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.

Respected Sir, According to recent news statement published in International Business Times, Kirik Party has grossed 45 crores and is nearing to 50 crores. I request you to kindly update the page with correct information. Necessary link related to news statement has been attached with this request.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/rakshit-shettys-kirik-party-inches-closer-rs-50-crore-mark-box-office-75-days-719391

Thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinayakwiki (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir, According to Kannada box office and several news articles recently hebbuli movie has crossed the gross of 50 crores so I would like u to edit the info Suraj Sudeep (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide solid references. Before you respond, see WP:RS, and more specifically, WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources to get a better idea for what sources are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i am requesting u just pluck off raajakumara which has no official declarations on collection but u still included it please understand we ade getting betrayed

Suraj Sudeep (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Sudeep: I don't know what you mean by "official declarations", since 1) we don't use primary sources as definitive sources of controversial information like finances, since a director/producer/actor/distrubutor/etc. would have every reason to inflate their "official" values and 2) There is no such thing as "official" film financial data in Indian cinema. Everything is an estimate. So whatever point you are trying to make is unclear, and the lack of references doesn't shed a whole lot of light on the matter. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir you have changed the collection of Kannada movie maanikya but in the Wikipedia page of the movie maanikya it is stated with source that it has earned 43.5 crores so I would like you to change the same accordingly Suraj Sudeep (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Sudeep: - I believe you're referring to this edit, which was made by user Tevar shaa, not by me. To answer your question, when we consider a film's gross, we're talking only about money made at the box office. We're not interested in secondary revenue streams like satellite rights sales, music rights sales, etc. The 43.5 crore value at Maanikya was erroneously including these values and has been fixed in this edit. According to Indiaglitz, the film grossed about 35 crore rupees. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir then u have the proof for hebbuli to cross 50 crores but why haven't u updated yet

http://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/kannada/filmibeat+kannada-epaper-filmikan/syaandal+vud+na+aal+taim+rekaard+udis+maadidha+hebbuli-newsid-65099533?ss=wsp&s= Suraj Sudeep (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of dailyhunt.in and don't see it as an approved source at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. However, if the content is being derived from Filmibeat, which the logo on the page would seem to suggest, I'd be averse to using this source as a reference, since Filmibeat is expressly indicated as an unreliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i still have another proof for hebbuli crossing 50 crores http://uk.blastingnews.com/entertainment/2017/03/hebbuli-2-weeks-14-days-collection-in-karnataka-till-date-001531701.html Suraj Sudeep (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello bro last year blockbuster mukunda murari has completed a gross of 50 crores as stated in your wikipedia page so please change Suraj Sudeep (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Sudeep: You mean the unexplained, unsourced addition that was made in this edit? I don't think so. Please bring reliable sources to the talk page if you want other editors to consider changes. See WP:ICTF#Guideliens on sources for examples of what are and are not suitable for inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the proof the famous box office tracker has told that hebbuli has collected 100crores https://mobile.twitter.com/rameshlaus/status/858678794877411328 Suraj Sudeep (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Sudeep: When the information is released by a reliable mainstream publication, then the content may be changed. I don't know who this person is or what makes him an authority on Indian film finances. For all I know, he could be a shill for producers and promoters. I've never heard of Cinema Pesalam. Please familiarise yourself with our reliable sources guidelines and look at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for examples of suitable and unsuitable sources. You need to start bringing quality references to talks page and articles, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cinestaan.com/articles/2017/may/2/5590/amala-paul-joins-rs100-crore-club-as-kannada-film-hebbuli-goes-strong-at-box-office The above link shows that hebbuli has completed 100 crores Suraj Sudeep (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello freaking page editor i have provided u all the major sources og tthe collection of 100 crores by hebbuli but u have not edited it sk may i have a complaint registered against u or shall i report u to Wikipedia as a senseless editor

Suraj Sudeep (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://m.gulte.com/movienews/57798/Divorced-Lady-Joins-100-Cr-Club This is the 2nd linl for 100 crore collection by hebbuli

Suraj Sudeep (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

already rajkumaras film declard his gross box office collection in wikipedia page premls 07:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prem LS (talk • contribs)

@Prem LS: -  Not done - 1) We don't use primary sources for box office claims. Producers/directors/actors would have every reason to inflate their financial figures. 2) Edit requests should be accompanied by reliable sources. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources, but again, see point #1, as primary sources should not be used. 3) New comments go at the bottom of talk pages. I have moved your comment for you. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vathanlal (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2017 (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. @Vathanlal: Your edit request was blank. No idea what change you're requesting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taniya94: Your pet project, the Highest grossing Indian franchise and film series table you created, has been flagged for cleanup since November.

