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.

Shanshah12 (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC) 3 | style="background:#9fc;" |* Pulimurugan | 2016 | Vysakh | Mulakuppadam Films | ₹75 crore (US$9.0 million) | ^[1][reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]