This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

India: Cinema List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). Business List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: Indian List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force. Lists List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

How should classify the film Baahubali? This is both for the main table and for whether it should be included in any of the subtables.

Tamil and Telugu

• Support both Tamil and Telugu as explained below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support per the multiple reliable sources Forbes to the Guardian to the Times of India to IBN to NDTV to The National which identify the film as bilingual Tamil / Telugu. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for obvious reasons. The film was shot in both languages, there is no reason to deviate from reliable sources as a way to accommodate the fragile egos of a select group of readers. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Has been endlessly explained in above discussions. Cannolis (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a fairly unique situation, in that two versions of the film were made at the same time. I think the film should be treated as both a Telugu and a Tamil film. I don't really get what the fuss is all about except maybe some hometown/language/culture pride? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: A wide range of sources make it clear that the film was simultaneously produced in both languages. --Carnildo (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, since this is not only what independent sources tell us, it's what the producer has stated (it was produced bilingually because a monolingual approach could not have recouped the production costs). See the #Discussion section for sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support per multiple reliable sources which has been presented above by various users. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil only

Telugu only

• Support Telugu Only. Marchoctober (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? WP:JUSTAVOTE will be ignored by the closer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Baahubali is undoubtedly a Telugu movie which is simultaneously dubbed into Hindi,Tamil,English and French. How could it be in the list of highest grossing tamil movies? This is a blunder mistake on wikipedia, it must be verifed as soon as possibleJohnnyBlaze007 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its a telugu movie dubbed into another 4 languages. Ricky is behaving as a true Madrasi.175.101.16.161 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck ethnic slur. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchoctober: @JohnnyBlaze007: @175.101.16.161: are there any sources or policies that support your position?

• Support Please go to the Wikipedia Page "Telugu Cinema". It doesn't mean films shot in Telugu, It actually means films produced by Tollywood. Similarly go to the page "Tamil Cinema" What it means is films shot in Kollywood. so if your intention is just to servce the technicality, your absolutely misleading people here. Baahubali is product of Telugu Cinema and I strongly support it to be mentioned only in the Field of Telugu. In the page of baahubali, it was anyway mentioned as Telugu & Tamil. But in the grossings we need to be careful not to mislead readersPradeeps369 (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Many films from Tamil like Enthiran, Indian, Singham, Shivaji ... were shot simultaneously in both Tamil and Telugu but, being considered as Tamil films. Though Bahubali - The Beginning has Tamil version its a Telugu film only. Will anyone consider those films as Telugu films? Enthiran bagged 2 national awards and many other awards, but it didn't get nominated to atleast one section of Telugu cinema awards like Nandi, film fare-Telugu and other. It is obviously telling that which way should one follow. PK ^talk 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Political Cricketer: Can you please show some reliable sources which state Enthiran, Indian, Sivaji and Singam are bilinguals. They are merely dubbed versions, get your facts right before arriving at random conclusions. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tamil films like Enthiran/Robo, I, Indian, Singham, Shivaji ... were shot simultaneously in both Tamil and Telugu but, being considered as Tamil films. In all Telugu versions of the above films, no where you will find letters in Tamil but you will find them in Telugu only. Some portions of these movies are re-shoot to suit Telugu audience. Similarly, Bahubali - The Beginning is a Telugu film only and some portions are re-shoot to suit Tamil audience. If we add the gross earnings from all the versions including dubbed languages, how can we give a particular film a Tamil only or Telugu only film. Either we need to include a single language from where it has originated like Bahubali from Telugu language or include all the languages in which the movie was released including dubbed languages The Guardian. If Bahubali is included in the list of highest grossing Tamil movies list, then why wasn't Eega movie included in Tamil list as it was also produced in Tamil along with Telugu version simultaneously? Because it is not in the top of the list? Everyone wants to take credit if we are successful. And why was Eega movie got National Award for Best Feature Film in Telugu even though it is produced simultaneously in Tamil also? So, it is better to include Bahubali only in the Telugu list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 11:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Certainly it is a telugu movie and not telugu and tamil. The movie is shot primarily by telugu and for global audience. Due to the market similarities, and for revenue making purposes some shots were shot twice while rest is dubbed. This is a common practice and even tamil films are shot twice for lip sync purposes or add specific scenes with telugu or the target market actros to make it more marketable. For example, I or Robo have added mixed tracks and that doesnt mean they are telugu films. srikrishnak (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is primarily a Telugu movie and shot with few scenes in tamil that doesn't mean it is a tamil movie. Here bilingualism is not the issue. while mentioning in the grossing list you should consider production and from which language the film originated not bilingualism. I have 4 instances to classify it as a Telugu movie and remove from the tamil list. The production is from a Telugu production house and not even single from tamil is involved in it. The story, script, direction, music, cinematography etc... almost entire crew is from Telugu film industry including cast. If we look at the release almost 75% released in Telugu version and (Hindi dubbed version(from Telugu)) and the rest is from others. In the collections almost 80% is from Telugu and Hindi dubbed version. Also only some scenes were shot in tamil for tamil audience and the rest is dubbed in Tamil.

But to classify it as a tamil film they have only one instance ie. stating it as a bilingual film which is actually not as Tamil version has some dubbed scenes. For all those who are mentioning baahubali as a bilingual i'm asking is the story, script and direction is from both telugu and tamil directors? not at all It's only from Telugu director and writer alone. Is the production house is from tamil? If you check the gross collections then look how much tamil version has collected nearly 15%. Then why are you including the movie in tamil list by adding other version collections 80% into it although it is not primarily a tamil movie. simply don't state bilingual as a reason. In the gross box office list, will you look at the language or the production and collections? In Hollywood if an English movie is also shot in French it is regarded as an hollywood movie not french movie. In the collections it will be listed in english list not in the french list similarly is the case of baahubali it should be included only in telugu list not in tamil. So remove it from tamil list.

Padukati raju (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Providing sources which say the film is from Telugu film industry and Telugu language: 1)www.bbc.com 2)theguardian.com 3)reuters.com 4) cnn.com 5) huffingtonpost 6)hindustantimes.com 7)timesofindia.indiatimes.com 8)ndtv.com 9)odishasuntimes.com 10)thehindu.com Marchoctober (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This News Article by TheGuardian.com which clearly mentions that the film is a Telugu movie and was made additionally in Tamil and dubbed into Hindi and Malayalam, but clearly states that it is a Telugu Movie. Marchoctober (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Baahubali: The Beginning was shot in both the Tamil and Telugu languages and then dubbed in various other languages. There is no disputing that amongst the sources. Rather than trying to figure out how much of a film constitutes a Tamil/Telugu (or Hindi or Punjabi)-"industry" film (based on actors/directors/producers/location shot), since it was shot in both Tamil and Telugu originally (and then dubbed elsewhere) it should be listed as both Tamil and Telugu language film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was removed from Tamil again with this misleading edit. I'm not in the mood to fight it anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Telugu Only. Marchoctober (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? As noted above, this is not a vote so policy discussions would be preferable and I know that there's pages of the same arguments going in circles but it would be really helpful if you could put it in a short summary here as many people may not respond to every repeated discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the sections

• Baahubali is a Bilingual
• Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Film_language_versus_industry
• Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Tamil_Films_misrepresenting_information

The above users all are biased users which is why I have started those sectionsMarchoctober (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone is biased but you and everyone who agrees with you. They are so biased that you require multiple discussions and pages and tangents to not a point other than "it's insulting for it to be called a Tamil film." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what to say. But, as per the trade is concerned, the Tamil version is lacking behind when compared to the remaining two major releases (Telugu and Hindi). If you want me to classify which language Baahubali belongs to, i would opt for a Telugu-Tamil bilingual. Because, the film's director S. S. Rajamouli told IANS — Given the budget of the film, it’s impossible to recover the cost involved if we release in one language. Right from the start, the plan was to make it as a Tamil-Telugu bilingual. Hence, we cast actors who are popular in both the industries. Here is the reference for the same.

When the director himself admits that Baahubali is a bilingual, i think that should be valued more than anything else. And, for all those who are concerned that Telugu cinema isn't getting its due recognition, i want to cite the case of Eega. That film, also a bilingual directed by Rajamouli, received acclaim mostly for its Telugu version. National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards South and all notable awards were received by the Telugu version only. In the case of Baahubali, Telugu cinema is being praised by the International media and fortunately, the same can be placed in the article and summarised in the lead provided the content is written neutrally.

So, i suggest this option — Specify Baahubali as an Indian bilingual simultaneously shot in Telugu and Tamil. Next, specify in the poroduction section that Rajamouli planned it as a bilingual only to recover the cost involved which he found impossible if released in only one language. For all who are concerned for Telugu cinema recognition, please write the content from International magazines in a neutral way in the "Legacy" section. As per WP:LEAD the same would be summarised in the lead section where we can see a statement similar to "Due to the success of Baahubali, Telugu film industry was noted and praised by International magazines such as Forbes and The Guardian". Any one who does or does not support this may explain their arguments below. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't have objective criteria here. What do you mean that by "the Tamil version is lacking"? We aren't removing it from the Tamil language just because you personally don't think it was the best version, that's a nonsensical way to categorize things. And it's not about whether the Tamil industry "deserves" or doesn't recognition, it's about a single film and what's the best way to classify the films on this page (I'm starting to learn towards a delete all the subtables and just list films approach). And if you care about more about praising Telugu cinema than anything else, you're here for the wrong reasons. That's not the point of this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Pavanjandhyala presenting reliable sources to qualify their statements, and they are certainly right in re-asserting that the film is bilingual, but I too share your sentiment regarding the mindset that a certain industry 'deserves praise'. This page is not for 'praising' a certain 'industry'. This isn't the scope of the page. This page has absolutely nothing to do with a film's industry. I am also in agreement that all subsections should be removed. Perhaps a new RFC should be started in the near future with regards to your proposal. Elspamo4 (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then here is my explanation. Baahubali is a bilingual simultaneously shot in Telugu & Tamil and dubbed into Hindi in order to recover the making costs which is confirmed by its director in an interaction to IANS. There is no need to project it as only a Telugu film for the acclaim Telugu version has received because that shall not change just because the film is a bilingual. So i suggest that the film (includes both the parts) be mentioned as a bilingual one in the lead and mention in the Production section that this film was made as a bilingual to recover the making costs. What say? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this bizarro argument about only the Telugu version being acclaimed coming from? Are there sources that say that the Tamil version is horrid or something? It's literally the same film. No, that's not a solution as it entirely ignores the other language it was made in. Further, arguing about the reason a film was made in various language (again without providing sources) as a justification for how it should be categorized is again original research as if certain reasons (budget, financing, marketing) are good while others are not. The film was made in two languages. We should not be coming back here when the next film make in two languages (or three) [made, not dubbed that seems clear] to debate about what reasons it was made in those various languages, whether one language makes it "more" acclaimed than another or "more" amazing or whatever that accomplishes nothing here in terms of consistency and is just people here picking and choosing based on their personal interests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See. I provided the source in my first message here. If you missed it, here is the reference i quoted and it was not an original research as you say. With this, i can prove that Baahubali is a bilingual film. Coming to the acclaim problem, many websites such as Forbes and all mentioned the Telugu version of Baahubali in particular. This and the box office success of the film "as a whole" (i mean together in all languages) made a few quote that Baahubali is only a Telugu film. By stating the reason why this film was made as a bilingual, i want to make it clear that this is not just a Telugu film but a bilingual. Nothing else from my side. I'm done with it. What all can do after reading the content in that source carefully and this last message of mine here, please do the needy. I just wanted to make sure that the filmmaker's intention is clearly mentioned in the related articles (Baahubali: The Beginning, Production of Baahubali and Baahubali: The Conclusion) to avoid unnecessary confusions regarding the issue whether this is a bilingual or not. Thank you for letting me participate in this productive discussion and i think, its time i say good bye to this. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How does "bilingual" = Telugu only? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

