Cannabis Ruderalis

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

Ashifpanoor7 (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC) ererer[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. DRAGON BOOSTER 17:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

Ek Tha Tiger should be replaced by Dangal. Dangal est. collections til 27th Dec are 311.07 crore. AZaK3004 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017

pulimurugan has grossed more than 150 corres Nivedjosey (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017

Bahubali movie was also released in hindi.While there is mentioned only tamil and telghu. 115.112.51.250 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pulimurugan's collections

Umm...I am just curious as to why the pre-release business(15 Cr.) has been included in the box office collections of Pulimurugan. The reference clearly states that the movie has grossed 135 Cr worldwide and that it has made 15 Cr. in pre-release business. If the pre-release business of a movie is also part of the box office collections, why isn't kabali's collection included. My edit request is to change the collections of Pulimurugan from 150 Cr. to 135 Cr. as the reference used clearly states that the movie grossed only 135 Cr. worldwide. Thank You. Arunkxip (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Times of India as a source

IF the report from The Times of India can be considered as a reliable source for the Box office collections of Pulimurugan, why is the same source not acceptable for Thuppaki's collections. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms The above artice from Times of India states that Thuppaki had grossed Rs.180 Cr. My edit request is to change the Box office collections of Thuppaki to Rs.180 Cr. Arunkxip (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunkxip: Did you make this edit? I'm confused why you would be incredulous that the source was not considered reliable unless you had made that edit. You have no other edits to your name. Anyway, the source is insufficient, since it credits a primary source (an actor, a director, a film producer, a distributor, anyone who is directly involved in the film) as the source of the information. We don't use primary sources for controversial data, since a distributor, actor, director, etc. would have every reason to inflate their numbers. Kabali was a prime example of that. We only want data that has been independently verified (or more accurately in Indian cinema, independently estimated.) So maybe instead of comparing source A to source B, you might consider comparing the quality of the reference from source A to source B, since there have been plenty of occasions where a typically reliable source has been unreliable for a specific reason. No source is 100% reliable across the board. Common sense needs to be applied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply