethnic film industries. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

24 the movie collected 157.10 crore it should be included in highest grossing tamil films. Lukman hakeem (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Kotigob 2

Hello, I'm Shanthiniketan. As you said earlier that we should never be considered primary source (repoerted by producer/director/actor). And we can consider secondary sources ( reported by distributor, critics, etc.) And plz distinguish between blog and reliable source.

Shanthiniketan (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shanthiniketan: I've explained this on your talk page. Reliable sources are mainstream publications like newspapers, magazines and books (as well as their online counterparts) that have established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, and clear editorial oversight. If you don't know anything about a website or who runs it or who the editors are or what makes the people behind the site experts in a given field, then you shouldn't use the site. There is nothing about chitraloka.com (the site in question) that would lead us to believe that any expert is behind it. There's no About Us page, and visually it looks like every other content scraping site we see across the project. If you'd like to argue for its inclusion as a reliable source, you should consider opening a discussion at the Indian cinema task force and bringing along your arguments that support the idea that the source has an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and clear editorial oversight. See also our guidelines about user-generated content. Anyone can start a blog and a website, then publish whatever they want. The sheer existence of these sites doesn't mean that they are suitable as academic resources. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

Sreekrishna Girish (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Kabali

Kabali Film Grossing Is Still a doubt for me. It should merely cross 500 crores .. Haregovindraj18 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It is unclear what you are proposing or what the basis of your proposal is other than your feeling. Kabali's marketing team reported inflated values that Financial Express/Indian Express repeated without scrutiny. I'm some cases, they included satellite rights sales, which we never include box office figures, as box office figures means ticket sales. IBT and Firstpost criticized the inflation, and none of the other mainstream Indian news sites (as far as I know) have since weighed in by acknowledging what they think Kabali's box office figures actually were. So you're free to disagree, but the only thing we know for certain is that Kabali cleared ₹350 crore. Anything above 500 is suspect and would need to be supported by mainstream reliable sources. (Newspapers, no blogs like IndiaGlitz or Andhraboxoffice or Filmibeat... See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppam's position in the Malayalam list

The reference provided for justifying is by a website named catchnews. While I do not know about how administrators determine whether a given website can be deemed as providing a reliable source, the article provided for the reference raises another serious question. I do not believe parts of an article can be lifted to act as a source, while completely ignoring what is mentioned in the rest of the article. The article clearly mentions that Premam was the third highest grossing movie before Oppam. This provides a dichotomy as that would negate the reference provided for Jacobinte Swargarajyam, making it the third highest Malayalam grosser. So in my opinion 2 things can be done to resolve this contradiction

• Oppam's position reverted back till a more reliable source is obtained (catchnews is not listed as a reliable source by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. I also went through some of their other articles, and they all reek of a bias towards inflating box office numbers.)
• Jacobinte Swargarajyam be removed till a more reliable source is obtained (The reference provided for Jacobinte Swargarajyam clearly states that it has grossed that 25 crores. I do not understand the logic that lead to that number being inflated as 67 crores in the Wiki list.)

PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to see the collection of Jacobinte Swargarajyam to be 63 crore , as the given sources indicates the collection is only 25 crores. The collection of Oppam was published as 61 crores through the official facebook page of the film and many other blogs but not yet out through any reliable media. So the above mentioned changes by PierceBrosnan007 has to be made inorder resolve this contradiction.

Ananth sk (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Jacobinte swargarajyam should be removed Ajmalm07 (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Catch.com is not indicated on the list, but I believe the community doesn't have a big problem with it. There was at least one discussion where an experienced editor seemed to gravitate toward its use, and there seemed to be clear editorial control from a known person, which lent to its credibility. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Could Cyphoidbomb instruct me on how to search for such instances of discussion myself. I also came across boxofficeindia which is also not mentioned in the list of reliable sources. A list by Boxoffice India is used as the source for Dilwale's position. The source lists Bolloywood movies, based on their overall collections. But many of these collections do not match with those on the Wiki table. It again raises the dichotomy of selectively using one part of the source, while foregoing what is mentioned in the other parts, don't you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierceBrosnan007 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@PierceBrosnan007: The places you should look are in the archives at WT:ICTF, in the archives at WP:RSN our Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and at WT:IN, the Noticeboard for India-related topics. Generally speaking, BoxOfficeIndia.com (not .co.in) is considered reliable, but circumspection should be paid to all sources, since unlike western film data, Indian financial figures are typically estimates, are often released by primary sources (producers, directors, actors, who have a financial interest in manipulating figures) and corruption is rampant. Also, sometimes sources like BOI stop updating figures, have conflicting information on the same page, etc. There is no singular perfect source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

this page says nanban grossed over 150 crores at the box office

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Shankar the second para in the career section says that nanban grossed over 150 crores. for some reason it doesnt figure in the list of highest grossing tamil movies. if the info is not reliable, please remove it from that page.. Thank You.49.205.151.200 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that we the film's budget alongside its boxoffice collections. This would give us a better picture of a film's stint at the BO. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.151.200 (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Idea of having a section for female centric movies is strange

One of the references is an IMDB list, which merely reflects the views of one user. The other reference for the list is an India Today weblink which returns a 404 error. Female centric is arbitrarily defined in the list, with sleaze-fests termed as women-centric just because it was to the convenience of the maker of the list. An arbitrary list with original research is against wiki policies, if I am not wrong, and therefore I believe that the list should be purged from the page. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have deleted that section, since I believe nobody has anything better to say. Please revert the edit if you feel so, but do provide the rationale for doing so (and address my concerns). PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no IMDB link against any film. Female centric films are really doing great, nowadays. People should know that filma are competing with male oriented films. Any source is given against a film, is from it's own page. Taniya94 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably you did not understand Taniya94. Let me make it easier for you - I was talking about reference number 97 and 98. My only problem is that I do not understand the metric you chose to decide that Film 'X' can be labelled as women centric, while Film 'Y' cannot be done so. Had you based it on reference 97, then please know that it is a dead link. And had you done so based on Reference 98, its an IMDB page. And if you decided based on your own convictions, I have nothing to say. I will not be reverting your edits till you reply. Cheers PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, reference number 98 is an IMDB link, where you can see a list of female centric films according to critical reception, not according to box office priority. But, this list has been made on Box office priority according to my personal research. In this list each films' main protagonist is a female, and collection referenced as it's main page. Taniya94 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You said it yourself Taniya94. Please read WP:NOR to understand why you cannot do any 'personal research'. Also 'personal research' based on an IMDB List (which is another 'personal research' by somebody) is getting too far. I will now be deleting the list in line with procedures. Cheers PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand the impetus for creating the list and conceptually I understand the value, but it seems completely arbitrary how the titles were selected, and thus seem more appropriate for a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Do we only care about a film where the central character was a woman? How do we determine that? What if there's a strong central character but also a strong male lead like you might find in a love story? Do we discount that film? A concern is that we would be placing undue emphasis on arbitrarily selected films, which may present a distorted view of women's films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to dig deeper into it, sub-classifying the list is a never ending process. If we introduce a "female centric" list, the next list that follows will be highest grossing "children's film", and then comes highest grossing dramas, thrillers, science fiction films, multilingual films, anthology films. And the further classification of these lists based on language-Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu etc. It will become a never ending road.--Charles Turing (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Raminder0707 (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mumbai-Pune-Mumbai 2 and Lokmat.com

Mumbai-Pune-Mumbai 2 is indicated in the top Marathi films list as supported by this reference, lokmat.com. Anyone want to address whether or not that should be considered a reliable source? It looks like every other blog on the planet to me. What makes it an authority on the subject of film performance? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments requested - Proposal to cut INRConvert template from this and similar highest-grossing articles

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#PROPOSAL: The INRConvert template should be cut from various list articles if you have thoughts about whether or not {{INRConvert}} should be removed from highest-grossing Indian film articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Kabali Box office money

http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/rajinikanth-kabali-box-office-collection-rs-650-crore-leaves-salman-khan-sultan-behind/ According to this page Kabali made over 600 crore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:8040:CA00:133:CF86:F523:33AB (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times here, at WP:RSN, at Talk:Kabali (film) and so on. The Indian Express/Financial Express figures were dubious, and both IBT and Firstpost called them fake, noting that the exaggerated totals included satellite rights sales. So far no other reliable sources have addressed numbers that high, and the lack of support speaks volumes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Intro paragraph for 'Highest grossing Telugu films' section

The intro paragraph of 'Highest grossing Telugu films' section is apparently an 'imitation' of the intro paragraph of the 'Highest grossing Tamil films'. The Telugu section need not be flooded with details about dubbed releases. Films in every south language have been dubbed into other languages. In case of Telugu cinema, apart from those dubbed 'TV Channel' premieres, films barring Baahubali don't make significant revenue from THEATRICAL dubbed releases. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging PlutoniumBackToTheFuture - I notice that this back-and-forth has been going on for a while. Discussion should have begun at the first revert. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I had reverted just once. The other user was persistently revering (more than twice I guess). Anyway, hope he joins the discussion soon. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I meant to ping Bhuvannalla, but to address your response, I see several removals from you[3][4][5][6] dating back to November 29, along with several removals from Bhuvannalla. Taking it to the talk page was the right decision, however 1) it should have been done at the first sign of resistance, i.e. after the content was first restored, and 2) it wouldn't have killed anyone if the content remained in the article until the discussion was resolved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I think it is not worth discussing the matter in talk page. I can show hell lot of dubbed Telugu movies which collect a lot in other languages. Anyhow the matter was standardized long back and PlutoniumBackToTheFuture is creating unnecessary controversies. In fact dubbed Tamil movies won't collect much except in Andhra Pradesh. It is better to retain the matter as it is. Giving examples of recent dubbed Telugu movies which have sizable collections in other languages. Eega (Makhi in Hindi), Baahubali(Bahubali in Hindi), Magadheera (Maveeran in Tamil), Race Gurram (Lucky: The Racer in Malayalam), Janatha Garage (Janatha Garage in Malayalam), RudramaDevi, Sarrainodu, etc. The list is endless. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture is simply comparing Telugu movies with Tamil movies so as to downgrade Telugu movie industry, which both you and I have seen while discussing the matter related to Baahubali. I am reverting the matter as the PlutoniumBackToTheFuture had initiated modifications to a standard version.

There is no bias here. If you are talking about Allu Arjun's dubbed market in Kerala, then you must do some research on the box-office figures before an argument. Though he is a rare 'dubbed' market star in Kerala, his films haven't fetched the revenue of a straight Malayalam film there. Films of Tamil stars like Rajinikanth, Kamal Haasan, Vijay and Ajith Kumar often get the initial/opening equal to a big Malayalam film there. That has not been the case with Allu's dubbed releases, despite having had two successful films in the 2000's (Arya and Happy). Secondly, we are talking about the general business here. Not the exceptions. Saagara Sangamam happened 33 years back. Baahubali is a bilingual that happened in 2016. Both films made revenue from dubbed theatrical releases, so did the 1980 film, Sankarabharanam and the 2010 Telugu-Tamil bilingual film Eega. But those are exceptional cases, that have happened in every South Indian film industry. We cannot take these exceptions and imply that this is how the 'regular business' runs. Telugu films predominantly make revenue from their original Telugu theatrical release. There is no point in imitating the Tamil intro, because in case of Tamil cinema, a large part of the revenue of big releases comes from dubbed theatrical releases. By the way Cyphoidbomb, this user is doing blatant reverts without reaching a consensus here. His P.O.V based reverts are exceeding limits. It may not be deliberate, since he may not be aware of the rules here. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In Kerala, Tamil movies are directly released in Tamil language and not in Malayalam language. So there is no question of dubbing of Tamil films here. If the you take the case the Telugu market in Karnataka, it is as as big a Kannada movie industry there. Though Eega, Baahubali are bilingual, they are made out of Telugu industry and their dubbed versions are considered as Telugu movies dubbed in other languages. How can we consider 100+ crore revenue collection dubbed movie(Baahubali in Hindi) will be taken as an exception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Next time, do remember to sign your posts. Baahubali made 100+ crore through Hindi its dubbed version, and that is EXACTLY why, it is called an exception, since no other Telugu move has achieved that feat. The collections of a regular Telugu big release predominantly include the Telugu collection only and the dubbed theatrical releases are so insignificant that they don't even constitute 5% of the total gross. A couple of Upendra starrers in Kannada did good business when they were dubbed into Telugu. But that does not mean that the gross figure of a regular Kannada film includes a good percentage from dubbed theatrical releases outside. Only Tamil cinema has a prominent dubbed market outside (AP & TG). But again, Tamil cinema does not have a prominent dubbed market in Hindi. However there are exceptions like Roja, Bombay ,Kadhalan, Jeans and to an extent Enthiran. But we don't use your logic to conclude that the Hindi dubbed releases constitute a large part of the revenue of a regular Tamil film. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Let the content be left for now. I hope the content can be included again if Baahubali 2 makes some decent collection in its dubbed versions. If Wikipedia don't agree for that, then I don't think the content will be added again in the life time of Wikipedia even if other dubbed Telugu movies make some decent collections because even though other dubbed Telugu movies had collected decent amount earlier, editors are not interested in considering them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

Ashifpanoor7 (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC) ererer

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

Ek Tha Tiger should be replaced by Dangal. Dangal est. collections til 27th Dec are 311.07 crore. AZaK3004 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017

pulimurugan has grossed more than 150 corres Nivedjosey (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017

Bahubali movie was also released in hindi.While there is mentioned only tamil and telghu. 115.112.51.250 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Times of India as a source

IF the report from The Times of India can be considered as a reliable source for the Box office collections of Pulimurugan, why is the same source not acceptable for Thuppaki's collections. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms The above artice from Times of India states that Thuppaki had grossed Rs.180 Cr. My edit request is to change the Box office collections of Thuppaki to Rs.180 Cr. Arunkxip (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Arunkxip: Did you make this edit? I'm confused why you would be incredulous that the source was not considered reliable unless you had made that edit. You have no other edits to your name. Anyway, the source is insufficient, since it credits a primary source (an actor, a director, a film producer, a distributor, anyone who is directly involved in the film) as the source of the information. We don't use primary sources for controversial data, since a distributor, actor, director, etc. would have every reason to inflate their numbers. Kabali was a prime example of that. We only want data that has been independently verified (or more accurately in Indian cinema, independently estimated.) So maybe instead of comparing source A to source B, you might consider comparing the quality of the reference from source A to source B, since there have been plenty of occasions where a typically reliable source has been unreliable for a specific reason. No source is 100% reliable across the board. Common sense needs to be applied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

9

| Twenty:20 | 2008 | Joshiy | AmmA, Graand Production | ₹32.6 crore (US$3.9 million) |

PLz update this article as Kattapanayille hritwik roshan has grossed over 40 crores Adi153 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: The source cited doesnot support the statement. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Ofcourse it doesnot, because you pasted a cell from table with the source. please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

95.218.68.225 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - Blank request. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Pulimurugan's collections

Umm...I am just curious as to why the pre-release business(15 Cr.) has been included in the box office collections of Pulimurugan. The reference clearly states that the movie has grossed 135 Cr worldwide and that it has made 15 Cr. in pre-release business. If the pre-release business of a movie is also part of the box office collections, why isn't kabali's collection included. My edit request is to change the collections of Pulimurugan from 150 Cr. to 135 Cr. as the reference used clearly states that the movie grossed only 135 Cr. worldwide. Thank You. Arunkxip (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Arunkxip: I agree with you that pre-release business should not be factored into gross, since gross should reflect only the money made at the box office. (Similarly, budget should only include production budget, not print/marketing costs.) There are a few issues though: The source making the claim of 15 crore in pre-release business is Tollywood.net. I know nothing about this site, but I don't see it listed at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources and it appears to be a regular old blog to me. I don't know that it would ever be considered reliable. So I'm not sure why we'd even consider it as a reference except Times of India is ambiguous on the issue, saying that the film made 150 crore "in revenue"--or so they hear... So that could be inferred as gross + pre-release, or it could be interpreted as gross, since they follow it up with "making it the third highest grossing South Indian movie this year". But the bottom line is that neither reference is a very good one here, since tollywood.net just seems generally poor to me and TOI seems to be ambiguously reporting a rumor. (This is another reason why we should be circumspect about our sources, even ones generally considered reliable. See my response to your query in the discussion below. Regardless, it should probably be clarified until someone can find better data. I've taken a stab at that here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Tollywood.net is not a reliable source, I don't know who added that, there are lots of other sources and why would you add that to cite a Mollywood film. The Times of India source was also not that good, it was an article about another film and just mentions the then box office status of Pulimurugan. Both the sources are outdated, published in early Dec 2016. There are many other sources out there, which reports up-to-date collection from the time it was released to now. Present sources specifically says it had grossed more than 150 crore from the "box office" worldwide. These are some of the sources [7], [8], [9], [10] among others. The latest updated collection is yet to come.--John"Eddy" (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

106.67.95.145 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Please change Race Gurram to 10th in the list of highest grossing Telugu movies. Include Khaidi No. 150 at 9th place as currently running.

Chiranjeevi starrer Khaidi no. 150 had grossed more than 106 crores in less than 5 days. Please include it in the list of highest grossing Telugu movies. It's currently in the 9th place and is highly expected to move on top of the list. It is expected to collect a lot more than 200 crores by the end of it's run. The following link shows its current box office collection: http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/khaidi-no-150-chiranjeevi-film-mints-rs-100-crore-in-opening-weekend/story-pvX1ymlG123kFborBhTq4N.html Freewebstennis (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Already done - @Freewebstennis: multiple requests don't make the process go any faster. Please only submit the request once. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you want someone to see your request, please keep the |answered= parameter set to "no". When you change it, like you did here, it looks like you're no longer interested in help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone responded to my request earlier...so I changed the answer="yes". Thanks for the reply.

Telugu movie: Khaidi No. 150 Collections

Chiranjeevi starrer Khaidi no. 150 had grossed more than 106 crores in less than 5 days. Please include it in the list of highest grossing Telugu movies. It's currently in the 8th place and is highly expected to move on top of the list. It is expected to collect a lot more than 200 crores by the end of it's run. The following link shows its current box office collection: http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/khaidi-no-150-chiranjeevi-film-mints-rs-100-crore-in-opening-weekend/story-pvX1ymlG123kFborBhTq4N.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewebstennis (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Already done - See below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipedia may now delete these requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewebstennis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Please change Race Gurram to 10th in the list of highest grossing Telugu movies. Include Khaidi No. 150 at 9th place as currently running.

Chiranjeevi starrer Khaidi no. 150 had grossed more than 106 crores in less than 5 days. Please include it in the list of highest grossing Telugu movies. It's currently in the 9th place and is highly expected to move on top of the list. It is expected to collect a lot more than 200 crores by the end of it's run. The following link shows its current box office collection: http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/khaidi-no-150-chiranjeevi-film-mints-rs-100-crore-in-opening-weekend/story-pvX1ymlG123kFborBhTq4N.html Freewebstennis (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Already done - @Freewebstennis: multiple requests don't make the process go any faster. Please only submit the request once. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you want someone to see your request, please keep the |answered= parameter set to "no". When you change it, like you did here, it looks like you're no longer interested in help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone responded to my request earlier...so I changed the answer="yes". Thanks for the reply.

Telugu movie: Khaidi No. 150 Collections

Chiranjeevi starrer Khaidi no. 150 had grossed more than 106 crores in less than 5 days. Please include it in the list of highest grossing Telugu movies. It's currently in the 8th place and is highly expected to move on top of the list. It is expected to collect a lot more than 200 crores by the end of it's run. The following link shows its current box office collection: http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/khaidi-no-150-chiranjeevi-film-mints-rs-100-crore-in-opening-weekend/story-pvX1ymlG123kFborBhTq4N.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewebstennis (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Already done - See below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipedia may now delete these requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewebstennis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Dhoom 3 total collection was ₹535 Cr only Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhoom_3 or http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/sultan-becomes-3rd-highest-worldwide-grosser-beats-dhoom-3/ please update it as soon as posible TusharZoo (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @TusharZoo: Wikipedia may not be used as a reference. Koimoi is not considered reliable by the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia. Please see WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Kotigobba 2 kannada