snide: It runs through the "industry" which squeezes all the Tamil out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's conclusively proven to have been a bilingual production from the start, I guess this will be a textbook example of why a closer should look at rationales and ignore the head-count of "votes". LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Bahubali is included in the list of highest grossing Tamil movies list, then why wasn't Eega movie included in Tamil list as it was also produced in Tamil along with Telugu version simultaneously? Because it is not in the top of the list? And why was Eega movie got National Award for Best Feature Film in Telugu only even though it was produced simultaneously in Tamil and the content of both the movies are same? It is because Indian film awards are given only for the language in which the movie is originally made. Since Eega was not an original Tamil movie, it didn't get any award in Tamil language category. Same is the case with Bahubali. It's a original Telugu movie and when it receives any awards, it will receive the awards only in the category of Telugu language and not for Tamil language. So, it is better to include Bahubali only in the Telugu list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Let me put a small break here. The point is Wikipedia categorizes Indian films by language not by so-called industry. Evidence can be seen by Category:Indian films by language. Now, they could be misinterpreted as the same except we have English-language Indian films. The basis for inclusion there is the (primary) language in which the film was shot. There is no English-language Indian film "industry" place/populace whatever that would let us classify other films as in or out of this category other than by simple language. For the same reason, we should be classifying Baahubali as both Tamil and Telugu because it was shot in those language rather than using some personal opinions from editors as to whether a film has "sufficient" amounts of a particular film industry to be classified under that industry. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely biased editing on part of the administrator Ricky81682|Ricky81682], who is biased to make Bahubali to give Tamil color. Bahubali was maintained as Telugu movie until the gross collections of Bahubali didn't cross the gross collections of highest grossing Tamil movie "Enthiran". When Bahubali grossed more than Enthiran, they made it as both Telugu and Tamil movie. Why no explanations were given for "Eega/Naan Ee" movie, for which I have given lot of explanation above? When "Eega/Naan Ee" was produced simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil but considered Telugu only movie then how come Bahubali will be considered both Telugu and Tamil movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack other editors. Has Eega been brought up before? If you can provide a source about Eega, put it in a separate section and we'll list it on both. I don't recall it being listed on the Tamil film list when it was merged here. At to the National Film Award, that is determined by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India), correct? Does it classify films or are films categorized there and nominated based on the producers submitted it there? I'm just trying to flesh out your rationale for using that as a basis for categorizing films. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to attack personally. For awards, the producer has to submit an entry for the movie. Is it possible for Bahubali to be submitted as an entry for Tamil version. It is not possible. Because "Dubbed/revised/copied version of a film" is out rightly rejected by the awards Jury [1] as Tamil version of Bahubali is copied version Telugu Bahubali and Tamil version is not in it's original form. Same has happened with "Eaga/Naan Ee". Producers know that if they submit the Tamil version, it will be out rightly rejected. Eega was eligible for National awards only in Telugu version and not in Tamil version. Same is the case with Bahubali. It is eligible for National awards only in Telugu version. If National awards jury is considering it as a Telugu only movie then how Wikipedia will consider it as both Telugu and Tamil movie. Please remove Bahubali from Tamil list. Otherwise, it will misguide people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're speculating here. Where is this "Tamil version would have been rejected" coming from? You don't have proof of any of this. Is this the same as the "the Tamil version was lacking" argument I've heard before? Ok, the point is it was the producers' choice to list it under Telugu and not Tamil (I doubt they could submit it in two categories) and it was not like some government agency's choice which would give us some more objective criteria to work off. That's my point. As to Eega again, no one has brought it up before (I don't recall it listed when I merged the separate Tamil article over here) and I mentioned it in the #Eega section below. I'm assuming you'll support including that in the Tamil section to be consistent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the form on page 17, only one language is permitted and this is submitted by the producers. I agree that any dubbed dialogue is also inadmissible as you said. I don't see any discussion about bilingual films. It's an interesting point none the less. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ricky81682 If this article is about Highest grossing Indian films why should Language be included at all ? Delete that distinction and the controversy is lost. In the current state of the article, though the Tamil movies made money in other languages and this article is about making money why are other languages not included in Tamil movies section, why do not you include that information ? Why dont you want to add information of atleast All versions in the Tamil language movies section ? I had created a new section on talkpage which was got rid of.. using a bot to archive, though that section was only couple of days old ? And why do you want to add multiple language information only for Baahubali and not any of the Tamil movies? Marchoctober (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in that, suggest it. That was the key part of the merger discussion that started in December 2013. The concern was that Hindu-languge films would dominate the various other languages. I'd advise a separate section rather than a new argument here. From what I can tell, all the films listed include all dubbed language grossing. I've asked about re-wording the "Languages" section to add a note that it's for the languages originally shot in, not dubbed or other things but that got archived I think. Do you think we should clarify it that way? As to your archived comment, are you talking about this archived section? You never responded to my question, what do you want? Just saying that it's "not fairly represented here" is not telling me what you want done. It felt like a random aside related to this discussion rather than a particular point. This is a locked article so I'm (any admin can do it but I'm here so I'm doing it to be helpful) not going to do everything that's suggested until it's clear there's consensus to do so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes I'm definitely interested, you are not being fair being an administrator and participating in the rfc by putting your support on the tamil and Telugu you have to be neutral, you cannot have an opinion, if you already have an opinion how can you judge the outcome of rfc, why do you think so many users are putting support for Telugu only? Why is it that you do not care for consensus? Being an administrator I request you to be neutral and open minded. please add that information with sources that all of the tamil movies mentioned on the article are made in more than one language and that same information needs to be represented on this article, you cannot put multiple languages only for bahubali. Marchoctober (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not judging the outcome of the RFC. It's an open RFC. I'm responding to everyone's points. This page was protected by User:NeilN here not me. Ask NeilN if you want it changed (but see the joke essay m:The Wrong Version for why NeilN may not). I'm trying to be consistent by updating all the numbers for the film together, the way it was protected. If you want to request that someone close the RFC, the proper place is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. As to the Tamil films, can you just put in a separate section for the films, separate from this discussion? You posted a list of films, arguing multiple languages with a multitude of sources. It's not just you arguing with me so these need to be discussed and that's not the way to have a coherent, reasonable discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright you are not judging the outcome of the RFC, but why would you put your support on one side? Would not the guys trying to judge the outcome of the RFC think an administrator is supporting a side probably that side is correct ? As an administrator I suggest you be neutral and remove your support /oppose comment, I find it very one sided especially because someone who is very powerful like an administrator can be in a position to influence the outcome of an RFC, your being neutral is essential and very important, or else it would be a one sided and unfair RFC. Also I will start that new section again, please read and understand before commenting that it makes no sense, earlier when I added that section you were saying what's your point. I do not wish the RFC be closed so quickly a proper discussion is required and why is consensus of no importance ? Why do you think majority of editors want something to be represented in a way ? Because that must have been the correct representation, please have an open mind and listen to both sides, it is important as an administrator for you to do so. Marchoctober (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ricky81682 Please see below the Tamil films misrepresenting information, you have not responded to my query earlier about a user deleting information, though I provided the diff which shows that the user deleted information relating to Tamil films that all the versions grossed the total amount and also provided sources, have you read through the sources ? Did you understand what I wrote ? All you said was whats your point? As an administrator when someone provides both diffs and sources backing oneself, you better pay attention and understand, I decided you are biased since you did not respond properly hence I started contacting NeilN, now that I see you are responding I am putting forward all this information again. Just Like how the above user talks about Eega film Baahubali should also be represented in one language. If Tamil were represented as Tamil only though they have been released in Telugu and Hindi, similarly Baahubali should be represented only as a Telugu film and not both. Or else all the movies in the list should be listed as released in multiple languages. I have provided reliable sources like BBC above which say it is a Telugu Film but then why is this information not being represented properly? Is it your own assessment that it is both languages? Unless you take a neutral stand on this article I would wish you stay away from this article and Adminstrators like NeilN should probably take over from you, we do not have faith in someone who is so powerful and is taking sides instead of being neutral. Marchoctober (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN Marchoctober (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really have an issue with the Tamil film industry for some reason. Let me start with Enthiran as your source says that it was released in Tamil and then dubbed into English and Telugu so are you now advocating that it should be listed in every language it was dubbed in? As I noted, PK was just released in China dubbed in Mandarin so do you think there should be a List of highest grossing Indian films in the Mandarin-language on that basis? You are still disputing that a film that is shot in two language shouldn't be listed in both though, right? I'm trying to see if you have an actual consistent, logical rule here or not. My view is pretty straightforward: use the language(s) it was shot in, ignore all the dubbed versions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ricky81682 If need be I may be forced to start and arbitration on the administrators board only to discuss Ricky81682 's neutrality. Being powerful and taking sides is very dangerous, also editing the article after it has been locked down, it is unacceptable.
I have literally seen you revert information on this page 3 times continously which is edit warring but you being an administrator got away with it I can provide the diffs. please see below:

diff1 diff2 diff3

Its really shit scary to normal users like me who do not have any power to see a powerful administrator indulge in edit warring , I really request User Ricky to stay neutral and if possible stay away from the article. Marchoctober (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was this really a rewrite of the article? Do you think the fact that you removed the film section from the Tamil section during your "rewrite" isn't going to WP:BOOMERANG on you? Do you think no one is going to ask you about that? You're also not arguing that an edit I did was wrong but that I didn't go through the protection and remove it from the Tamil section? Your objection is ultimately that when I updated the Baahubali numbers, I didn't also remove it from the Tamil section, correct? That I kept the status quo that NeilN protected? The RFC is still open so I think it would be edit warring for someone to actually change it now while there's still a discussion ongoing. But again, if you want to report it, go ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the difference between Dubbing and making in two languages ? The film was made only once, it was not made multiple times for god sake! Anyways lets accept your argument but, It comes from the Telugu Film industry which needs to be represented somewhere, as an administrator I request you to figure out a way, that could be like adding an additional column which says Film industry and keep the language column as is, then you may represent both languages. Why do not you try to find an amicable solution to this controversy instead of just locking the page you may re-open it and resolve the controversy. Marchoctober (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in poor taste where you seem to dare me to report it (edit warring), all I am saying is you seem to be emotionally attached to this article, taking sides on the RFC inspite of being an adminstrator is really shocking for me Marchoctober (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If administrators take biasing approach, no one can argue with them and then all the Wikipedia pages are to be sourced by administrators only. When a user edits a page and the administrator reverts back taking biasing approach, what is the use of Wikipedia in public domain. I have clearly mentioned about Eega with source that it has to be submitted for National awards only for Telugu language by the producers although it is a multilingual film. If Eega Tamil version producer PVP Cinema(different from Telugu version producer) submitted for Tamil version, it could have been rejected citing that it is a copied version. If Tamil websites are mentioning that Bahubali[2] as highest grossing Telugu movie and Enthiran [3] as highest grossing Tamil movie, then how can Wikipedia consider Bahubali as Telugu and Tamil move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 08:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why is consensus of no importance to you ? There are far too many editors who want to see the article in a way which it is not currently represented as you have managed. Marchoctober (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My changing information on the page whether it will boomerang or not how do you know ? You should have waited for other users, there are so many articles on the wikipedia which do not have sources but they stay there only because of consensus why did you not wait for consensus ? why do you make changes to the article personally and why dont you wait for other users ? Please think like an admin, who waits and sees how other users react, they do not take action personally on the article, why do you have such a personal affiliation towards the article? Marchoctober (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I struck that comment. I'll drop it. Waited for what? Are you talking before protection or after protection? After protection, I haven't done a thing to change the actual disputed issue in the RFC, namely Baahuabli's languages. Are you objecting to the changes in their box office results? You can't be objecting to edits to any other films since that hasn't nothing to do with what's in dispute. Should I have to wait and engage your "all these users show their support of Tamil language" and are biased arguments? It's not a vote, especially when you're violating the canvassing rules with posts like this and this and now you've moved from it's Telugu only because whatever reason to now wanting others films listed as bilingual based on their dubbed versions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concerned administrator never cared for the language when Vishwaroopam was made simultaneously in Tamil and Hindi(It's User Bhuvannalla, who changed the language from Tamil to "Tamil and Hindi" for Vishwaroopam). Similarly, the concerned administrator never cared for the language when Eega was put only in Highest grossing Telugu movies though it wass made simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil. The concerned administrator never cared for language of Bahubali(It was mentioned as only Telugu) until it crossed the gross collections of highest grossing Tamil movie "Enthiran". The administartor never cared for the situation when we type Highest grossing Indian films in google, it shows Highest grossing Tamil films in the brief description of Wikipedia (Though I raised it in his Talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.135.5 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to know what films are in what languages? And the amount of discussion going on at #Eega shows your real interests here. And no I can't fix Google's spidering issue but if you really take offense to that, ask it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Boy do some people really have a chip on their shoulder. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ricky81682 The admin User:NeilN had asked the other user redpenofdoom to invite other users to participate in RFC, I saw that and I also followed the same but later I was warned by User:NeilN I did not know about Canvassing rule until NeilN had warned me and immediately after he warned me I never repeated it. The previous version when it was locked was Telugu only but this time just before it was locked it was edited by this user see diff and then it was locked Marchoctober (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:CANVASS. Asking people to vote in the Telugu section is not the way to do it. Do it in a neutral format. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If not by vote what is the way you want this RFC to be resolved? Why are you not being neutral by removing your support comment ? Marchoctober (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, stop pinging me. It's annoying and I'm sure NeilN won't appreciate it either. Because I explained my reasoning there. It's the format. I want someone to evaluate the arguments and decide whichever ones are better based on policy grounds. Whoever said I claimed to be neutral on this issue? I have a view (I started the RFC for a reason). Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is not productive. Does the view of how to classify Baahubali affect whether or not we have a reliable source about the Kannada films? Only if you're holding a grudge because you're not getting your way on that one issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say you have stooped to my level and presented your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality as well, your above edits show what i say. Marchoctober (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not supposed to know what films are in what languages? Then why are you giving importance to the language of Bahubali, when you left the language of other movies to users. Leave it to users, who are updating the information.

Now that you have said you are not neutral I may have to go reach out for other adminstrators, as your administering the article is no longer valid as an admin, you are equal to a user while on this article because you are opinionated. Marchoctober (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would not this diff constitue as edit warring as there was an active RFC when this edit was made ? Why have you supported it why have you not undone it ? Because it represents your opinion on the RFC ? Power in wrong hands leads to bad things in the world. Marchoctober (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN3 is that way. Feel free to discuss it with another admin there as no matter what I won't be blocking anyone when I'm clearly involved. There's only about 1300 more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per involved you must not act as an admin ever on that page but you have violated by acting like one until now, you should not edit the article. You have been editing the article from the day it was locked. And I strongly believe that you have made multiple biased edits, so you stay away from editing the page anymore. I am really surprised, I have never come across any admin who has such strong biases. You have to contact other Admins on Wikipedia:NoticeboardsMarchoctober (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please change sources for Magadheera and Race Gurram to properly executed "2nd Saturday Box Office Collection: Baahubali Beats Endhiran's Lifetime Record in 9 Days". International Business Times. 19 July 2015. --Sudzuki Erina (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article admits that those are estimates and is just repeating its numbers from this site which I'm really questioning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But that article (incorrect framed) is used now in Highest grossing Telugu films for Magadheera and Race Gurram. --Sudzuki Erina (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADLINE lol. We'll fix these things eventually. - Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there support for this change? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this falls back under an example where a potential source is citing a known unreliable source (andhraboxoffice.com). There's a discussion at WP:RSN about this actual issue as some people think that if possibly (or known) reliable source rely on something, that should be sufficient to consider that source reliable. I disagree however. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed from article now. I wish the Indian cinema page or someone had an interest in discussing these sources rather than me just talking to myself repeatedly it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please update baahubali collections to 462 crores. ^[1]Aloosamosa (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's 500 now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-3rd-week-box-office-collection-prabhas-film-grosses-462-crore-21-days-641133

