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.

Sir Good Evening Please add starer surya's 24 tamil moive in the list of Tamil films

|- | 24 | 2016 | Vikram Kumar | 2D Entertainment

Kindly Request for add tamil movie starre surya 24 moive the movie collected world wide 150 crores this is the proof website: http://www.onlookersmedia.in/collection-report/suriya-24-collection-report-28-days http://gabbarboxofficecollection.com/2016/suriya-24-box-office-collection-3rd-day-sunday-1st-weekend-total-collection.html Samsuddeen (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Samsuddeen, we don't use blogs or other user-generated sources as references. See WP:UGC and prior explanations on this talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Add this 24 movie 150crores

Kasim999 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theri has grossed around 175 Crores Worldwide in the first 50 days of its run. Is this a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh505 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, there was a big hue and cry in wikipedia discussion when Baahublai was listed as a Tamil movie (to be specific Kollywood industry) although the production house is based in Hyderabad and the director-hero are popular only with Telugu audience (the main actresses are known in both Telugu and Tamil movie industries, however). The film was made in Tamil too and hence Baahubali was given a shared status of Tamil and Telugu by moderators. But as many pointed out this idea of just making a movie in a language does not necessarily mean the movie belongs to that specific movie industry. One must take into account various other factors like - production house location, director, actor etc. The moderators who are usually ignorant of the nuances of differences about Indian movie industries, stick to some notions that may be sensible elsewhere, but not in India where a director-actor association with a specific movie industry is pretty strong. During the last year's discussion, one of the commentators who insisted on Baahubali being only a Telugu film (or to be specific Tollywood industry), predicted that Baahubali would not be nominated for any award in Tamil. Lo and behold, his/her prediction came true: Baahubali has not been represented at all in Tamil Filmfare nomination for 2016. Of course the argument would be given that perhaps Baahubali was not worth for any award in Tamil movie industry - but I think a better argument is they didn't even consider it to be a Tamil film to begin with. So if Filmfare, which is officially the "Oscars" for India, along with most of the Indian audience who have good knowledge of Indian movie industry rightfully treat Baahubali as only Telugu film, why do moderators here think differently? I am surprised that someone can be a moderator on wikipedia without much understanding of the field upon which they are moderating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.147.191.11 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has already been reached on this issue, and the decision was arrived at by regular editors, not by "moderators". You can thank the dishonest editors who resorted to antics like sockpuppetry for polluting the conversation with their petulant behavior. Nowhere else but in Indian cinema articles do we find this drive to attribute a film to an ethnic industry rather than uncontroversially indicating the languages the film was recorded in. Tollywood is clearly indicated in the main article. This list article is focused on the highest grossing films of India organized by language, not by ethnic film industry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. It was a many month long lengthy discussion with every possible conceivable angle discussed and nothing new here has been presented. Everyone else has moved on as frankly no one should care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theri Box office Collection:

http://idailytimes.com/vijays-theri-collects-rs-250cr-worldwide-box-office-update.html

2003:80:C514:4501:619D:2679:2B9:47ED (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done st170e^talk 13:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets be merged into List of highest-grossing Indian films. We don't need a separate page just for overseas figures. - Managerarc™ ^talk 20:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managerarc I don't think we need to keep a unique tally of grosses domestically vs. grosses internationally. Maybe discussing whether the overseas article should be deleted is in order. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is appropriate. A totally unnecessary list. See the List of highest-grossing films (FL), gross when adjusted for inflation, films by year, franchise films are all listed in that single page. Likewise, the List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets is not an independent topic, and List of highest-grossing Indian films shows worldwide gross, not the domestic. --Charles Turing (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Keeping another article for this is totally unnecessary. Karyasuman (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I reverted Honor bee's resubmission of a 75 crore total for Mungaru Male. Filmibeat is not considered a reliable source by WP:ICTF. Mybangalore.com looks like a blog to me, and thus would be unsuitable per WP:UGC. The final reference, dnaindia.com, attributes the information to the film's lead actor, which would mean that we're using a primary source for controversial information. A primary source would absolutely have a reason to fudge the financial numbers of a film, for instance he might inflate it to make it more of an attractive spectacle for potential viewers, or he might deflate it to reduce the film's entertainment tax liability, or an actor might inflate it to make himself more marketable as an actor. There are all sorts of reasons why it is a bad idea to use a primary source for controversial data. Oh, and the information was also previously submitted by a disruptive troll who is not welcome to edit at Wikipedia, which should raise some questions about motive and appropriateness of the submission. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point. Not surprisingly, Honor bee was a sock of Nagendra NJ, a user who is not welcome to edit at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

115.112.71.222 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Vedalam Movie of Ajith 56 Director Siva Mass Opening in TamilNadu 15.5 Crores in First Day.[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. Also any change would require you to provide reliable sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The producer uttered some words in the media about the Kabali collections as Rs 250 crores in Day 1, which is highly impossible according to number of screens, occupancy rate and ticket rates. It seems to be a marketing gimmick to attract more people to the cinema halls. The reference given for the Kabali collections http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/rajinikanths-kabali-smashes-all-box-office-records-earns-rs-250-crore-in-india-on-first-day/articleshow/53354457.cms itself contradicts in another reference by showing Day 1 collection as over 40 crores http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/rajinikanths-kabali-smashes-all-box-office-records-collects-over-rs-40-crore/articleshow/53347794.cms. So, please update the Kabali collections according to a consistent reference source like as given in http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kabali-rajinikanth-second-day-box-office-collection-sultan-vedalam-review/1/722537.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.83.78 (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it had collected nearly 90 crore on first day

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/kabali-box-office-collection-rajinikanth-starrer-performs-well-2nd-day-687625#yiEzDzEOeZv9dKa1.97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:6F5F:D6FE:105F:CC1F:3209:9CC4 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kabali earth shattering opening: 200 crore in just 3 day,

please add superstars Kabli in Tamil movie list

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/kabali-3-day-box-office-collection-rajinikanth-starrer-grosses-over-rs-200-crore-worldwide-687728 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:80:C514:4501:7C5E:F40E:23AE:5190 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kabali Update: 210 crore worldwide over the weekend

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/kabali-box-office-collection-rajinis-film-fails-surpass-bahubali-1st-weekend-record-beats-687768 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:80:C514:4501:7C5E:F40E:23AE:5190 (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi is not considered a reliable source per WP:ICTF, yet many of the film grosses in this article are supported by Koimoi as a reference.[1] Is this bugging anyone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

Sgoli123 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - You didn't request anything. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kabali has only grossed 200 crore as per the Indian Express Article. the other 200 crore is the business done before the movie release. So, it should be changed to 200 crore from 400 crore

VigneshwaranShanmugam (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reverted in this edit. For anyone else who's curious, VigneshwaranShanmugam is referring to this reference, which says, "the Rajinikanth-starrer has earned about Rs 400 crore already. While Rs 200 crore is the box office collection, the film earned Rs 200 crore before release with sale of music rights etc." I imagine the trades will botch things and we will see the 400crore+ figure cited again and again. We're not here to track every dollar the film traded, and music rights sales should not be reflected in box office gross. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lalithsmash (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dasavathaaram Tamil movies - 200 Crore collection economic times.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/business-of-bollywood/a-rendezevous-with-kamal-haasan/articleshow/4357064.cms

Movie Wiki Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasavathaaram

VigneshwaranShanmugam (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Contradicted by this reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kabali has grossed over 400 crores and it has to be changed http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/rajinikanth-kabali-day-4-box-office-collections-radhika-apte-tamil-movie-2934930/

Njj55 (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: See further up on the page. Short story: 400 crore figure is not the box office gross, it represents box office + other revenue streams prior to the film's release. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kabali Update:

425 crore

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/kabali-4th-day-box-office-collection-rajinis-film-smashes-fastest-fifty-beats-ajiths-687871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:80:C514:4501:343C:F077:BF1E:3F55 (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kabali 4 days collections: 200 crores

http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/rajinikanth-kabali-day-4-box-office-collections-radhika-apte-tamil-movie-2934930/

The current article that was used as source says kabali has collected 250 crores in 1 day, which has been refuted by other magazines and was informed that was not possible. Please change the collection from 250 crore to 200 crore

VigneshwaranShanmugam (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: VigneshwaranShanmugam, you need to substantiate your statement that the 250 crore value asserted by this typically reliable source has been refuted as impossible. Surely we can't just take your word for it. Please bring those references to this talk page and start a discussion on how the content should be presented in the article. Please do not open another edit request until consensus has been reached. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]