{{talk header}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=

{{WikiProject India |class=list |importance=mid |cinema=yes |cinema-importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Business|class=list|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Film|class=list|Indian=yes|listas=Highest-Grossing Indian Films, List Of}}

{{merged-from|List of highest-grossing Tamil films|talk=no|date=25 April 2014}}

{{merged-from|List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films|talk=no|date=25 April 2014}}

{{merged-from|List of highest-grossing Punjabi films|talk=no|date=11 July 2015}}

{{merged-from|List of highest-grossing Telugu films|talk=no|date=11 July 2015}}

{{merged-from|List of highest-grossing Tamil films|talk=no|date=11 July 2015}}

{{merged-from|List of highest-grossing Bollywood films|talk=no|date=26 July 2015}}

{{copied|from=Bollywood|from_oldid =670957198|to=List of highest-grossing Indian films||to_diff=672526653|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films&type=revision&diff=672526653&oldid=672526378|date=July 21, 2015}}

{{oldafdfull| date = 20 December 2012 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide }}

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 9

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(14d)

|archive = Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films/Archive %(counter)d

== 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:C4:4001:4748:DD9:5334:CD4B:BB3F|2601:C4:4001:4748:DD9:5334:CD4B:BB3F]] ([[User talk:2601:C4:4001:4748:DD9:5334:CD4B:BB3F#top|talk]]) 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk: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

::[[User:Rahrumi|Rahrumi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 18:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

== Veer-Zaara removal ==

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films&diff=748084614&oldid=748084289 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films&curid=37650258&diff=748086587&oldid=748085784 here] by Taniya94, but there were no new references added, and the BOI link still did not resolve. Taniya did not respond to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taniya94&diff=748087608&oldid=747986789 my comments] on their talk page, so I have again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films&diff=748682643&oldid=748682007 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 [https://web.archive.org/web/20151117101945/http://boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/veer_zaara#.WCNgzPorKUk 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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 17:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

{{yo|Kailash29792|Bollyjeff|Charles Turing}} and anyone else... I'm looking at [https://web.archive.org/web/20151117101945/http://boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/veer_zaara#.WCNgzPorKUk 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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 18:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

:This says its the highest of 2004: [https://web.archive.org/web/20120210050007/http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=210&catName=MjAwNA== BOI] [[User:Bollyjeff|<span style="color:blue">Bollyjeff</span>]] <span style="color:green">&#124;</span> [[User talk:Bollyjeff|<span style="color:red">''talk''</span>]] 19:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

:Forget that dead confusing source, there is a better written and a [http://www.boxofficeindia.com/movie.php?movieid=451 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 [http://www.boxofficeindia.com/worldwide-total-gross.php?year=2004 here]. Both the sources tells only one gross value, {{INR}}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. --[[User:Charles Turing|Charles Turing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Taniya94|Taniya94]] ([[User talk: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"? [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

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

== Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|List of highest-grossing Indian films|answered=yes}}

24 the movie collected 157.10 crore it should be included in highest grossing tamil films.

[[User:Lukman hakeem|Lukman hakeem]] ([[User talk:Lukman hakeem|talk]]) 14:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

== Kotigob 2 ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Shanthiniketan|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.

[[User:Shanthiniketan|Shanthiniketan]] ([[User talk:Shanthiniketan|talk]]) 16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films&diff=749481834&oldid=749472303 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 [[WT:ICTF|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 [[WP:UGC|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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 19:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|List of highest-grossing Indian films|answered=yes}}

[[User:Sreekrishna Girish|Sreekrishna Girish]] ([[User talk:Sreekrishna Girish|talk]]) 21:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''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.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 21:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

== Kabali ==

Kabali Film Grossing Is Still a doubt for me. It should merely cross 500 crores .. [[User:Haregovindraj18|Haregovindraj18]] ([[User talk: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 {{INR}}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]]) [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 16:34, 19 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. [[User:PierceBrosnan007|PierceBrosnan007]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:PierceBrosnan007|PierceBrosnan007]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Taniya94|Taniya94]] ([[User talk:Taniya94|talk]]) 09:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

::::Probably you did not understand [[User:Taniya94|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 [[User:PierceBrosnan007|PierceBrosnan007]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Taniya94|Taniya94]] ([[User talk:Taniya94|talk]]) 13:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::::You said it yourself [[User:Taniya94|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 [[User:PierceBrosnan007|PierceBrosnan007]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Charles Turing|Charles Turing]] ([[User talk:Charles Turing|talk]]) 20:31, 23 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.)

[[User:PierceBrosnan007|PierceBrosnan007]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:PierceBrosnan007|PierceBrosnan007]] has to be made inorder resolve this contradiction.

[[User:Ananth sk|Ananth sk]] ([[User talk:Ananth sk|talk]]) 11:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Jacobinte swargarajyam should be removed

[[User:Ajmalm07|Ajmalm07]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_62#Catch_News.3F 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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 18:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': Could [[User:Cyphoidbomb|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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PierceBrosnan007|PierceBrosnan007]] ([[User talk:PierceBrosnan007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PierceBrosnan007|contribs]]) 04:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::{{Ping|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 [[WP:PRIMARY|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. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/49.205.151.200|49.205.151.200]] ([[User talk: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/49.205.151.200|49.205.151.200]] ([[User talk:49.205.151.200#top|talk]]) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->