Please update Baahubali's gross to 462 crores- Thx a lot! Nyankitty5023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyankitty5023 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the gross of Drishyam as 60 cr. [4] Josephjames.me (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please add the gross of Twenty:20 as 32 cr. [5] Josephjames.me (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support the update of Drishyam to 60 cr - the source is a valid major newspaper speaking in its own voice. Do not support the Twenty:20 as it is just the director speaking in terms that he himself qualifies "if one believes the trades". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheRedPenOfDoom! I've made a table from whatever data was available. Please make me know of the corrections. There a few more films for which I have not been able to find a reliable source. I shall try to add them as soon as possible. Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for starters, you have cited [6] for two of the films in your list, but as far as I can see that source does not provide box office figures for ANY film. Did you copy and paste from the stand alone article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is given in a photo in the article. [7] Josephjames.me (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Source: Industry"? That's a little odd but the Economic Times is a reliable source I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All done. If there are concerns about a particular source, we can discuss. The only issue is that the article now has 11 sources for this language. Any objections to cutting it to an even ten? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Josephjames.me (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Forgot to thank you... Thanks! And please revise the 'Premam' figure as 60 cr. Thanks again:) Josephjames.me (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja

There's two separate numbers listed for Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja: [8] alleging 20 crore and [9] alleging 49 crore in an off-hand comment. Rather than the note, we should look into it with more detail. It seems like the Times piece may not be reliable for this citation since that result would make it the third-highest film, something that nothing else seems to agree with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'The Times piece may not be reliable for this citation since that result would make it the third-highest film, something that nothing else seems to agree with.' That's exactly why I put the gross as 20 cr. because that would also support this article [10] which states that Drishyam beat Twenty:20 to become the highest grossing Malayalam film. But if the gross is true, the film would be a 'flop' (27 cr. budget, 20 cr. gross) rather than a 'blockbuster' [11]. It surely needs a discussion, but as a big grosser, I thought it must feature in the list. Josephjames.me (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need sources

Can any one provide gross for films such as Narasimham, Rajamanikyam etc.? Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update the collection of Bajrangi Bhaijaan. It has crossed 500 cr Worldwide.^{[1] [2]}

Collection update of Bajrangi Bhaijaan

Update the collection of Bajrangi Bhaijaan. It has crossed 540 cr Worldwide. Here is the evidence... http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/08/04/despite-weekend-slowdown-indias-bajrangi-bhaijaan-treks-to-540-crore-84-2m-worldwide ^[1] kindly update collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibsomania (talk • contribs)

Baahubali grossed Rs. 500 Crores - Forbes Magazine http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/08/02/indias-baahubali-blasts-past-500-crore-78-million-worldwide/ Harshasg (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally the case that there is no ==Ext links== header if there are no links even if there are templates. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You're right. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change the grossing of "Baahubali:The Beginning" to 500 crores.^[1] Gourabgggg (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your link for some reason. Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collection update of Bajrangi Bhaijaan 2

Update the collection of Bajrangi Bhaijaan. It has crossed 540 cr Worldwide. Here is the evidence... http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/08/04/despite-weekend-slowdown-indias-bajrangi-bhaijaan-treks-to-540-crore-84-2m-worldwide kindly update collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambeinghari (talk • contribs)

It's been done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collection update of Baahubali

Update the collection of Baahubali. It has crossed 500 cr Worldwide. Here is the evidence... http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/08/02/indias-baahubali-blasts-past-500-crore-78-million-worldwide kindly update collections.

thanks..

Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no an error at the foor of the page. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Bhajrangi Bhaijaan, as of now not grossed Rs.540 crores. No main stream Indian media reported so. Till tuesday, as per most Indian news portals the movie grossed only Rs.294 crore and is nearing Rs.300 crore mark.^{[1] [2][3]} Ved548 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Sources you give are for domestic box office gross. Table in article reflects global box office gross and is supported by Forbes source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, the film Eega was produced in both Tamil and Teleugu was is classified as bilingual here. Any objections to including it on the Tamil chart? I'd suggest we drop Thuppakki so teh chart is limited to a top ten but that's a separate concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

==Highest grossing Kannada films==

Rakesh bg (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rakesh bg: Where did you get this text from? Was that an old separate article that got merged here? It'll just make it more accurate if I put that in the edit summary for copyright reasons. I don't think that Indiaglitz (for Mungaru Male and for one of the sources for Maanikya) would qualify as a reliable sources but it shouldn't just be me here so let's wait on at least one more person to comment here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu here confirms 50 crore for Mungaru Male and that it is the highest Kannada box office collection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Looking at the "What Links Here" for Mungaru Male, I don't think this table was copy-pasted from anywhere on the English wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean one of the old "List of highest grossing films" that were merged here. You can see the box at the top for all those. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: The text is from Cinema of Karnataka and the table with movie name & worldwide gross & other details was created by me after getting the information from the sources that I have put in the source column. Please change the source for Mungaru Male with The Hindu Link. Others can you please comment on the reliability of the source from Indiaglitz, if people think its not a reliable source then please go-ahead & remove that line/movie from the list & add other content, later I'll try to find a reliable source for Maanikya

As i am from kerala and a regular movie analyst the 2009 movie Pazhassi Raja made 49 crores as shown in Times Of India. it was then a record and all media where buzzing about the film collections. 100% sure that the movie grossed 49 crores not 20.. Kindly update the collections

regards................ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambeinghari (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ambeinghari: I cannot find any sources from Times of India that confirm this. The most recent one I can find (Nov. 2014) says 27 cores. Can you please link to your source? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked that the gross be updated to 27 crore though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed below, that's 27 crore for the cost not the revenue. Ambeinghari, can you post the link for us? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bajrangi Bhaijaan's Collections needs to be updated asap. It shows 575 Crore INR in its own wiki page. Yashmrsawant (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The article says 540 in the infobox and in Bajrangi_Bhaijaan#Box office. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add below mentioned movies in highest grossing marathi movies.

Duniyadari || 2013 || Dreaming 24/7 Productions || ₹32 crore (US$3.8 million) || ^[1]

Timepass 2 || 2015 || Essel Vision Productions || ₹28 crore (US$3.4 million) || ^[2]

Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy || 2009 || Everest Entertainment || ₹21.4 crore (US$2.6 million) || ^[3]

Kaksparsh || 2012 || Zee Talkies || ₹14 crore (US$1.7 million) || ^[4]

Mitwaa || 2015 || Meenakshi Sagar || ₹13.5 crore (US$1.6 million) || ^[5]

Dr. Prakash Baba Amte - The Real Hero || 2014 || Essel Vision Productions || ₹12 crore (US$1.4 million) || ^[6]

Natarang || 2010 || Zee Talkies || ₹12 crore (US$1.4 million) || ^[7]

Pyaar Vali Love Story || 2014 || Dreaming 24/7 Productions || ₹11.5 crore (US$1.4 million) || ^[8]

Zapatlela 2 || 2013 || Kothare and Kothare Vision and Viacom 18 Motion Pictures || ₹11 crore (US$1.3 million) || ^[9]

Balak-Palak || 2013 || Mumbai Film Company || ₹10 crore (US$1.2 million) || ^[10]

Ani 007d (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ani 007d: Are you asking that this information is added to the article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, was the table taken from anywhere, or did you create it yourself? If you copied it form somewhere, we need to know so we can fulfill our copyright obligations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I am asking to add above mentioned movies in the table.I have taken the table from this page,i just thought that this is the way to suggest an edit by properly providing source code.Ani 007d (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is fine Ani 007d. We just had so many old versions especially with the smaller industries, that it's not clear what's going on all the time. Open the box at the top and you'll see everything that was merged here over months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Source 1 also says that Lai Bhaari had 41 crore not 40 so that's another update. Anyone else can check? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC) @Ricky81682:Thanks.[reply]

In this section, please change the gross for Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja from ₹20 crore to ₹27 crore per this more recent source. Also, please move Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja from 7th to 5th in the table. Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Isn't that saying that it cost 27 crore not that it may 27 crore? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: I {{trout}} myself for that... wow... I really need to read more slowly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:) Be glad protection hasn't ended yet. It'll be a madhouse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According To The Source Tamil Film Veeram Has Grossed ₹130 crore According To The Source ^[1] So Please Consider Changing in the List of highest-grossing Tamil films under List of highest-grossing Indian films GIftson.J (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Verified - Quote from source: According to Forbes India, "Veeram" is estimated to have earned about ₹130 crore. Seems good enough to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahuballi: 565 crore Bajrangi Bhaijaan : 495 crore ARJUN best kg (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources for this information. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be using INR convert and including the US valuations. Under MOS:CURRENCY, we should be using the currency of the subject currency. We are appropriately using the Indian rupees in terms of crores but there's no reason we should be including any conversion (in particular no reason to convert to the US dollar as MOS:CURRENCY puts the dollar, euros and pounds sterling as equal). Any other opinions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We Americans are quite ignorant of other country's money... and part of me wants maybe just a note in the refs about the conversion rate. Click crores doesn't give a ton of info. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion rate varies quite a bit from as low as 40 in 2007 until the current mid-60s. It's not in line with the MOS. List of highest-grossing films in Hong Kong doesn't. List of highest-grossing films in Nigeria doesn't. List of highest-grossing Pakistani films doesn't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

include magadheera in the list of highest grossing telugu films ^[1] Padukati raju (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When it is known that all the Tamil films in the list are released in more than just Tamil, absolutely all of them in the list why is this user indulging in removing this information ? See Diff

Every Single film is released in multiple languages more than just Tamil language, please see below along with sources but they are not represented fairly:

• Enthiran languages = Telugu, Tamil, Hindi ^[2]

• I Film languages = Telugu Tamil Hindi ^[3]

• Viswaroopam languages= Telugu Tamil and Hindi ^[4]

• Dasavatharam languages = Telugu Tamil and Hindi ^[5]

• Linga languages = Telugu Tamil and Hindi ^[6]

• sivaji languages = TeluguTamil and hindi ^[7]

• Kaththi languages = Telugu Tamil and Hindi ^[8]

• Arrambam languages = Telugu and Tamil ^{[9] [10]}

• Thupakki languages = Telugu and Tamil^[11]

Are you saying that removing "All versions" is a misrepresentation? I presumed that the totals listed are in all languages. Are you saying that the only numbers for Baahubali should be its gross in the Telugu and Tamil languages (so it was shot in a bilingual fashion), separately? Then what is the top category for exactly, gross per film per language? No one reports that at all. The film PK just had a run in China so how do you propose we even figure out what PK should be in Mandarin (or how to strip out the Mandarin dubbed sales? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Starting with Enthiran, your source says that it was released in Tamil and then dubbed into English and Telugu upon release. I don't think we should be including dubbed languages as there's going to dozens if not more for some films. PK was just released in China dubbed in Mandarin and I don't think we need to start listing all the dubbed languages to a film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay now what I am saying is that the user's edit which I provided diff above should be undone, the films should be represented as All versions under the worldwide grossing column. And when I reported the same you have not responded positively about it, instead you just ignored my request, all films in tamil language section must be represented as All version but they are represented as Tamil only version, I am Not talking about Language column. Marchoctober (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN Marchoctober (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why does "All versions" need to be put in every film? It doesn't accomplish anything and it should be obvious. Tamil only what? Tamil only gross? Is the listing under the Telugu films the Telugu only gross or is just the Tamil grosses that need to be distinguish for some reason for you? Again, what about PK and the Mandarin gross? Does PK also need to have "All versions" or again just the Tamil films? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems very silly every film which has been made in multiple languages needs that information even PK should have that information, just because I pointed out Tamil films it does not mean others should be conveniently avoided! None of the Telugu Films are made or dubbed in other languages, you have very limited knowledge about Indian movies, seems like I request you to look for each of telugu film except Baahubali and you will realise that none of the films in telugu were made in other languagesMarchoctober (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what do you want here? You're the one complaining about Enthiran not including the dubbed languages. I'm not wasting time looking over the rest of your sources until you tell me what reasoning your doing (which seems to just be "anything that makes Tamils look bad" to me). I still can't figure out whether you're objecting or supporting the removal of the Tamil films being listed with "All versions". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright now I understand that you do not understand me, let me try to explain it even more, I thought that diff above makes things clearly visible and understandable that the edit must be undone. Anyways All films in Tamil language section must include the "All versions" information in the Worldwide grossing column and moreover PK and other films also should include that information. Also include Dasaavataram to be multiple languages and not Tamil alone atleast now and not just Baahubali. Marchoctober (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The header "Languages" should be "Languages shot in" and then it wouldn't be an issue, wouldn't it? Do you really think people see the gross for Titanic and get confused as to whether its the original or a French dubs or a Mandarin version (or actually care)? As to the languages, first let's discuss what your basis is. Are you arguing it based on the dubbed versions being released? Otherwise I don't care to argue whether or not each film has multiple languages if I don't know what your logic is (in particular, why everything is suddenly multiple languages but Baahubali is not). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I do not know how else to explain in spite of making it as simple as saying the diff I provided needs to be undone and provided the sources supporting why. This is not about the language column it released in, under the language section you still put Tamil. Please see the Diff Marchoctober (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN Can you please make the change reverting the edit described in the diff in the start of the section? Marchoctober (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the films' information can be sourced and put. By doing so all controversy surrounding language can be avoided, people will not object for multiple langauges being represented. Marchoctober (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What information? "Industry"? We haven't even settled on directors and producers in all the tables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious I would not get my way when I am arguing with a strongly opinionated Adminstrator, who wants to drive his opinion. The only way for me is to fight as hard as I can since I am against someone far powerful than myself, you may call me WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for that but, myself from USA my time is 2:36 am california on a weekday, though I gotta work in the morning I am staying up and putting up a fight because I know that the truth has to prevail.
Film industry is the column which represents where the film originates from. Marchoctober (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so we're in the same state, good to know. Ok, but how is that determined? How would something like the films at English-language Indian films be categorized? Looking at something like 36 Chowringhee Lane, we have a Bengali director, a Hindi-industry producer, a British/Bollywood lead actress, Bollywood cinematographer, a musician who seems to work in both Bengali and Hindu music, shot in Kolkata, and with a Hindi-working art director. Would it just be a debate on how much the film itself feels like it's Bengali cinema? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its plain and simple you have to look for sources, put what the sources say. That will be mostly the production house/studio where the film originates. Marchoctober (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove the director column from the various subtables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Explain further..Marchoctober (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple the administrator wants Bahubali in Tamil list also, but he wants to hide director's name as Bahubali director SS Rajamouli is a well known Telugu director. So that people, who are visiting Wikipedia will conclude that Bahubali is a pure Tamil movie and Telugu version is its dubbed version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. And in particular don't assume such oddball things. I think the tables like List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Global_gross_figures look cleaner without the director column. Personal preference. Looking at List of highest-grossing films (an FA), there are no directors or studios. I don't think there's a WP:FILMS preference though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is really difficult to assume good faith especially when I make things crystal clear and you still cannot understand, how did you become an admin if you cannot understand simple things explained in Tamil Films misrepresenting information section ? It seems as if you are acting to avoid information to be represented on the article. It is how it seems. Marchoctober (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing films link doesn't show the language also. Why didn't you concentrate on that?

When List of highest-grossing films link doesn't show the language. Why should this page show it? Marchoctober (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing films only include hollywood films. thats not in the case of Indian films as here we have different movies of different languages and all of them are important. so language is needed. cant remove it.

whoever put that statement please sign after you done, and your above statement is not true any film which has grossed the hell great amount anywhere in the world will show up in that list and the language would not be mentioned, that article is about highest grossing films and not highest grossing Hollywood films, and this article is about highest grossing Indian films whichever language they are from if Indian they must be listed here and there should be no distinction between them. Marchoctober (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the exact and correct Highest grossing tamil movies of all time list.

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls050231721/ ^[1] i think this one is a reliable source and so many films mentioned in the article doeskin exactly collected that much of gross collection.. kindly check and update

regards....... Ambeinghari (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Total Gross Of Bahubali The Begining Has Crossed Around ₹515 crores.So Please Kindly modify the content ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgmimmanuel (talk • contribs) 12:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collection update of Bajrangi Bhaijaan

Update the collection of Bajrangi Bhaijaan. It has crossed 547 cr Worldwide, that is till date. here is the source

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/bajrangi-bhaijaan-19-day-worldwide-box-office-collection-salman-starrer-fares-better-641770 ^[3]

regards.......Ambeinghari (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN Why is Consensus not taken into consideration? The user Ricky81682 has started the RFC in the first place because he wants go against consensus and beat down the general opinion of the editors on the page and represent his opinion on the page. Was there a dispute resolution attempted before the RFC was begun ?
Please see here lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Why is that not done here ?
*When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted. So the edits of administrator acting Ricky have to be reverted. Marchoctober (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the RFC the page was represented with Baahubali represented as single language and not dual language, and it needs to go back to that version.Marchoctober (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is designed to solicit outside opinions on an issue. As existing talk page editors are free to participate in the RFC there's absolutely nothing improper about opening one and there's no requirement that any kind of formal dispute resolution be held beforehand. I strongly suggest you stop with the frivolous complaints. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, But the page version needs to go to the one prior to RFC Marchoctober (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, as there was no stable version. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay.Marchoctober (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).