Kotigobba 2 is the film which has a highest collection in kannada film industry....totally it has collected 157 crores...please update it. Prashant yaragatti (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Prashant yaragatti: -  Not done - We don't update figures based on people's assertions. You'd have to provide references from reliable published sources. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. This source from 22 December 2016 indicated the film had grossed Rs. 35-38 crore 4 months after release. If you're suggesting that it made 4 times that amount in the last month, you're going to have to bring some seriously strong references to this discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sivaji's collections

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-first-weekend-box-office-collection-rajamouli-film-breaks-lifetime-worldwide-records-639066 The artice which is the reference for the collections of Magadheera states that Sivaji had earned Rs 155 Cr. I request you to change the collections of Sivaji from Rs.148 Cr to Rs.155 Cr.The movie has grossed more than the highest grossing movie of 2007. I also request you to change the highest grossing movie of 2007 from Om Shanti Om (Rs.150 Cr) to Sivaji (Rs.155 Cr) Thank You 49.205.139.245 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the director in an interview said than sivaji the boss cross over 150 crore but here just stated that 148cr Nito Nithish (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Kabali Gross

Hi, please clear my doubts. According to a single source, this page is mentioning that kabali gross is just 350cr. According to my heavy research, Kabali gross must be over 600cr as many big sources such as the indian express, Indiaglitz,Behindwoods and even the director gave a speech of kabali to cross 700cr very soon. Please add my choice, idea and my proof in your mind and go for more researches on kabali gross as many south Indians are waiting for. Nito Nithish (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nito Nithish: This has been discussed numerous times here, at Talk:Kabali, at WP:RSN, etc. The information about Kabali's gross is explained thoroughly in the article with references. If there is a reasonable dispute, it would be incorrect to elevate Kabali to the top of the list and promote the higher number as an indisputable fact. What we do know without question, is that Kabali grossed at least ₹350 crore. When the trades finally develop the balls to say definitively what they think Kabali really made at the box office (not total revenue), for instance if they released their own "highest-grossing films" list, then it might be worth another consideration. But the super-high values obviously included satellite and music rights, which we never include in gross figures, and nobody's brought any fresh sources to the table since then. So the short answer is that due to poor reporting and a lot of hyped data, nobody knows for sure what the box office gross of Kabali was. Also, a director is considered a primary source. We don't use primary sources for controversial data, because a director/producer/actor/distributor would have every reason to lie about the success of their film. Conflict of interest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

highest grossing films by year

This page says that Dasavatharam was released in the year 2008 and that it has grossed around Rs.200 crore worldwide. The page also says that the highest grossing movie of the year 2008 is Ghajini (Rs.190 Cr) Shouldnt Dasavatharam be the highest grossing movie of 2008? I request to change the Highest grossing movie of the year 2008 from Ghajini to Dasavatharam. Thank You> 49.205.139.245 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is this being ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.139.245 (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Telugu box office update

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/janatha-garage-box-office-collection-will-jr-ntrs-film-beat-sarrainodu-srimanthudu-693653 http://www.ibtimes.co.in/srimanthudu-total-worldwide-box-office-collection-mahesh-babu-starrers-lifetime-earnings-rs-650528 http://www.ibtimes.co.in/khaidi-no-150-16-day-box-office-collection-chiranjeevis-movie-inches-closer-rs-150-cr-mark-2nd-713807 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.249.140.49 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Hope the above sources acts as reliable ones and has the sufficient datas. Please update the box office accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.249.140.49 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you are proposing should be changed? The first source, which appears to be focused on Janatha Garage, is from September 2016, when the value currently in the article uses a reference from October 2016.[11] So I'm unclear what you want us to do with that first reference. Anyway, more clarity is needed, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about the entire list of Telugu gross collections. The first source gives the gross collection of highest grossing Telugu movies. Just look at the tabular column at the end of the article and forget about Janata garage in that article. The second source is for Srimanthudu movie, which is an additional source to the former. The third source is for Khaidi no.150 box office collection. Go through the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.249.209.203 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to be more specific about the changes you want to be made. Like: in the list of "Highest-grossing Telugu films" please change X film's gross to ₹YYY crore based on Z source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to the below headings which you have asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.229.77 (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Srimanthudu Box office update

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/srimanthudu-total-worldwide-box-office-collection-mahesh-babu-starrers-lifetime-earnings-rs-650528 http://www.ibtimes.co.in/janatha-garage-box-office-collection-will-jr-ntrs-film-beat-sarrainodu-srimanthudu-693653 Hope the above two credible sources proves that Srimanthudu has grossed 144 crores and not 200 Crores. Please refer to the above articles for any claims. 122.164.207.186 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Business-Standard seems to disagree, indicating a gross of 200 crore. The first IBT source you provided attributes the figures to Andhra Box Office, which is a blog. We don't typically use figures from blogs. The second indicates a gross of 150 crore. But since there is no singular authority on Indian film grosses, what would you propose be done here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Khaidi No. 150 box office update

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/khaidi-no-150-16-day-box-office-collection-chiranjeevis-movie-inches-closer-rs-150-cr-mark-2nd-713807 The above source can be used for Khaidi no.150 gross collection which is not 166 crores but 141 crores. 122.164.207.186 (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This one I'd agree with, since the value is attributed to an unverified Twitter post from a film critic. I'm not sure what makes a film critic an expert in financials, but regardless, whomever submitted that is making an assumption that this guy's assertion is correct. They should argue this here. In the meantime, I've swapped this to the IBT value here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Highest grossing films by year

Raees has collected Rs. 270 crore till February 2 2017 India Gross: 170 crore Overseas:100 crore(approx 15 million) V99991111 (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

SORRY $15 million V99991111 (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@V99991111: -  Not done - Please provide reliable sources. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Highest grossing indian films in overseas market

Raees has collected more than Rs 100 crore (approx 15 million) in 9 days of run till February 2 2017 it is expected that it will cross the lifetime overseas collection of happy new year in another 5 days V99991111 (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry $ 15 million V99991111 (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@V99991111: -  Not done - Please provide reliable sources. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Raees Beats Jab Tak Hai Jaan & Ae Dil Hai Mushkil’s Lifetime Record | Worldwide Biz

Raees Beats Jab Tak Hai Jaan & Ae Dil Hai Mushkil’s Lifetime Record | Worldwide Biz reference www.koimoi.com 3 rd February 2017 V99991111 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@V99991111: -  Not done - Please stop posting requests without providing reliable sources. Koimoi is not considered a reliable source per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thuppakki box office

The latest credible source of the Tamil film 'Thuppakki' is added below for reference purpose. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms Clarification to be made if any other credible contradicting source available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.237.42 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - I believe why this has not been done in the past is because the figures are attributed to Eros, who distributed the Hindi version. That would make them a primary source. We don't use primary sources for controversial data, as someone with a financial interest in the film (producer/director/actor/distributor/etc.) would have every reason to exaggerate financial data. Also, keep in mind, all financial figures are estimates, so higher doesn't always equate to "more accurate". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

‘Raees’ worldwide box-office collection: Shah Rukh Khan’s film powers past 250-crore mark

‘Raees’ worldwide box-office collection: Shah Rukh Khan’s film powers past 250-crore mark reference:m.timesofindia.com V99991111 (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

V99991111 -  Not done - No reference provided. Please stop submitting unsourced edit requests. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Highest grossing indian films by year

Please update raees worldwide collection Rs 259.42 crore Raees worldwide box-office collection: Shah Rukh Khan’s film powers past 250-crore mark reference:m.timesofindia.com V99991111 (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

V99991111 -  Not done - No reference provided. Please stop submitting unsourced edit requests. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sivaji the boss Gross

In the list of highest gross indian film by the year (2007), it was stated that the movie name is shivaji but if is actually sivaji: the boss. Secondly, please change the highest grossing Tamil film of sivaji: the boss gross as 155cr, as it was in the 'list of highest grossing film by the year'. Thank you. Nito Nithish (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sivaji (film) is the name of the article, and the "The Boss" doesn't appear in the article prose. If you think this is an erroneous title, you should probably bring that up at Talk:Sivaji (film) and see what other editors think. My suspicion is that the editors felt that most of the reliable sources were describing the film plainly as Sivaji. As for the second part of your request, you'd need to provide a reference to support the 155 crore claim. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-first-weekend-box-office-collection-rajamouli-film-breaks-lifetime-worldwide-records-639066

The above source is enough to prove that, the world wide collection of the Tamil movie sivaji is 155 crores and not 148 crores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.246.82.246 (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, IBT attributes the number to Andhra Box Office, a blog. Please see WP:UGC. The figure and have to be independently verified. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You made a mistake. Just go through the blog. Only that specific paragraph was stated by that blog. The remaining are as per reports, as you can see that in the following paragraph. You can click on the 'Andhra box Office', if you want that clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.237.42 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The source says "as per the reports", which would be interpreted as Andhra's report. And even if it weren't, what then is the source of the mysterious "reports", and why would we assume that IBT has independently verified the figures as opposed to just republishing them, which is what it sounds like? Also, see this, which is from the same date as the IBT article, 13 July 2015. It's clear that's where IBT was getting the info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Attarintiki Daredi box office

The box office source of the Telugu film 'Attarintiki Daredi' seem to be wrong. Please have a look at the below source. The actual gross figure is 131 crores and not 187 crores. Maybe a clarification has to be arranged from both the sources. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/janatha-garage-box-office-collection-will-jr-ntrs-film-beat-sarrainodu-srimanthudu-693653 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.237.42 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You say that the "actual" gross is 131 and not 187, but how do we know what the "actual" gross is if they're both estimates? I've presented the info in the form of a range here. The problem with these idiotic lists is that Wikipedia is basically deciding what films are in the various spots, based on individually sourced gross figures, instead of using a singular authority that all the other trades agree to. For instance Box Office Mojo is widely considered a central authority, and if they had a "Top 10 Telugu films" list, that would be ideal. But all we have is this inefficient system of comparing IBT estimates to Business Standard to Box Office India... Anyway, Attarintiki Daredi had been in the #3 spot, but because of the wide disparity between the sources, I've moved it back down to the #7 position. It's somewhat arbitrary since none of us know for sure, but it also doesn't make sense to keep the film at the top of the list if the high figure is disputed. We did something similar with Kabali. That film's gross was disputed and it seemed ridiculous to place it in the #3 spot if other estimates place it around the #13 spot. All we know for certain is that the lower figure was achieved. I don't know what a good long-term solution for this nonsense is. Thanks Indian film industry... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

All the Tamil and Telugu movie gross figures are exaggerated ones. It is a vicious circle. IBT initially comes up with some fake numbers first. This will be updated in Wikipedia. Wikipedia acts as a source for some standard Indian newspapers. Wikipedia numbers will be published in those newspapers. Again these are made as source for Wikipedia. Similarly, Tamil people try to exaggerate Tamil gross figures and degrade Telugu gross figures and vice versa as these two industries are equal in size. The gross figures dispute of Shivaji and Attarintiki Daredi shows it clearly. People are trying to exaggerate the gross figures of Shivaji and downgrade the gross figures of Attarintiki Daredi. If Wikipedia is taking the blog boxofficeindia.com as source for Hindi movies, why can't it take the blogs tamilboxoffice1.com and andhraboxoffice.com for Tamil and Telugu movies. These two blogs are almost giving the exact figures. Many Indian newspapers follow their numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.82.179 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that only when readers start writing to the newspapers and telling them to stop with the crap, will any of this change. Newspapers shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a reference. That's just stupid. Even Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source. I don't think that the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia considers Box Office India a blog, but you'd have to ask them (whoever still remains) what the rationale for that is. The objections I've heard for Andhra, is that it's only run by one person, I don't even know if it's clear who that person is. But the most important aspect is that a source have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't know that Andhra has that, and I don't know that Tamilboxoffice1.com does (I've never even heard of this site). For Indian cinema, I'm not convinced that simply because one of the major trades looks to these sites for data that this makes the data inherently reliable. I'm sure there's a pressure for IBT and TOI to report something, so they just regurgitate what sites like Andhra Box Office prints. I've even seen them use data from Onlookersmedia.in, even though that's a blog run by amateurs. Another example would be the insane clamor for clicks that was created when Kabali was out. Sites reporting 677-700 crore "gross" figures, which were obviously inflated. Some of this was coming out of typically reliable sources like Express Group (Financial Express/Indian Express) but it was clear that these figures were being manipulated by the Kabali marketing teams and included pre-release income, etc. It's a big mess, and only a public outcry will help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Top 15 needed for Hindi,Tamil and Telugu industries

Hi, I am requesting to add top 15 in the hindi, tamil and telugu languages as they are the top 3 Grossers. The reason for this is, this year 2017, we might have more blockbuster movies getting in the list and pushing other industrial hit movies away. And this top 1p system is old ad many new movies are entering. Thank you. I am excited to see the top 15 for hindi, tamil and telugu movies. Nito Nithish (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nito Nithish: I don't understand the rationale for the change you are proposing. It seems completely arbitrary. The whole point of a Top NN list is to focus on the most noteworthy highest-grossing films and yeah, a side-effect is that films get pushed off the list. So what? That's the nature of the beast. Typical lists of this sort include 10 examples. It's already an arbitrary figure, but you're proposing we arbitrarily change the arbitrary figure to 15. Why? So that films that used to be in the Top 10 still get attention? Are we somehow nostalgic for the film that used to be in the #10 spot but now ranks #11? Doesn't make sense to me. It also doesn't make sense that your proposal doesn't include expanding all the lists. Anyway, I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before and consensus preferred 10 examples. You can check the discussion archives if you wish. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Highest grossing films by year

Update the worldwide gross of Raees 2017 i.e INR 304 crore </ref> V99991111 (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

@V99991111: If you're going to request an update, but then make it yourself, please remove your edit request provided nobody has responded to it yet.. Also, your edit broke the page as you can tell if you scroll down. You removed the closing formatting (|}) for the table you altered. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

These were the fixes your edit required. If you're not up to speed on how to make changes to tables, maybe avoiding such changes is a good idea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

{{subst:trim|

Siva Ness (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

3] Rank Movie Year Director Production House Worldwide Collection Ref

   1	Baahubali: The Beginning	2015	S. S. Rajamouli	Arka Media Works	₹650 crore (US$97 million) #+	[2]
   2	Kabali	2016	Pa. Ranjith	V Creations	₹350 crore (US$52 million)	[3][note 1]
   3	Enthiran	2010	S. Shankar	Sun Pictures	₹289 crore (US$43 million)	[2]
   4	I	2015	S. Shankar	Aascar Films Pvt.Ltd	₹240 crore (US$36 million)	[9]
   5	Vishwaroopam	2013	Kamal Haasan	Raaj Kamal Films International	₹220 crore (US$33 million) #+	[10]
   6	Dasavathaaram	2008	K. S. Ravikumar	Aascar Films Pvt.Ltd	₹200 crore (US$30 million)	[11][12]
   7	Theri	2016	Atlee	V. Creations	₹156.23 crore (US$23 million)	[13]
   8	Lingaa	2014	K. S. Ravikumar	Eros International	₹154 crore (US$23 million)	[14]
   9	Sivaji	2007	S. Shankar	AVM Productions	₹148 crore (US$22 million)	[15]
   10	Veeram	2014	Siva	Vijaya Productions	₹130 crore (US$19 million)	[16]

4] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for Indian-ness

What is the criteria for being considered an Indian movie. Does Kung Fu Yoga, which is considered an Indo-Chinese joint venture count as Indian enough based on the criteria? Jupitus Smart 07:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't see why it shouldn't be added, and I hope that members of WP:ICTF weigh in here, but I know what the various objections will be from casual readers/editors: They'll want to put it into its own category, like "Indian co-productions", because no doubt, if a Kannada-Indian/US film pulled off a major hit like an Iron Man co-production, Non-Kannadiga would flip out. "It's not representative of the Kannada film industry! Kannada industry is not bigger than Tamil!" and so forth. In contradiction, editors will demand that there is a column that identifies in some way the ethnic industry that gets "credit" for the film. (The precedent for this was surrounding Baahubali, when people were flipping out that Telugu should get due "credit", and shame on Tamils for trying to take "credit", when the film was listed as "Telugu, Tamil".) Please note that I don't have any preference, I'm just predicting what the standard arguments will be about. I'd prefer if other members figured this out, but I may interject my opinion periodically. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for airing your opinion, Cyphoidbomb. Kung Fu Yoga has made already made around twice the highest grossing Indian movie, meaning once added it will stay their for posterity. So adding that without a general consensus is not something that I intend to do. Anyway all I want is a mechanism to sort out any problems arising from such borderline cases in the future. And if anybody at WP:ICTF has already evolved a mechanism to clarify what comes under Indian Cinema, please do tell.Jupitus Smart 04:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There should be another section for Indian co-production.--2405:204:D10E:DF94:FCAE:701F:D83B:20F1 (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Confusion!!!

1. Sivaji the boss collection in the top grossing Tamil movie is 148 crores but in list of highest grossing film by the year, it states that sivaji the boss gross is 155 crores. Please state the accurate one.

2. Dangal gross in top grossing indian movie is 741 crores but in top grossing hindi movies , it states that dangal gross is 721 crores. Please state the accurate one. Nito Nithish (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please replace Sivaji with Om Shanti Om as the highest grossing movie of 2007

The Tamil movie Sivaji has reportedly grossed 148 crores at the box office.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/photos/all-time-highest-grossing-tamil-films-2881-slide-21710

The Hindi film Om Shanti Om has reported grossed 149.87 crores at the box office.

https://www.boxofficeindia.com/worldwide-total-gross.php?year=2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

Munthirivallikal Thalirkumbol malayalam film 51cr collection please update Arjunachoo123 (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Odd numbering

Unless there's some WikiProject Film-wide precedent to the contrary, I think it's a bad idea to give films with the same grosses unique rankings. For example, at Highest-grossing Kannada films, we have:

Rank	Movie	Year	Director	Studio(s)	Worldwide gross	Source
5	Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna	2012	Naganna	Sri Sangolli Rayanna Cine Combines	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)	[1]
6	Uppi 2	2015	Upendra	Upendra Productions	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)	[2]
7	Kirik Party	2016	Rishab Shetty	Paramvah Studios	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)	[3]
8	Doddmane Hudga	2016	Duniya Soori	Ajay Pictures	₹35−40 crore (US$−4.8 million)	[4]

Three films have 40 crore grosses, but somehow Wikipedia is the arbiter of which 40 crore film was #5, #6 and #7? In this edit a user moved Kirik Party all the way to the bottom of the list of 40 crore grossing films, even beneath the film that potentially only grossed 35 crore? Why? This arrangement is problematic, because it encourages POV editing. If someone doesn't like the actor/director/producer of Kirik Party, the film arbitrarily gets moved to the #8 spot? The smarter and more neutral approach is to lump similar films together under the same rank like this:

Rank	Movie	Year	Director	Studio(s)	Worldwide gross	Source
5	Kirik Party	2016	Rishab Shetty	Paramvah Studios	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)	[1]
	Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna	2012	Naganna	Sri Sangolli Rayanna Cine Combines	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)	[2]
	Uppi 2	2015	Upendra	Upendra Productions	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)	[3]
6	Doddmane Hudga	2016	Duniya Soori	Ajay Pictures	₹35−40 crore (US$−4.8 million)	[4]

The films could then be organised alphabetically. Yes, this means that there will be more than 10 entries for some lists, but I can't think of a better way to organise films without getting into POV issues. I'm still not sure what should be done with Doddmane Hudga here, because with the range it could be one of the #5 films, or it could be the #6 film. It's generally problematic that Wikipedia is ranking films itself instead of relying on what authoritative sources say, but that's mostly the fault of the industry-wide box office guesstimations. Comments welcomed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

While the idea is good, please do limit the total entities to 10. So if rank 5 has 2 more movies tied at the same place, have the ranks limited to 8 to ensure that only 10 movies are on the list. The only exception I can think of is if rank 10 has 2 movies tied, in which case it might be acceptable to let the tied movies remain. Jupitus Smart 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, but I don't understand the rationale for limiting a table to a literal 10 films. The point of each table is to present the films that fall into the top 10 slots. Presenting only the top 8 wouldn't achieve that goal. I think it's bizarre to treat the table so literally. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And just to make this easier to understand for anyone else who wants to participate, here's a visual:

Extended content
Option A - focus on top 10 films 1) Film 1 2) Film 2 3) Film 3 4) Film 4 5) Film 5, Film 6, Film 7 6) Film 8 7) Film 9 8) Film 10 Option B - focus on top 10 grosses 1) Film 1 2) Film 2 3) Film 3 4) Film 4 5) Film 5, Film 6, Film 7 6) Film 8 7) Film 9 8) Film 10 9) Film 11 10) Film 12

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A better way would be to number them like this:

1) Film 1

2) Film 2

3) Film 3

4) Film 4

5) Film 5, Film 6, Film 7

8) Film 8

9) Film 9

10) Film 10

Cheers, Lyrda (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Lyrda's numbering scheme. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it's usually done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Comments very much appreciated, thank you. What would you guys recommend in the example of Doddmane Hudga above, where the source presents a range of guesstimation? Does that fall into slot 5 because it has a top estimate of 40 crore, or do we keep it where it is, because we know for sure that it has made at least 35 crore? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a tricky question. I'd sort "35–40" between 35 and 36, as if it were a string. It makes sense to me, but maybe that's only because I've worked in information technology. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would sort it on 35. By saying 35–40 you are basically saying it's made at least 35, but not much more than that. Ultimately if something has made 40 crore it has made 35 crore, but not the other way around. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's like 'finished in the top three' always means third place. Lyrda (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we include Kung Fu Yoga in highest grossing?

Can we include Kung Fu Yoga in highest grossing? 45.116.233.20 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we can include Kung Fu Yoga in Hindi list as the movie was shot in Hindi also. Any how, we are including the revenues from international dubbed versions into the gross collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2017

Marathi Movie: Ti Sadhya Kay Karte. Year: 2017 Production: Zee Studios Total collection: 22.2 Crores appx Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ti_Saddhya_Kay_Karte 105.227.197.33 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia may not be used as a reference as it is user-contributed. If there is a reference in that article that you wish to be considered, please bring it back to this talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Top highest grossing Indian movies 3- Kabali- 6.75billion Raakesshh (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Too many Franchises mentioned which really poorly performed but very less actual highest grossing films mentioned in their list...

I firmly believe that it is absolutely not fair to have '25' number of film franchises to be mentioned for highest grossing Bollywood films, some of which performed shamelessly poor (Like Kya Kool Hai Hum or Yamla Pagla Deewani whose entire franchise barely earned 2 crore rupees) which shouldnt even be presented here, but the actual number of highest grossing films are just 15 which is really less and so many 300+ and 200+ crore box office blockbuster films arent mentioned......... My opinion is we really need to improve the number of highest grossing bollywood hindi films till 25 or 30, and reduce the franchises film to 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarpSinghh (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone there to reply back? DarpSinghh (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd expand the list of highest-grossing films to 25 or 30. That's excessive and arbitrary, especially when we are effectively repeating the information throughout the various ethnic film industry lists. Most lists of this sort seem limited to 10. Previous discussions (feel free to check talk page archive) seemed to lean toward 10-15. Similarly, I think the franchise list should probably be brought down to 10. Taniya94 may have some thoughts on this, since they were the one to introduce the list. No matter what the number, the Top NN franchises is the Top NN franchise regardless of performance, so I don't understand the argument to cut the list short just because a franchise performed "shamelessly poor". If a franchise is #10, it's #10. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, you didnt get my point. If a franchise is #10, it's #10 irrespective of reviews. Agreed. But why is #21 and #25 being featured in highest grossing franchise?? That's highly excessive and arbitrary, and not worth mentioning so many huge numbers in highest grossing Indian franchises. My point is number of franchises mentioned here are too many, and the ones ranking below #10 or #15 shouldnt even be mentioned at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarpSinghh (talk • contribs)

DarpSinghh, If you take a close look, you can see there is not just "highest grossing Bollywood films" only, but a list including films from all the film-industries of India. To include from all the industries, the lists has been extended to 15 (for Global gross figures) and 25 (for Highest grossing Indian franchise and film series). And I think "Global gross figures" list should also be extended to 25 (In List of highest-grossing films there is 50 films on the list for one language, but in India there is many industries based on many languages). And if you think there is something wrong in the list, you can also include "300+ and 200+ crore box office blockbuster films" with appropriate source. Taniya94 (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

But please reduce number of franchises mentioned here are too many, and the ones ranking below #10 or #15 shouldnt even be mentioned at all. Why is #21 and #25 being featured in highest grossing franchises?? That's highly excessive and arbitrary, and not worth mentioning so many huge numbers in highest grossing Indian film "franchises". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarpSinghh (talk • contribs)

I didnt any furthur reply..... DarpSinghh (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I didnt get* any furthur reply DarpSinghh (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

Sagar.kottappuram777 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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. Cannolis (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Katamarayudu Telugu movie box office

Here is the reliable source for the box office collection of the movie. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/katamarayudu-10-days-total-box-office-collection-pawan-kalyan-churns-out-another-flop-after-sgs-721838 The one which is already taken as source seems to have come from a twitter handle and the comment he made makes him look like an ardent fan of him. Better review the source before adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.169.175.97 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

2005 highest grossing indian film is not " No Entry", it's chandramukhi.

According to some sources and the chandramukhi team, the box office of chandramukhi was reported to be 86 crores. It is more than No Entry, so please change it. THANK YOU. Nito Nithish (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2017

86.98.30.234 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC) | 6 | * Amar Akbar Anthonyl | 2016 | Nadirshah | Weekend Blockbusters |₹52 crore (US$6.2 million) | |-

References

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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Highest Grossing Films adjusted for Inflation

I personally think that a section for highest grossing films adjusted for inflation, is not required. Discussions have never yielded the requirement for one, and the current list was slipped in on 19th March. I will be removing the list based on the following reasons. Feel free to revert with a proper reason.

• The numbers are sourced from a non-reliable source IBOS Network, which seems to be nothing better than a blog.
• Just the adjusted numbers are mentioned, and the actual figures are not mentioned so as to enable comparing. Also the website does not mention the source for coming up with such audacious numbers.
• The numbers have supposedly not been updated since 2008, meaning the list is outdated (if it was ever correct).

Jupitus Smart 06:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Film ranking revisited

Hi Betty, I'm not sure if you recall this discussion, where a few of y'all proposed an ordering scheme for films that have the same gross values. Is there any chance you might be able to find time to implement those changes? I'm only bothering you with it because my table formatting skills are really subpar and I'm afraid I'll break something, and I seem to recall that you're quite skilled with tables and such. Also, some of the rows have fancy formatting that indicates which films are still in theatres and that just confuses the crap out of me. The preferred numbering scheme went:

1) Film 1

2) Film 2

3) Film 3

4) Film 4

5) Film 5, Film 6, Film 7

8) Film 8

9) Film 9

10) Film 10

Thanks in advance, but if you can't/don't want to do it, I'll understand! I could always get help at VPT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Had to reformat the above, so I'm pinging Betty again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Malayalam films

To whomsoever it may concern,

Ezra had entered 50 cr club. Official facebook page of the movie confirm this. Moreover other media also reported this. Sources are cited below. Please do necessary updations. http://www.catchnews.com/regional-cinema/ezra-prithviraj-starrer-emerges-8th-rs-50-crore-grosser-of-malayalam-cinema-57679.html http://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/news/2017/ezra-box-office-final-collections-enters-50-crore-club-258553.html https://www.facebook.com/EzraMovie/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOKOMOBO12345 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

Baahubali box office collection 586.45

Information given in wikipedia about baahubali box office is wrong.

1 ibtimes.co.in After becoming the third biggest grosser, "Sultan" was expected to beat the lifetime box office collection record of "Baahubali: The Beginning," which earned Rs. 586.45 crore.[ http://www.ibtimes.co.in/worldwide-box-office-collection-will-salmans-sultan-beat-record-baahubali-cross-rs-300-688803 ]

2 ibtimes.co.in The top three grossers include Aamir Khan's "PK" with Rs. 792 crore gross income, Salman's "Bajrangi Bhaijaan" with Rs. 626 crore and "Baahubali: The Beginning" with Rs. 586.45 crore. [ http://www.ibtimes.co.in/worldwide-box-office-collection-sultan-grosses-rs-550-crore-salmans-film-needs-rs-33-crore-687892 ]

3 ibtimes.co.in http://www.ibtimes.co.in/worldwide-box-office-collection-salmans-sultan-set-beat-baahubali-dhoom-3-global-earnings-687525

4 ibtimes.co.in http://www.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-lifetime-box-office-collection-prabhas-starrer-earns-rs-302-crore-its-649645

5 From Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/07/23/baahubali-catapults-toward-all-time-record-indian-gross/#593eb52953cf

6 india.com http://www.india.com/showbiz/salman-khans-bajrangi-bhaijaan-vs-prabhas-baahubali-collections-who-won-race-at-box-office-498206

7 indianexpress.com http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/telugu/baahubali-2-vs-baahubali-1-what-box-office-holds-for-ss-rajamouli-monster-what-box-office-holds-for-ss-rajamouli-monster-4603035

Kiranrajanna (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kiranrajanna: It's unclear what specifically you are proposing. But to address your references above:

1. IBT - 3 August 2016 - yes, source says 586.45
2. IBT - 26 July 2016 - yes, source says 586.45
3. IBT - 22 July 2016 - yes, source says 586.45
4. IBT - 8 October 2015 - yes, source says 586.45. Value attributed to Andhra Box Office, a blog. We don't typically use content sourced to blogs per WP:UGC. This calls into question the other identical values.
5. Forbes - 23 July 2015 - source says 375 crore. What purpose does this reference serve?
6. India.com - 11 August 2015 - source says 545 crore, which is not consistent with the 586.45 claim. What do we do with this data?
7. IndianExpress.com - 8 April 2017 - Unclear what this says, exactly, or why you've included it. Says "The film collected Rs 500 crore gross income at the worldwide box office that includes tax and exhibitor’s share." Obviously the guy making this statement doesn't know what "gross" means if he's subtracting tax and exhibitor's share from it. Not particularly helpful, as we can't identify what this guy thinks the film's raw gross actually was.

So what exactly are you proposing here? Remove the 650 crore total entirely? Present the value as a range of 586.45–650 crore? Are you saying that 650 crore is a mistake? What do we do about this reference from 9 August 2016, which says unambiguously that ""Baahubali - the Beginning" has grossed over Rs 650 crore at the worldwide box office in its life time"? Where did this value come from? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My request is to change 650cr to 586.45cr.. because 650cr not have clear details compare to 586.45.

1. IBT is reliable sources from [12]

2. IBT is reliable sources from [13]

3. IBT is reliable sources from [14]

4. IBT is reliable sources from [15]

5. Forbes is very reputed website in world it mention as $70 million so far. means not even equal to 600cr, intention of sharing this information is to tell you its not earn 650cr.

6. India.com, i agree with you that its not a reliable sources according to [16] but No website as told it crossed 600cr.

7. IndianExpress.com Sorry for this Information.

8. my proposal is remove 650cr and make as 586.45cr.

9. About this link [17] not clearly mention about how 650cr collected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranrajanna (talk • contribs)

@Kiranrajanna: Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will append a signature and a time stamp to the end of your posts. In regard to the above, I still don't understand what the point of the Forbes source was and it seems to greatly conflict with the first few IBT sources, since it claims a 375 crore gross when the IBT source from the day before was claiming 586.45. But beyond that, there are vast numbers of sources that support 650 crore.

• IndiaToday - 12 April 2017
• DNA - 10 April 2017
• Business Standard - 1 April 2017
• Deccan Chronicle - 18 March 2017
• Firstpost - 28 March 2017
• Hindustan Times - 17 March 2017
• NDTV - 20 March 2017
• Mumbai Mirror - 12 January 2017
• IBT again - 19 October 2016
• IBT again - 10 January 2017.

With the preponderance of the sources seemingly in support of 650 crore, and with no clear explanation for your perceived discrepancy, it would be very controversial and imprudent to arbitrarily drop the number to 586.45. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Katamarayudu Telugu movie box office

Here is the reliable source for the box office collection of the movie. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/katamarayudu-10-days-total-box-office-collection-pawan-kalyan-churns-out-another-flop-after-sgs-721838 5.156.212.245 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Done There's already a presumably reliable source cited in the article that presents a 10-day gross of 125 crore. It would seem academically dishonest to switch out one reliable estimate for another reliable estimate, so I have presented the content in the form of a range, here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Great father malayalam

Crossed 50 crore mark and it is not added here Abbas.j63 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@abbas.j63 : http://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/news/2017/the-great-father-box-office-enters-50-crore-club-259046.html Abbas.j63 (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You posted this twice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The great father collected above 50 cr

Why this page cant upload malayalam movie collection updates Check the collection about that film. The great father fastest 50 cr+ collection world wide....and also it running successfully in gulf countries and india Check the updates admin Muhaismuhammed (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Muhaismuhammed: Complaining without bringing references doesn't get the data updated any faster. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Muhaismuhammed: Oh, and I just remembered that a lot of the early financial data was coming from the filmmakers, which I believe is why some editors opted not to include the data. Filmmakers are considered primary sources, and we don't typically use primary sources for controversial claims like for finances. A producer/director/actor would have every reason to inflate their box office figures. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Abbas:http://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/news/2017/the-great-father-box-office-enters-50-crore-club-259046.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas.j63 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abbas.j63: Filmibeat is not generally considered a reliable source by the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia. Please find mainstream news sites that support the figures. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for examples of sources that are and are not generally considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017

Please include The Great Father in the highest grossing Malayalam film section. 'The Great Father Box Office: Enters 50-Crore Club!'

Read more at: http://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/news/2017/the-great-father-box-office-enters-50-crore-club-259046.html Sunnyjos (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: @Sunnyjos: Filmibeat is not generally considered a reliable source for financial data. Please see WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for examples of sources that are and are not generally considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)