1. Is there a reason why we're using US dollars in the table when everything else in this article is in Rupees? Previous discussions at the Indian cinema task force suggest the vocal community doesn't find much value in focusing on US dollars.
2. The "highest-grossing film" column should probably become "highest-grossing film in franchise" just for clarity
3. The figures in parentheticals are odd, especially with the references wedged inside the parens. Maybe another column for the references would be a better way to present this data?

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be much more sensible if the box office figures were in Rupees as there is always a constant fluctuation of the USD vs INR value. ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you can make it in INR from USD, then please do it. But this table includes the list of every film released under a franchise, so, do not delete the list. Please see, List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series. Taniya94 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali- conclusion- 145cr Pasyavula gopi (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasyavula gopi: Unsourced declarations are not terribly helpful. Please provide a reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, the debate starts again and it is decided that Bahubali is a Tamil-Telugu biilingual. Only thing is, the Tamilians write it the hero’s name as Magendira/Amarendira Bagubali and non-Tamilians read it as Makenthira/Amarenthira Pakupali. Wonder what sort of a movie is that when you can’t even write it’s name in the language it is shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.47.223 (talk • contribs)

What is your question/suggestion? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question is simple. Why is it tagged as a Tamil movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.47.223 (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because according to sources it was filmed simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil. The language column is not intended to equate to "ethnic ownership". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have seriously messed up the narative, my friend. Most of the Rajanikanth and Kamal Hassan movies are shot as bilinguals and if what you claim is the basis for deciding the language of a movie, then, the article needs a serious rejig. Reveling in false pride is a non-issue for us but, the reality is that, this page is not for chauvinisms and chest thumpings, be it Hindi or Tamil or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.47.223 (talk • contribs)

1) Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This appends a signature and time stamp so that other editors know who said what and when. 2) I have no idea what you're going on about, re: "the narative". The film was shot in two languages. What do you want the encyclopedia to do? Pretend that this fact does not exist? Or would you prefer instead that we add a column to label each film by ethnic film industry? The latter is not likely to happen, since it's a bit ridiculous and would only be helpful in cases where films are produced in two different languages. If your original complaint is that since Baahubali was produced in two languages, there are inconsistencies with how character names are represented, it would seem that the simplest solution would be to create a table in the cast list with character names for each language. The remainder of the content, like the plot section, would probably be wise to focus on the Telugu names rather than giving both. Based on previous discussion at WT:ICTF that is my personal guess for what community preference might be. If I'm misinterpreting your query/position, feel free to clarify, but I genuinely don't know what it is that you want to see changed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali is not a tamil film , it is not shot in both languages instead it dubbed into tamil, no point of showing it as a tamil film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bala Sudheer (talk • contribs) 08:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a proposal to merge List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets (since July 2016) and List of highest-grossing Telugu films (since August 2016). It's been almost a year and I propose that someone merge it soon. If there was an agreement earlier about not merging the above mentioned articles into this one then the templates should have been removed. I also would like to propose the merger of the article List of highest domestic nett collection of Hindi films into this one (or a deletion of that article) since it's very poorly written and doesn't serve much of a purpose. - Jayadevp13 13:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that a new section be included with the name "Timeline of highest-grossing films" just like in the article List of highest-grossing films. It would be very informative. It can be started with films since the year 1990 then be expanded to include the earlier films. - Jayadevp13 13:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Also what about films like Mughal-e-Azam ? In that case ]]Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation]] will make sense Mrkks (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Mrkks[reply]

