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.

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]

Kabali Film Grossing Is Still a doubt for me. It should merely cross 500 crores .. Haregovindraj18 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what you are proposing or what the basis of your proposal is other than your feeling. Kabali's marketing team reported inflated values that Financial Express/Indian Express repeated without scrutiny. I'm some cases, they included satellite rights sales, which we never include box office figures, as box office figures means ticket sales. IBT and Firstpost criticized the inflation, and none of the other mainstream Indian news sites (as far as I know) have since weighed in by acknowledging what they think Kabali's box office figures actually were. So you're free to disagree, but the only thing we know for certain is that Kabali cleared ₹350 crore. Anything above 500 is suspect and would need to be supported by mainstream reliable sources. (Newspapers, no blogs like IndiaGlitz or Andhraboxoffice or Filmibeat... See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references is an IMDB list, which merely reflects the views of one user. The other reference for the list is an India Today weblink which returns a 404 error. Female centric is arbitrarily defined in the list, with sleaze-fests termed as women-centric just because it was to the convenience of the maker of the list. An arbitrary list with original research is against wiki policies, if I am not wrong, and therefore I believe that the list should be purged from the page. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have deleted that section, since I believe nobody has anything better to say. Please revert the edit if you feel so, but do provide the rationale for doing so (and address my concerns). PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no IMDB link against any film. Female centric films are really doing great, nowadays. People should know that filma are competing with male oriented films. Any source is given against a film, is from it's own page. Taniya94 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you did not understand Taniya94. Let me make it easier for you - I was talking about reference number 97 and 98. My only problem is that I do not understand the metric you chose to decide that Film 'X' can be labelled as women centric, while Film 'Y' cannot be done so. Had you based it on reference 97, then please know that it is a dead link. And had you done so based on Reference 98, its an IMDB page. And if you decided based on your own convictions, I have nothing to say. I will not be reverting your edits till you reply. Cheers PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reference number 98 is an IMDB link, where you can see a list of female centric films according to critical reception, not according to box office priority. But, this list has been made on Box office priority according to my personal research. In this list each films' main protagonist is a female, and collection referenced as it's main page. Taniya94 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself Taniya94. Please read WP:NOR to understand why you cannot do any 'personal research'. Also 'personal research' based on an IMDB List (which is another 'personal research' by somebody) is getting too far. I will now be deleting the list in line with procedures. Cheers PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the impetus for creating the list and conceptually I understand the value, but it seems completely arbitrary how the titles were selected, and thus seem more appropriate for a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Do we only care about a film where the central character was a woman? How do we determine that? What if there's a strong central character but also a strong male lead like you might find in a love story? Do we discount that film? A concern is that we would be placing undue emphasis on arbitrarily selected films, which may present a distorted view of women's films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good idea to dig deeper into it, sub-classifying the list is a never ending process. If we introduce a "female centric" list, the next list that follows will be highest grossing "children's film", and then comes highest grossing dramas, thrillers, science fiction films, multilingual films, anthology films. And the further classification of these lists based on language-Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu etc. It will become a never ending road.--Charles Turing (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference provided for justifying is by a website named catchnews. While I do not know about how administrators determine whether a given website can be deemed as providing a reliable source, the article provided for the reference raises another serious question. I do not believe parts of an article can be lifted to act as a source, while completely ignoring what is mentioned in the rest of the article. The article clearly mentions that Premam was the third highest grossing movie before Oppam. This provides a dichotomy as that would negate the reference provided for Jacobinte Swargarajyam, making it the third highest Malayalam grosser. So in my opinion 2 things can be done to resolve this contradiction

• Oppam's position reverted back till a more reliable source is obtained (catchnews is not listed as a reliable source by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. I also went through some of their other articles, and they all reek of a bias towards inflating box office numbers.)
• Jacobinte Swargarajyam be removed till a more reliable source is obtained (The reference provided for Jacobinte Swargarajyam clearly states that it has grossed that 25 crores. I do not understand the logic that lead to that number being inflated as 67 crores in the Wiki list.)

PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to see the collection of Jacobinte Swargarajyam to be 63 crore , as the given sources indicates the collection is only 25 crores. The collection of Oppam was published as 61 crores through the official facebook page of the film and many other blogs but not yet out through any reliable media. So the above mentioned changes by PierceBrosnan007 has to be made inorder resolve this contradiction.

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

Jacobinte swargarajyam should be removed Ajmalm07 (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Catch.com is not indicated on the list, but I believe the community doesn't have a big problem with it. There was at least one discussion where an experienced editor seemed to gravitate toward its use, and there seemed to be clear editorial control from a known person, which lent to its credibility. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Could Cyphoidbomb instruct me on how to search for such instances of discussion myself. I also came across boxofficeindia which is also not mentioned in the list of reliable sources. A list by Boxoffice India is used as the source for Dilwale's position. The source lists Bolloywood movies, based on their overall collections. But many of these collections do not match with those on the Wiki table. It again raises the dichotomy of selectively using one part of the source, while foregoing what is mentioned in the other parts, don't you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierceBrosnan007 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PierceBrosnan007: The places you should look are in the archives at WT:ICTF, in the archives at WP:RSN our Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and at WT:IN, the Noticeboard for India-related topics. Generally speaking, BoxOfficeIndia.com (not .co.in) is considered reliable, but circumspection should be paid to all sources, since unlike western film data, Indian financial figures are typically estimates, are often released by primary sources (producers, directors, actors, who have a financial interest in manipulating figures) and corruption is rampant. Also, sometimes sources like BOI stop updating figures, have conflicting information on the same page, etc. There is no singular perfect source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Shankar the second para in the career section says that nanban grossed over 150 crores. for some reason it doesnt figure in the list of highest grossing tamil movies. if the info is not reliable, please remove it from that page.. Thank You.49.205.151.200 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we the film's budget alongside its boxoffice collections. This would give us a better picture of a film's stint at the BO. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.151.200 (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raminder0707 (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]