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.

Respected Sir, According to recent news statement published in International Business Times, Kirik Party has grossed 45 crores and is nearing to 50 crores. I request you to kindly update the page with correct information. Necessary link related to news statement has been attached with this request.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/rakshit-shettys-kirik-party-inches-closer-rs-50-crore-mark-box-office-75-days-719391

Thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinayakwiki (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir, According to Kannada box office and several news articles recently hebbuli movie has crossed the gross of 50 crores so I would like u to edit the info Suraj Sudeep (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide solid references. Before you respond, see WP:RS, and more specifically, WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources to get a better idea for what sources are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i am requesting u just pluck off raajakumara which has no official declarations on collection but u still included it please understand we ade getting betrayed

Suraj Sudeep (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Sudeep: I don't know what you mean by "official declarations", since 1) we don't use primary sources as definitive sources of controversial information like finances, since a director/producer/actor/distrubutor/etc. would have every reason to inflate their "official" values and 2) There is no such thing as "official" film financial data in Indian cinema. Everything is an estimate. So whatever point you are trying to make is unclear, and the lack of references doesn't shed a whole lot of light on the matter. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir you have changed the collection of Kannada movie maanikya but in the Wikipedia page of the movie maanikya it is stated with source that it has earned 43.5 crores so I would like you to change the same accordingly Suraj Sudeep (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Sudeep: - I believe you're referring to this edit, which was made by user Tevar shaa, not by me. To answer your question, when we consider a film's gross, we're talking only about money made at the box office. We're not interested in secondary revenue streams like satellite rights sales, music rights sales, etc. The 43.5 crore value at Maanikya was erroneously including these values and has been fixed in this edit. According to Indiaglitz, the film grossed about 35 crore rupees. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir then u have the proof for hebbuli to cross 50 crores but why haven't u updated yet

http://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/kannada/filmibeat+kannada-epaper-filmikan/syaandal+vud+na+aal+taim+rekaard+udis+maadidha+hebbuli-newsid-65099533?ss=wsp&s= Suraj Sudeep (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of dailyhunt.in and don't see it as an approved source at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. However, if the content is being derived from Filmibeat, which the logo on the page would seem to suggest, I'd be averse to using this source as a reference, since Filmibeat is expressly indicated as an unreliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i still have another proof for hebbuli crossing 50 crores http://uk.blastingnews.com/entertainment/2017/03/hebbuli-2-weeks-14-days-collection-in-karnataka-till-date-001531701.html Suraj Sudeep (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reliable source for the box office collection of the movie. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/katamarayudu-10-days-total-box-office-collection-pawan-kalyan-churns-out-another-flop-after-sgs-721838 The one which is already taken as source seems to have come from a twitter handle and the comment he made makes him look like an ardent fan of him. Better review the source before adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.169.175.97 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to some sources and the chandramukhi team, the box office of chandramukhi was reported to be 86 crores. It is more than No Entry, so please change it. THANK YOU. Nito Nithish (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

86.98.30.234 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC) | 6 | * Amar Akbar Anthonyl | 2016 | Nadirshah | Weekend Blockbusters |₹52 crore (US$6.2 million) | ^[1] |-[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) 05:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baahubali box office collection 586.45

Information given in wikipedia about baahubali box office is wrong.

1 ibtimes.co.in After becoming the third biggest grosser, "Sultan" was expected to beat the lifetime box office collection record of "Baahubali: The Beginning," which earned Rs. 586.45 crore.[ http://www.ibtimes.co.in/worldwide-box-office-collection-will-salmans-sultan-beat-record-baahubali-cross-rs-300-688803 ]

2 ibtimes.co.in The top three grossers include Aamir Khan's "PK" with Rs. 792 crore gross income, Salman's "Bajrangi Bhaijaan" with Rs. 626 crore and "Baahubali: The Beginning" with Rs. 586.45 crore. [ http://www.ibtimes.co.in/worldwide-box-office-collection-sultan-grosses-rs-550-crore-salmans-film-needs-rs-33-crore-687892 ]

3 ibtimes.co.in http://www.ibtimes.co.in/worldwide-box-office-collection-salmans-sultan-set-beat-baahubali-dhoom-3-global-earnings-687525

4 ibtimes.co.in http://www.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-lifetime-box-office-collection-prabhas-starrer-earns-rs-302-crore-its-649645

5 From Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/07/23/baahubali-catapults-toward-all-time-record-indian-gross/#593eb52953cf

6 india.com http://www.india.com/showbiz/salman-khans-bajrangi-bhaijaan-vs-prabhas-baahubali-collections-who-won-race-at-box-office-498206

7 indianexpress.com http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/telugu/baahubali-2-vs-baahubali-1-what-box-office-holds-for-ss-rajamouli-monster-what-box-office-holds-for-ss-rajamouli-monster-4603035

Kiranrajanna (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiranrajanna: It's unclear what specifically you are proposing. But to address your references above:

1. IBT - 3 August 2016 - yes, source says 586.45
2. IBT - 26 July 2016 - yes, source says 586.45
3. IBT - 22 July 2016 - yes, source says 586.45
4. IBT - 8 October 2015 - yes, source says 586.45. Value attributed to Andhra Box Office, a blog. We don't typically use content sourced to blogs per WP:UGC. This calls into question the other identical values.
5. Forbes - 23 July 2015 - source says 375 crore. What purpose does this reference serve?
6. India.com - 11 August 2015 - source says 545 crore, which is not consistent with the 586.45 claim. What do we do with this data?
7. IndianExpress.com - 8 April 2017 - Unclear what this says, exactly, or why you've included it. Says "The film collected Rs 500 crore gross income at the worldwide box office that includes tax and exhibitor’s share." Obviously the guy making this statement doesn't know what "gross" means if he's subtracting tax and exhibitor's share from it. Not particularly helpful, as we can't identify what this guy thinks the film's raw gross actually was.

So what exactly are you proposing here? Remove the 650 crore total entirely? Present the value as a range of 586.45–650 crore? Are you saying that 650 crore is a mistake? What do we do about this reference from 9 August 2016, which says unambiguously that ""Baahubali - the Beginning" has grossed over Rs 650 crore at the worldwide box office in its life time"? Where did this value come from? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that a section for highest grossing films adjusted for inflation, is not required. Discussions have never yielded the requirement for one, and the current list was slipped in on 19th March. I will be removing the list based on the following reasons. Feel free to revert with a proper reason.

• The numbers are sourced from a non-reliable source IBOS Network, which seems to be nothing better than a blog.
• Just the adjusted numbers are mentioned, and the actual figures are not mentioned so as to enable comparing. Also the website does not mention the source for coming up with such audacious numbers.
• The numbers have supposedly not been updated since 2008, meaning the list is outdated (if it was ever correct).

Jupitus Smart 06:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty, I'm not sure if you recall this discussion, where a few of y'all proposed an ordering scheme for films that have the same gross values. Is there any chance you might be able to find time to implement those changes? I'm only bothering you with it because my table formatting skills are really subpar and I'm afraid I'll break something, and I seem to recall that you're quite skilled with tables and such. Also, some of the rows have fancy formatting that indicates which films are still in theatres and that just confuses the crap out of me. The preferred numbering scheme went:

1) Film 1

2) Film 2

3) Film 3

4) Film 4

5) Film 5, Film 6, Film 7

8) Film 8

9) Film 9

10) Film 10

Thanks in advance, but if you can't/don't want to do it, I'll understand! I could always get help at VPT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Had to reformat the above, so I'm pinging Betty again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]