@Mrkks: The bulk of the financials for Indian films are based on guesses, rumours, unverified claims, and lies. Establishing definitively that a film from 1960 is one of the highest-grossing films in Indian cinema (adjusted for inflation) would be a monumental feat, and one based almost entirely on conjecture. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayadevp13: I understand what you are going for with the timeline of highest-grossing movies, but I have some questions/notes:

• How does a reader verify that Hum Aapke held the #1 spot from 1994 to 2001? While there are references to indicate the individual gross values, where are the references that say "Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! was the highest-grossing Indian film of all time until it was overtaken by Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham in 2001." That specific verified claim is crucial to the list being meaningful in any way, because without those assertions, all there is in the table are a series of meaningless numbers, and we're asking readers to assume that the lack of any contrary information equates to an indisputable fact.
• Does Box Office India even chart films that aren't in Hindi? Where is Dasavathaaram in this BOI box breakdown for 2008?
• If Dasavathaaram is missing from that BOI list, how does a reader know that in all the other years of BOI charts, no Tamil, Telugu, or Malayalam film ever charted as #1? Again, we're asking readers to assume that a lack of contrary information equates to a factual assertion.
• An example taken from your inspiration List of highest-grossing films#Timeline of highest-grossing films uses this reference, which says explicitly: "[Jurassic Park grossed] $705 million within 115 days of its initial theatrical release, making it the all-time international box office champ. The previous record holder was Spielberg's own "E.T." (USA/1982), which eventually grossed $701 million." That is a clear declarative statement that doesn't leave much room for confusion. It tells us what the previous record was, and it tells us what the new record was. That is the level of clarity required for this list.

There is a significant lack of information in the Indian version of that table, and these issues would have to be fixed if there's any hope of keeping that list. I also consider this a supremely difficult task, given the lack of centralised auditing of financial figures, as well as the media's tendency to only be interested in films produced in their own language. I have no idea how this can be accomplished. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank You for taking your time to research about it and write all those points.

• With regard to your first point, what I thought of (at the time of editing the article) was that people could compare the table with the Highest-grossing films by year table and see. To elaborate what I mean, the highest-grossing film of 1994 Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! had grossed ₹127.96 crore and the highest-grossing film of 2001, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham had grossed around ₹135.53 crore. Between them all the movies had grossed less than the earnings of Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! in 1994. My belief was that people can infer this from the Highest-grossing films by year list.
• No, the website Box Office India doesn't track the earnings of movies which are not in Hindi. You can also see that from the absence of Baahubali: The Beginning from this Top Worldwide Grossers 2015 list. Now this is problem. How to show in the Highest-grossing films by year table that a particular year's highest grossing movie was not in Hindi.
• With regard to your fourth point, finding that kind of references will be very tough especially since there is a lack of centralised auditing of financial figures, just like you told. That was the reason I took the Highest-grossing films by year table as a reference to compare and make a new table (don't know if Wikipedia policies allow it). If it is allowed then we can mention at the start of the section that this table is derived using data from the previous table. I hope you understand what I am trying to convey here.

What do you suggest I should do now? Should I (or you) remove the list which I created until definite sources can be established? Might be possible for movies which released after 2009 (for example 3 idiots). I highly doubt that it is possible for movies which were released earlier. With regards. - Jayadevp13 03:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that Yajamana actually grossed 42 crores (somebody even removed the citation that was present for the same). The earlier reference was to some book, and the grammar in the page in which the dubious figure was mentioned, makes me apprehensive about the reliability of the book. No other source mentions the number and it should probably be removed from the Highest Kannada movies list. Jupitus Smart 15:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: I've been experiencing a great deal of trouble from Kannada film values lately... Looks like the reference was removed here by Sitush, who cited WP:MIRROR as a rationale. Sitush, any chance you could expound a bit? How do you know Wikipedia was the source of that content? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff published by Diamond Pocket Books is often very dodgy. The specific instance you mention was briefly referred to in this thread and I did some spot checks at the time that seemed to confirm the book's author was taking info from Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Thanks for the explanation, esteemed colleague. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That solves that. Jupitus Smart 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that Bahubali is a telugu film , not tamil. Veda chaitanya (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the archives discussions of this talk page. If memory serves, the film was shot in both languages (not dubbed into one as is common practice). We treat the film as both Tamil and Telugu. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a "Telugu" film or "Telugu,Tamil and Hindi", but why it is showcased as "Telegu & Tamil" film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.129.221 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ampersand (&) between Telugu and Tamil in the article, so your quotation is not representative of what the article says. "Telugu,Tamil and Hindi" would not be appropriate, since the movie was not filmed in Hindi. It was filmed in Telugu and Tamil, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the above explanation and references that I found later, I now accept Bahubali as a "Telugu and Tamil" movie (as all other languages are dubbed versions only like Hindi, Malayalam, English and Korean. My apologies for demanding this movie as Hindi movie earlier in the initial post.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.55.5 (talk • contribs)

The movie is currently 3rd in the Punjabi list. It has 4 references, three of which are from reliable sources which however does not mention the given numbers. The 4th reference is from a blog site called dekhnews [1] which is the source for the number. I don't think the site can be considered reliable. Should the movie be removed from the list. Jupitus Smart 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baahubali 2 movie has been released in hindi also add that in the language out of 625 cr gross worldwide hindi has grossed 300 cr my request is that many people trust wikipedia so please update proper information source you can find in the collection reference itselfV1234robot (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - @V1234robot: It's unclear what you are asking to be changed, and since you haven't provide a reference of any sort, that makes interpreting your request somewhat difficult. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Baahubali 2 Tuesday 5th Day Box Office Collection, Grossed 700crore At Worldwide Markets". BollywoodMozo. 3 May 2017. Retrieved 3 May 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V1234robot (talk • contribs)

@V1234robot: "BollywoodMozo", whatever that is, is not a reliable source. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a sample of good and bad sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali and bahubali 2 movies are telugu movies and dubbed into tamil, hindi and malayalam. I can see it is mentioned as Telugu and Tamil whereas kabali as only tamil. Venkisree (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The two cinematic parts of Bahubali were simultaneously shot in both Telugu and Tamil languages. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hebbuli Kannada Movie to be in top grossing kannada movie with 42 crores per 13 days collection report. ^[1] Vinaybang31 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - @Vinaybang31: "Blastingnews" is not a reliable source. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for some examples of ones that are and are not useful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reliable source for hebbuli completing 100crores https://www.cinestaan.com/articles/2017/may/2/5590/amala-paul-joins-rs100-crore-club-as-kannada-film-hebbuli-goes-strong-at-box-office Suraj Sudeep (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Sudeep: What exactly makes this source reliable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Bahubali Movies, Hindi language also need to be included. Manyugarg (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: @Manyugarg: Why? Hindi is a dub, not the original language of production. According to sources, the film was shot in Telugu and Tamil. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not add more detail which shows this income is because of Dub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyugarg (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyugarg: I don't understand what you're asking. The gross values presumably indicate worldwide gross. This means the box office values of all theatrical releases worldwide, including dubbed releases. This is the default assumption that most people should have about what "worldwide gross" means. At List of highest-grossing films there is no special column indicating how much money Captain America: Civil War made from its Cantonese dub, but I guarantee that value is factored into the $1,153,304,495 figure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baahubali: The conclusion is listed as an bilingual Telugu and Tamil movie. Please note it is only dubbed into Tamil and other languages and it is an original Telugu movie.

So please edit the Title to Baahubali: The conclusion Jaswanthyarlagadda (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: @Jaswanthyarlagadda: According to sources, the film was shot in both Telugu and Tamil, not dubbed in Tamil. You would need to bring reliable sources that contradict this position. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a broad list of sources that are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Bahubali 1 and 2 collections are not correctly mentioned in both Telugu and Tamil lists. Baahubali 2 collections are listed in Hindi list even though it is a dubbed version. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.85.159 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version of the article, I don't see Baahubali 2 in the Hindi list, so maybe this was already fixed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali: The Conclusion is a telugu movie(dubbed into tamil,hindi, malayalam) 121.241.140.120 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2017 (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. If you're requesting that we indicate that Tamil is a dub, that's not consistent with reports that the film was shot in Tamil, not dubbed. If that thought is incorrect, you'll need to bring references to prove that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The collections for Tollywood is out of order and needs to be fixed. Order should go like this: 1. Bahubali 2 2. Bahubali 1 3. Khaidi 150 4. Srimanthudu 5. Magadheera (+dubbing) 6. Janata Garage 7. Sarainodu 8. Attharintiki Daredi 9. Gabbar Singh 10. Eega

SourinSP (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SourinSP:  Not done This source says Srimanthudu grossed 200 crore worldwide, which would be more than the 164 crore worldwide asserted by this source to Khaidi 150. So it's unclear why we'd flip the positions of those. If you want to see anything changed, you're going to have to bring references and strong arguments for why the current order is not accurate. Simply providing a list and asking us to blindly adhere to it isn't going to work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Srimanthudu is in fact higher that Khaidi 150, Gabbar Singh shouldn't even be on this list. Looking at this: sourcehttps://www.google.com/amp/m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Gabbar-Singh-50-days-collections-list/amp_articleshow/14525905.cms

It made less than Srimanthudu let alone Sarainodu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourinSP ::(talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SourinSP: That reference is describing distributor share figures, not gross. This source puts the gross at 150 crore. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This contradicts some of your claims, though: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/janatha-garage-box-office-collection-will-jr-ntrs-film-beat-sarrainodu-srimanthudu-693653

{{subst:trim|

Bahubali 2:The conclusion is a bilingual movie(made in both telugu and tamil) and it was dubbed in other indian languages.But in the list of highest grossing movies,I could see the language section to have Malayalam and Hindi added as well.It is a wrong information.It needs to be changed.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baahubali_(franchise) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraveenKumarMurugaiah (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the references given below, I now accept Bahubali as a "Telugu and Tamil" movie (as all other languages are dubbed versions only like Hindi, Malayalam, English and Korean. My apologies for demanding this movie as Hindi movie earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.55.5 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Dangal has booked 9000 something screens in China so its still running. Ref-http://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/020517/after-aamirs-dangal-salman-khans-tubelight-to-release-in-china-in-a-big-way.html (Screen Info from NDTV). So put Dangal in that greeny color.31.215.112.31 (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done I believe someone has already taken care of this. I see Dangal in green. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the list of highest grossers of malayalam film,movie "the great father" is missing,which has collected 50 cr so far . please add in that list" 1.http://www.kboupdates.com/2017/04/its-official-now-the-great-father-touches-50-crore-mark-from-world-wide-boxoffice/ 2. http://mollywoodtimes.com/2017/04/22/the-great-father-touches-the-50-crore-mark/ 3. http://filmfaktory.in/official-great-father-touches-50-crore-mark film producer's official page stating the collection of 50 crores 4.https://www.facebook.com/AugustCinema/photos/a.141682375905619.34908.131506503589873/1490684801005363/?type=3&theater5. and link of kbo updates which tracks malayalam movie collection reports 5.https://www.kboupdates.in/the-great-father-bo.html

Anupmenon0007 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't use producer claims per WP:PRIMARY, as a producer/director/actor/distributor would have every reason to exaggerate. Especially given the competition between Mammootty and Mohanlal. No indication kboupdates.in qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS/WP:UGC. Who runs it? Who's the editor-in-chief? What are there qualifications? Demonstrate they have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.manoramanews.com/news/entertainment/2017/04/23/mammootty-move-to-50-crore-club.html

Can this be used as a reliable source?, References from this source has been included in many similar Wikipedia pages. Ananth sk (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In these edits, Betty Logan was kind enough to make some table formatting changes that group various ranks based on a film's gross. Example:

Before

After

So why is this better? Simple: Raajakumara, Doddmane Hudga, Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna and Uppi 2 all grossed 40 crore. So it would be completely arbitrary for us to decide that Raajakumara is #4 when Uppi 2 could also be considered #4. By manipulating a film's placement in the old system, we are effectively giving preferential treatment to Raajakumara, by suggesting that it grossed more, and thus needs to be ranked higher. This totally violates WP:NPOV. What the new system tells readers, is that there were four films that filled the #4, #5, #6 and #7 spots. They just all happened to gross the same. Note also that this change was discussed here in February 2017, and so consensus was established for the change. If you object to the changes, your recourse is to seek a new consensus through discussion, not to revert the changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam Nov es Abi rockzz (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abi rockzz: What? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]