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.

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]

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]

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]

@Arunkxip: I agree with you that pre-release business should not be factored into gross, since gross should reflect only the money made at the box office. (Similarly, budget should only include production budget, not print/marketing costs.) There are a few issues though: The source making the claim of 15 crore in pre-release business is Tollywood.net. I know nothing about this site, but I don't see it listed at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources and it appears to be a regular old blog to me. I don't know that it would ever be considered reliable. So I'm not sure why we'd even consider it as a reference except Times of India is ambiguous on the issue, saying that the film made 150 crore "in revenue"--or so they hear... So that could be inferred as gross + pre-release, or it could be interpreted as gross, since they follow it up with "making it the third highest grossing South Indian movie this year". But the bottom line is that neither reference is a very good one here, since tollywood.net just seems generally poor to me and TOI seems to be ambiguously reporting a rumor. (This is another reason why we should be circumspect about our sources, even ones generally considered reliable. See my response to your query in the discussion below. Regardless, it should probably be clarified until someone can find better data. I've taken a stab at that here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

9

| Twenty:20 | 2008 | Joshiy | AmmA, Graand Production | ₹32.6 crore (US$3.9 million) |^[1]

PLz update this article as Kattapanayille hritwik roshan has grossed over 40 crores Adi153 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The source cited doesnot support the statement. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Ofcourse it doesnot, because you pasted a cell from table with the source. please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]