Cannabis Ruderalis

Criteria for Indian-ness

What is the criteria for being considered an Indian movie. Does Kung Fu Yoga, which is considered an Indo-Chinese joint venture count as Indian enough based on the criteria? Jupitus Smart 07:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why it shouldn't be added, and I hope that members of WP:ICTF weigh in here, but I know what the various objections will be from casual readers/editors: They'll want to put it into its own category, like "Indian co-productions", because no doubt, if a Kannada-Indian/US film pulled off a major hit like an Iron Man co-production, Non-Kannadiga would flip out. "It's not representative of the Kannada film industry! Kannada industry is not bigger than Tamil!" and so forth. In contradiction, editors will demand that there is a column that identifies in some way the ethnic industry that gets "credit" for the film. (The precedent for this was surrounding Baahubali, when people were flipping out that Telugu should get due "credit", and shame on Tamils for trying to take "credit", when the film was listed as "Telugu, Tamil".) Please note that I don't have any preference, I'm just predicting what the standard arguments will be about. I'd prefer if other members figured this out, but I may interject my opinion periodically. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for airing your opinion, Cyphoidbomb. Kung Fu Yoga has made already made around twice the highest grossing Indian movie, meaning once added it will stay their for posterity. So adding that without a general consensus is not something that I intend to do. Anyway all I want is a mechanism to sort out any problems arising from such borderline cases in the future. And if anybody at WP:ICTF has already evolved a mechanism to clarify what comes under Indian Cinema, please do tell.Jupitus Smart 04:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There should be another section for Indian co-production.--2405:204:D10E:DF94:FCAE:701F:D83B:20F1 (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion!!!

1. Sivaji the boss collection in the top grossing Tamil movie is 148 crores but in list of highest grossing film by the year, it states that sivaji the boss gross is 155 crores. Please state the accurate one.

2. Dangal gross in top grossing indian movie is 741 crores but in top grossing hindi movies , it states that dangal gross is 721 crores. Please state the accurate one. Nito Nithish (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd numbering

Unless there's some WikiProject Film-wide precedent to the contrary, I think it's a bad idea to give films with the same grosses unique rankings. For example, at Highest-grossing Kannada films, we have:

Rank Movie Year Director Studio(s) Worldwide gross Source
5 Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna 2012 Naganna Sri Sangolli Rayanna Cine Combines 40 crore (US$4.8 million) [1]
6 Uppi 2 2015 Upendra Upendra Productions 40 crore (US$4.8 million) [2]
7 Kirik Party 2016 Rishab Shetty Paramvah Studios 40 crore (US$4.8 million) [3]
8 Doddmane Hudga 2016 Duniya Soori Ajay Pictures 35−40 crore (US$−4.8 million) [4]

Three films have 40 crore grosses, but somehow Wikipedia is the arbiter of which 40 crore film was #5, #6 and #7? In this edit a user moved Kirik Party all the way to the bottom of the list of 40 crore grossing films, even beneath the film that potentially only grossed 35 crore? Why? This arrangement is problematic, because it encourages POV editing. If someone doesn't like the actor/director/producer of Kirik Party, the film arbitrarily gets moved to the #8 spot? The smarter and more neutral approach is to lump similar films together under the same rank like this:

Rank Movie Year Director Studio(s) Worldwide gross Source
5 Kirik Party 2016 Rishab Shetty Paramvah Studios 40 crore (US$4.8 million) [1]
Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna 2012 Naganna Sri Sangolli Rayanna Cine Combines 40 crore (US$4.8 million) [2]
Uppi 2 2015 Upendra Upendra Productions 40 crore (US$4.8 million) [3]
6 Doddmane Hudga 2016 Duniya Soori Ajay Pictures 35−40 crore (US$−4.8 million) [4]

The films could then be organised alphabetically. Yes, this means that there will be more than 10 entries for some lists, but I can't think of a better way to organise films without getting into POV issues. I'm still not sure what should be done with Doddmane Hudga here, because with the range it could be one of the #5 films, or it could be the #6 film. It's generally problematic that Wikipedia is ranking films itself instead of relying on what authoritative sources say, but that's mostly the fault of the industry-wide box office guesstimations. Comments welcomed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the idea is good, please do limit the total entities to 10. So if rank 5 has 2 more movies tied at the same place, have the ranks limited to 8 to ensure that only 10 movies are on the list. The only exception I can think of is if rank 10 has 2 movies tied, in which case it might be acceptable to let the tied movies remain. Jupitus Smart 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace Sivaji with Om Shanti Om as the highest grossing movie of 2007

The Tamil movie Sivaji has reportedly grossed 148 crores at the box office.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/photos/all-time-highest-grossing-tamil-films-2881-slide-21710

The Hindi film Om Shanti Om has reported grossed 149.87 crores at the box office.

https://www.boxofficeindia.com/worldwide-total-gross.php?year=2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

Munthirivallikal Thalirkumbol malayalam film 51cr collection please update Arjunachoo123 (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply