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.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_XicQAXoAMobSc.jpg this is link of highest grossing movies in kanndada official by Karnataka film chamber update it sir please

@Taniya94: Your pet project, the Highest grossing Indian franchise and film series table you created, has been flagged for cleanup since November.

1. Is there a reason why we're using US dollars in the table when everything else in this article is in Rupees? Previous discussions at the Indian cinema task force suggest the vocal community doesn't find much value in focusing on US dollars.
2. The "highest-grossing film" column should probably become "highest-grossing film in franchise" just for clarity
3. The figures in parentheticals are odd, especially with the references wedged inside the parens. Maybe another column for the references would be a better way to present this data?

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be much more sensible if the box office figures were in Rupees as there is always a constant fluctuation of the USD vs INR value. ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you can make it in INR from USD, then please do it. But this table includes the list of every film released under a franchise, so, do not delete the list. Please see, List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series. Taniya94 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali- conclusion- 145cr Pasyavula gopi (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasyavula gopi: Unsourced declarations are not terribly helpful. Please provide a reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, the debate starts again and it is decided that Bahubali is a Tamil-Telugu biilingual. Only thing is, the Tamilians write it the hero’s name as Magendira/Amarendira Bagubali and non-Tamilians read it as Makenthira/Amarenthira Pakupali. Wonder what sort of a movie is that when you can’t even write it’s name in the language it is shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.47.223 (talk • contribs)

What is your question/suggestion? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question is simple. Why is it tagged as a Tamil movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.47.223 (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because according to sources it was filmed simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil. The language column is not intended to equate to "ethnic ownership". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have seriously messed up the narative, my friend. Most of the Rajanikanth and Kamal Hassan movies are shot as bilinguals and if what you claim is the basis for deciding the language of a movie, then, the article needs a serious rejig. Reveling in false pride is a non-issue for us but, the reality is that, this page is not for chauvinisms and chest thumpings, be it Hindi or Tamil or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.47.223 (talk • contribs)

1) Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This appends a signature and time stamp so that other editors know who said what and when. 2) I have no idea what you're going on about, re: "the narative". The film was shot in two languages. What do you want the encyclopedia to do? Pretend that this fact does not exist? Or would you prefer instead that we add a column to label each film by ethnic film industry? The latter is not likely to happen, since it's a bit ridiculous and would only be helpful in cases where films are produced in two different languages. If your original complaint is that since Baahubali was produced in two languages, there are inconsistencies with how character names are represented, it would seem that the simplest solution would be to create a table in the cast list with character names for each language. The remainder of the content, like the plot section, would probably be wise to focus on the Telugu names rather than giving both. Based on previous discussion at WT:ICTF that is my personal guess for what community preference might be. If I'm misinterpreting your query/position, feel free to clarify, but I genuinely don't know what it is that you want to see changed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali is not a tamil film , it is not shot in both languages instead it dubbed into tamil, no point of showing it as a tamil film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bala Sudheer (talk • contribs) 08:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a proposal to merge List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets (since July 2016) and List of highest-grossing Telugu films (since August 2016). It's been almost a year and I propose that someone merge it soon. If there was an agreement earlier about not merging the above mentioned articles into this one then the templates should have been removed. I also would like to propose the merger of the article List of highest domestic nett collection of Hindi films into this one (or a deletion of that article) since it's very poorly written and doesn't serve much of a purpose. - Jayadevp13 13:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that a new section be included with the name "Timeline of highest-grossing films" just like in the article List of highest-grossing films. It would be very informative. It can be started with films since the year 1990 then be expanded to include the earlier films. - Jayadevp13 13:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Also what about films like Mughal-e-Azam ? In that case ]]Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation]] will make sense Mrkks (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Mrkks[reply]

@Mrkks: The bulk of the financials for Indian films are based on guesses, rumours, unverified claims, and lies. Establishing definitively that a film from 1960 is one of the highest-grossing films in Indian cinema (adjusted for inflation) would be a monumental feat, and one based almost entirely on conjecture. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayadevp13: I understand what you are going for with the timeline of highest-grossing movies, but I have some questions/notes:

• How does a reader verify that Hum Aapke held the #1 spot from 1994 to 2001? While there are references to indicate the individual gross values, where are the references that say "Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! was the highest-grossing Indian film of all time until it was overtaken by Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham in 2001." That specific verified claim is crucial to the list being meaningful in any way, because without those assertions, all there is in the table are a series of meaningless numbers, and we're asking readers to assume that the lack of any contrary information equates to an indisputable fact.
• Does Box Office India even chart films that aren't in Hindi? Where is Dasavathaaram in this BOI box breakdown for 2008?
• If Dasavathaaram is missing from that BOI list, how does a reader know that in all the other years of BOI charts, no Tamil, Telugu, or Malayalam film ever charted as #1? Again, we're asking readers to assume that a lack of contrary information equates to a factual assertion.
• An example taken from your inspiration List of highest-grossing films#Timeline of highest-grossing films uses this reference, which says explicitly: "[Jurassic Park grossed] $705 million within 115 days of its initial theatrical release, making it the all-time international box office champ. The previous record holder was Spielberg's own "E.T." (USA/1982), which eventually grossed $701 million." That is a clear declarative statement that doesn't leave much room for confusion. It tells us what the previous record was, and it tells us what the new record was. That is the level of clarity required for this list.

There is a significant lack of information in the Indian version of that table, and these issues would have to be fixed if there's any hope of keeping that list. I also consider this a supremely difficult task, given the lack of centralised auditing of financial figures, as well as the media's tendency to only be interested in films produced in their own language. I have no idea how this can be accomplished. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank You for taking your time to research about it and write all those points.

• With regard to your first point, what I thought of (at the time of editing the article) was that people could compare the table with the Highest-grossing films by year table and see. To elaborate what I mean, the highest-grossing film of 1994 Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! had grossed ₹127.96 crore and the highest-grossing film of 2001, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham had grossed around ₹135.53 crore. Between them all the movies had grossed less than the earnings of Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! in 1994. My belief was that people can infer this from the Highest-grossing films by year list.
• No, the website Box Office India doesn't track the earnings of movies which are not in Hindi. You can also see that from the absence of Baahubali: The Beginning from this Top Worldwide Grossers 2015 list. Now this is problem. How to show in the Highest-grossing films by year table that a particular year's highest grossing movie was not in Hindi.
• With regard to your fourth point, finding that kind of references will be very tough especially since there is a lack of centralised auditing of financial figures, just like you told. That was the reason I took the Highest-grossing films by year table as a reference to compare and make a new table (don't know if Wikipedia policies allow it). If it is allowed then we can mention at the start of the section that this table is derived using data from the previous table. I hope you understand what I am trying to convey here.

What do you suggest I should do now? Should I (or you) remove the list which I created until definite sources can be established? Might be possible for movies which released after 2009 (for example 3 idiots). I highly doubt that it is possible for movies which were released earlier. With regards. - Jayadevp13 03:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayadevp13: and @Cyphoidbomb: I personally think that this is a WP:LISTCRUFT which does not enlighten anybody any more than the list of Highest-grossing films by year that is just above. I respect your good intentions Jayadevp13, but as I said, the list does not have much significance as of date. If you can at least add more details - say take back the timeline to 1960, it will probably merit remaining. I am removing the forked list for now. Feel free to revert with a reason. Jupitus Smart 06:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayadevp13: I think it was a solid, constructive effort, but we just don't have the sourcing yet to justify its inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that Yajamana actually grossed 42 crores (somebody even removed the citation that was present for the same). The earlier reference was to some book, and the grammar in the page in which the dubious figure was mentioned, makes me apprehensive about the reliability of the book. No other source mentions the number and it should probably be removed from the Highest Kannada movies list. Jupitus Smart 15:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: I've been experiencing a great deal of trouble from Kannada film values lately... Looks like the reference was removed here by Sitush, who cited WP:MIRROR as a rationale. Sitush, any chance you could expound a bit? How do you know Wikipedia was the source of that content? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff published by Diamond Pocket Books is often very dodgy. The specific instance you mention was briefly referred to in this thread and I did some spot checks at the time that seemed to confirm the book's author was taking info from Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Thanks for the explanation, esteemed colleague. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That solves that. Jupitus Smart 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that Bahubali is a telugu film , not tamil. Veda chaitanya (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the archives discussions of this talk page. If memory serves, the film was shot in both languages (not dubbed into one as is common practice). We treat the film as both Tamil and Telugu. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a "Telugu" film or "Telugu,Tamil and Hindi", but why it is showcased as "Telegu & Tamil" film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.129.221 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ampersand (&) between Telugu and Tamil in the article, so your quotation is not representative of what the article says. "Telugu,Tamil and Hindi" would not be appropriate, since the movie was not filmed in Hindi. It was filmed in Telugu and Tamil, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the above explanation and references that I found later, I now accept Bahubali as a "Telugu and Tamil" movie (as all other languages are dubbed versions only like Hindi, Malayalam, English and Korean. My apologies for demanding this movie as Hindi movie earlier in the initial post.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.55.5 (talk • contribs)

The movie is currently 3rd in the Punjabi list. It has 4 references, three of which are from reliable sources which however does not mention the given numbers. The 4th reference is from a blog site called dekhnews [1] which is the source for the number. I don't think the site can be considered reliable. Should the movie be removed from the list. Jupitus Smart 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baahubali 2 movie has been released in hindi also add that in the language out of 625 cr gross worldwide hindi has grossed 300 cr my request is that many people trust wikipedia so please update proper information source you can find in the collection reference itselfV1234robot (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - @V1234robot: It's unclear what you are asking to be changed, and since you haven't provide a reference of any sort, that makes interpreting your request somewhat difficult. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Baahubali 2 Tuesday 5th Day Box Office Collection, Grossed 700crore At Worldwide Markets". BollywoodMozo. 3 May 2017. Retrieved 3 May 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V1234robot (talk • contribs)

@V1234robot: "BollywoodMozo", whatever that is, is not a reliable source. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a sample of good and bad sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali and bahubali 2 movies are telugu movies and dubbed into tamil, hindi and malayalam. I can see it is mentioned as Telugu and Tamil whereas kabali as only tamil. Venkisree (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The two cinematic parts of Bahubali were simultaneously shot in both Telugu and Tamil languages. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hebbuli Kannada Movie to be in top grossing kannada movie with 42 crores per 13 days collection report. ^[1] Vinaybang31 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - @Vinaybang31: "Blastingnews" is not a reliable source. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for some examples of ones that are and are not useful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reliable source for hebbuli completing 100crores https://www.cinestaan.com/articles/2017/may/2/5590/amala-paul-joins-rs100-crore-club-as-kannada-film-hebbuli-goes-strong-at-box-office Suraj Sudeep (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Sudeep: What exactly makes this source reliable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Bahubali Movies, Hindi language also need to be included. Manyugarg (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: @Manyugarg: Why? Hindi is a dub, not the original language of production. According to sources, the film was shot in Telugu and Tamil. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not add more detail which shows this income is because of Dub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyugarg (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyugarg: I don't understand what you're asking. The gross values presumably indicate worldwide gross. This means the box office values of all theatrical releases worldwide, including dubbed releases. This is the default assumption that most people should have about what "worldwide gross" means. At List of highest-grossing films there is no special column indicating how much money Captain America: Civil War made from its Cantonese dub, but I guarantee that value is factored into the $1,153,304,495 figure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baahubali: The conclusion is listed as an bilingual Telugu and Tamil movie. Please note it is only dubbed into Tamil and other languages and it is an original Telugu movie.

So please edit the Title to Baahubali: The conclusion Jaswanthyarlagadda (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: @Jaswanthyarlagadda: According to sources, the film was shot in both Telugu and Tamil, not dubbed in Tamil. You would need to bring reliable sources that contradict this position. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a broad list of sources that are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Bahubali 1 and 2 collections are not correctly mentioned in both Telugu and Tamil lists. Baahubali 2 collections are listed in Hindi list even though it is a dubbed version. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.49.85.159 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version of the article, I don't see Baahubali 2 in the Hindi list, so maybe this was already fixed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali: The Conclusion is a telugu movie(dubbed into tamil,hindi, malayalam) 121.241.140.120 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2017 (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. If you're requesting that we indicate that Tamil is a dub, that's not consistent with reports that the film was shot in Tamil, not dubbed. If that thought is incorrect, you'll need to bring references to prove that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The collections for Tollywood is out of order and needs to be fixed. Order should go like this: 1. Bahubali 2 2. Bahubali 1 3. Khaidi 150 4. Srimanthudu 5. Magadheera (+dubbing) 6. Janata Garage 7. Sarainodu 8. Attharintiki Daredi 9. Gabbar Singh 10. Eega

SourinSP (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SourinSP:  Not done This source says Srimanthudu grossed 200 crore worldwide, which would be more than the 164 crore worldwide asserted by this source to Khaidi 150. So it's unclear why we'd flip the positions of those. If you want to see anything changed, you're going to have to bring references and strong arguments for why the current order is not accurate. Simply providing a list and asking us to blindly adhere to it isn't going to work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Srimanthudu is in fact higher that Khaidi 150, Gabbar Singh shouldn't even be on this list. Looking at this: sourcehttps://www.google.com/amp/m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Gabbar-Singh-50-days-collections-list/amp_articleshow/14525905.cms

It made less than Srimanthudu let alone Sarainodu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourinSP ::(talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SourinSP: That reference is describing distributor share figures, not gross. This source puts the gross at 150 crore. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This contradicts some of your claims, though:

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/janatha-garage-box-office-collection-will-jr-ntrs-film-beat-sarrainodu-srimanthudu-693653 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourinSP (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any claims. I've only double-checked the sources that are already in the article. Don't know what to tell you. This is an inherent problem with Indian film financials--there are no absolute figures. Everything's a guess. Everything's subject to exaggeration. I'm sure that for every figure in the article, there's another figure that's several crore higher or several crore lower. Do we disregard an otherwise reliable source simply because another otherwise reliable source has a figure that's closer to what we personally wish it to be? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources exist for Srimathudu's 200 crore gross figures - [2] (Catch News - not a reliable source, though accepted as one here), [3] (NDTV), [4] (Times of India) and the Business Standard reference mentioned above. Just because IBT does not think so, I don't think the figures should be brought down. And anyway, our list does not match with the list of Top Telugu movies provided by IBT, making it futile to match figures.Jupitus Smart 05:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:trim|

Bahubali 2:The conclusion is a bilingual movie(made in both telugu and tamil) and it was dubbed in other indian languages.But in the list of highest grossing movies,I could see the language section to have Malayalam and Hindi added as well.It is a wrong information.It needs to be changed.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baahubali_(franchise) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraveenKumarMurugaiah (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the references given below, I now accept Bahubali as a "Telugu and Tamil" movie (as all other languages are dubbed versions only like Hindi, Malayalam, English and Korean. My apologies for demanding this movie as Hindi movie earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.55.5 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Technically, Dangal has booked 9000 something screens in China so its still running. Ref-http://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/020517/after-aamirs-dangal-salman-khans-tubelight-to-release-in-china-in-a-big-way.html (Screen Info from NDTV). So put Dangal in that greeny color.31.215.112.31 (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done I believe someone has already taken care of this. I see Dangal in green. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

in the list of highest grossers of malayalam film,movie "the great father" is missing,which has collected 50 cr so far . please add in that list" 1.http://www.kboupdates.com/2017/04/its-official-now-the-great-father-touches-50-crore-mark-from-world-wide-boxoffice/ 2. http://mollywoodtimes.com/2017/04/22/the-great-father-touches-the-50-crore-mark/ 3. http://filmfaktory.in/official-great-father-touches-50-crore-mark film producer's official page stating the collection of 50 crores 4.https://www.facebook.com/AugustCinema/photos/a.141682375905619.34908.131506503589873/1490684801005363/?type=3&theater5. and link of kbo updates which tracks malayalam movie collection reports 5.https://www.kboupdates.in/the-great-father-bo.html

Anupmenon0007 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't use producer claims per WP:PRIMARY, as a producer/director/actor/distributor would have every reason to exaggerate. Especially given the competition between Mammootty and Mohanlal. No indication kboupdates.in qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS/WP:UGC. Who runs it? Who's the editor-in-chief? What are there qualifications? Demonstrate they have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.manoramanews.com/news/entertainment/2017/04/23/mammootty-move-to-50-crore-club.html

Can this be used as a reliable source?, References from this source has been included in many similar Wikipedia pages. Ananth sk (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananth sk: Read the 2nd line in the reference and then read what Cyphoidbomb has mentioned above. You will get your answer. Jupitus Smart 04:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In these edits, Betty Logan was kind enough to make some table formatting changes that group various ranks based on a film's gross. Example:

Before

Rank	Movie	Year	Director	Studio(s)	Worldwide gross
1	Mungaru Male	2006	Yogaraj Bhat	E. K. Entertainers	₹50 crore (US$6.0 million)–₹75 crore (US$9.0 million)
2	* Kirik Party	2016	Rishab Shetty	Paramvah Studios	₹50 crore (US$6.0 million)
3	Mr. and Mrs. Ramachari	2014	Santhosh Ananddram	Jayanna Combines	₹50 crore (US$6.0 million)
4	* Raajakumara	2017	Santhosh Ananddram	Hombale Productions	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)
5	Doddmane Hudga	2016	Duniya Soori	Ajay Pictures	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)
6	Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna	2012	Naganna	Sri Sangolli Rayanna Cine Combines	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)
7	Uppi 2	2015	Upendra	Upendra Productions	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)
8	Kotigobba 2	2016	K. S. Ravikumar	Rambabu Productions	₹35 crore (US$4.2 million)–₹38 crore (US$4.6 million)

After

Rank	Movie	Year	Director	Studio(s)	Worldwide gross
1	Mungaru Male	2006	Yogaraj Bhat	E. K. Entertainers	₹50 crore (US$6.0 million)–₹75 crore (US$9.0 million)
2	* Kirik Party	2016	Rishab Shetty	Paramvah Studios	₹50 crore (US$6.0 million)
	Mr. and Mrs. Ramachari	2014	Santhosh Ananddram	Jayanna Combines	₹50 crore (US$6.0 million)
4	* Raajakumara	2017	Santhosh Ananddram	Hombale Productions	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)
	Doddmane Hudga	2016	Duniya Soori	Ajay Pictures	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)
	Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna	2012	Naganna	Sri Sangolli Rayanna Cine Combines	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)
	Uppi 2	2015	Upendra	Upendra Productions	₹40 crore (US$4.8 million)
8	Kotigobba 2	2016	K. S. Ravikumar	Rambabu Productions	₹35 crore (US$4.2 million)–₹38 crore (US$4.6 million)

So why is this better? Simple: Raajakumara, Doddmane Hudga, Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna and Uppi 2 all grossed 40 crore. So it would be completely arbitrary for us to decide that Raajakumara is #4 when Uppi 2 could also be considered #4. By manipulating a film's placement in the old system, we are effectively giving preferential treatment to Raajakumara, by suggesting that it grossed more, and thus needs to be ranked higher. This totally violates WP:NPOV. What the new system tells readers, is that there were four films that filled the #4, #5, #6 and #7 spots. They just all happened to gross the same. Note also that this change was discussed here in February 2017, and so consensus was established for the change. If you object to the changes, your recourse is to seek a new consensus through discussion, not to revert the changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this works, though fans of Raajkumara will still try and have their movie as the first among equals. I feel that if the figures are equal, the older movie should be the first among equals, because its easier to gross huge numbers nowadays compared to before thanks to inflation and higher ticker prices. Jupitus Smart 05:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: I think the films should be arranged alphabetically. This seems the most neutral way to deal with this, and to prevent disruption, but I do understand the merits of your argument. I'll have to think about this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam Nov es Abi rockzz (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abi rockzz: What? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas: Why did you remove Great father from the list @cyphoidbomb? Just search August cinema in Facebook , and they have posted on their fb page that the movie crossed well over fifty crore mark. You are still confused on the evidence people given and still questioning on the evidence we give for the updation of the list.just another stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas.j63 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbas.j63: 1) Watch the personal attacks. 2) I'm not the one who's confused--I'm well versed on Wikipedia guidelines. We don't use primary sources (Directors/actors/producers/distributors/etc.) for controversial claims like a film's finances, because big surprise: these people have every reason to lie. Inflated figures make directors and actors and producers look more attractive. An actor who can brag about his film breaking a financial record is likely to get more work. Same with a director. Not to mention that film companies often inflate figures (Kabali is a prime example) to make the film more attractive to potential viewers, enticing them to be a part of the blockbuster spectacle. This is particularly relevant given the longstanding rivalry between Mammootty and Mohanlal. The producers posting an inflated number makes the film more attractive to Mammootty fans. So it should be fairly obvious why we can't take the producer's claims at face value. We care what reliable published sources that are independent of the subject have to say. And thankfully, Wikipedia has no deadline. We're not in any hurry to post improperly verified financial figures. Feel free to look at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for an example of the types of references that are considered reliable, along with ones that are not. (List is not all-inclusive. It's a rough list.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thyagu777 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2017 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear,

I see there is no update for this section of Highest grossing Kannada movies for over a month now. From the sources available on inernet, i see the currently running Movie Raajakumar has dose business in the 75-80 Cr. Also i am sure there is increase in the earnings of Kirik Party, which is still running in the theatres. One of souces i can refer to is IMDB, on which it shows Raajakumara has over taken Mungaaru Male by a distance. I am keen to see the wiki too updated. Could you please do the honours.

Thanks so much!!

Warm Regards Raj V N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajdbangy (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajdbangy: Per WP:RS/IMDB, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. It is user-contributed. Please see WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a general list of the types of sources that are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Chinese/Mandarin in languages under Dangal top grossing movies 103.24.23.42 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Language column indicates the language the film was shot in, not dubs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

in highest malayalam movie grossers, where is " THE GREAT FATHER" which crossed 50 crore box office. here is the link of malayala manorama news channel, which reported this collection

http://www.manoramanews.com/news/entertainment/2017/04/23/mammootty-move-to-50-crore-club.html some removed it intentionally.please check 117.246.229.197 (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion below. Altamel (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following: For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}. If you are partially blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}. If the page is protected, use one of the following: {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages {{TPER}} for template-protected pages {{FPER}} for fully protected pages {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.

in the top grossers of malayalam movie list, there was the movie" The Great Father " which crossed 50 crore mark, here is the link of official reputed news channel http://www.manoramanews.com/news/entertainment/2017/04/23/mammootty-move-to-50-crore-club.html

the above link is of indias reputed news channel malayala manorama..pls edit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupmenon0007 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion below. Altamel (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

Here is the collection details.

Kerala – 33.1 Crore (30 days )

GCC – 19.05 Crore (14 days )

ROI – 7.90 Crore (29 days )

ROW – 63 lakh (Australia, UK, US, Canada )

Total World Wide Gross – 60.68 Crores

(Redacted)

So here is a kind request that please update the top grossing malayalam movies list. Imthiyaz07 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref please King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: This edit request is for the film The Great Father. The redacted content was lifted verbatim from http://www.kboupdates.com/2017/04/the-great-father-raked-60-crore-from-world-wide-boxoffice/, so that is the reference. Imthiyaz07, do not copy and paste content into Wikipedia in the future. Copyright violations will not be tolerated. I'm not aware of any reason why KBOupdates should be considered sufficient as a reference. Who runs it? What are their qualifications? What expertise does the editorial team have in Indian film finance tracking? Who considers them reliable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam Movie The Great Father has collected 50cr world wide and it has been officially reported by the actor producer and the co stars. I will provide variable sources.The sources i provided are mainly used for the other movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammed.suhail (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC) ^[1][2][3][4][reply]

Worldwide Gross of PK from Two sources: 743 crore first source:
http://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=2914
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion has hit 1000 crore GROSS Worldwide box office in ten days. The film had gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore a few days back. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide but now with its China run it can go over 900 crore but its not catching Bahubali - The Conclusion.

second source:
http://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=2904
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion which has smashed all box office records has also taken the Worldwide crown in just six days. The film has gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore with business close to 800 crore. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide. PK at 743 crore and Dangal at 702 crore.
PK was released in Hindi only

The worldwide gross should be changed from 792 to 743 --Rashkeqamar (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rashkeqamar: And your explanation for why we should ignore the two reliable sources that are already present in the article[5][6], delete the 792 crore value and replace it with the lower 743 value is what, exactly? Is it that BoxOfficeIndia's estimates are more in line with your personal point of view, and so we should change the data to adhere to your perspective and ignore all other points of view? The entirety of Indian film financials are based on estimates, so there is no singular authority that anyone can describe as scientifically precise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb:, In Overseas Gross of Indian Films including Hindi,Telugu ,Tamil films the data is consistent, but only in case of domestic gross in India(due to entertainment tax and also due to producers' stating more collection at times), the gross collection vary 3-10 crores range. The sites which you mentioned, ibtimes and indianexpress are NOT trade websites, they quote data from trade websites, like Boxofficeindia.com like TimesofIndia do , as here

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/box-office/baahubali-2-the-conclusion-worldwide-box-office-collection-day-10-film-creates-history-by-crossing-1000-crore-mark/articleshow/58571727.cms

So, the data should be taken from a trade website who deals with collection from every territory and quote its figure on its site consistently. In this case, Boxofficeindia.com is site which gives data for Hindi films and Hindi-Dubbed films . it is much better than Bollywood Hungama, which is not quoting regional collections and takes data from producers. so Boxofficeindia.com should be given priority. there was data differences 3-4 years back in Krrish 3 collections when producers exaggered the worldwide figures of film by 60 crores from actual ₹ 187 crores to ₹ 255 crores.--Rashkeqamar (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rashkeqamar: Your proposal to prioritize BOI over all others would require consensus agreement from members of the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia, since reliable sources are generally considered reliable until there is some reason to not consider them reliable. The proposition to give one site more weight than another in a matter of opinion, seems to be in conflict with WP:UNDUE. Now if you were proposing that the data should be presented in the form of a range (ex: 743–792 crore) that would be doable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at List of highest-grossing films(which is a featured list), it seems like there are several areas where this list can be improved. For example, it seems useless to mention the Producer/production house of the movie as that information only obfuscates what the reader is actually looking for(that is not done on the featured list as well). Hoping for a fruitful discussion. I put this on the top because I felt that this would be a massive change to the article. Thank you. Aravindreddy96 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aravindreddy96, thank you for opening a discussion. I've moved your comment to the bottom, because that's where editors expect to see new discussions. One glaring difference between this article and List of highest-grossing films is that at the featured list article, virtually all of the films are in English. Previous discussions at this article seem to prefer the inclusion of languages for one reason or another. Though some are motivated by a desire to have their ethnic film industry receive "credit", I think there is merit in knowing which languages are more likely to gross more money. It tells an interesting story when a film like Baahubali, which was filmed in Telugu and Tamil, dominates an industry where Hindi is the primary breadwinner. I'll let others weigh in on whether or not Studio and Director belong in the table. I think there's probably more value in including director than studio. Given how inherently unreliable Indian film financial data is, it is dubious that this list will ever achieve any of our quality benchmarks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Although I agree with you that there is merit in knowing about which languages gross more money in the Indian cinema, the question here is whether or not that offsets the degradation of the article by obfuscating more important data(i.e the rank of the movie and the total gross). I genuinely feel that the list would look much cleaner without the language column. Although your point about Baahubali is correct, this is a rare exception rather than the norm. Aravindreddy96 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your response seems to be predicated on an unfounded position that the article is both degraded and obfuscated by the inclusion of language, which I don't think it is. I'm not aware of any regular editors or casual readers complaining about the complexity of the data. In fact, one editor wants to increase the data in these tables by adding inflation adjustments. An aesthetics argument should probably be based on previous complaints, rather than an arbitrary drive to conform this list to another. Though I do understand the argument for uniformity, Indian cinema has demonstrated that it is different than western cinema. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the people interested in changing The Great Father's discussion, please read this. Some of you include - @Anupmenon0007:, @Abbas.j63:, @Abi rockzz:, @Imthiyaz07:, @Muhammed.suhail:, @5ana1234: among other newbies who have formed accounts to update The Great Father's figures. Here are some information for you :

• @Cyphoidbomb: is the admin who generally patrols pages about Indian Movies.
• We only accept reliable sources as references for movies. For Indian movies the agreed sources include those listed in WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. We may accept sources not listed there, though that is not usually done. So that rules out sites like kboupdates, mollywoodtimes, filmfaktory etc.
• We do not accept primary sources as references. So that rules out facebook pages of actors/producers/directors etc. However we may also not accept the figures if we are presented a news report from reliable sources where the source for the information is explicitly mentioned to have come from such people (actors/producers/directors) etc.

Now let us look at the references we have for the 50 crore figure, which we all know is not correct (the details are mentioned in Talk:The Great Father). However what you or I know is immaterial as we only look at sources and usually add the figures presented, if they meet the criteria :

• http://www.manoramanews.com/news/entertainment/2017/04/23/mammootty-move-to-50-crore-club.html - Malayala Manorama is a reliable source. However in the 2nd line of the reference it is clearly mentioned that the information was released by the Producers failing our criteria for primary sources. Some people had a doubt that why was Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol allowed to use a reference from Manorama. Hopefully this answers that.
• The other reference is form The News Minute - http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/mammootty-s-great-father-biggest-hit-2017-so-far-60966. The News Minute is not considered a reliable sources and is not included in the list above. We generally don't accept references from newspapers with a workforce of 12 people. And even if we are tempted to do so, the article itself mentions that the content is sourced from Digital Native. Searching for Digital Native does not provide any proper hits. So when we don't trust The News Minute itself, how can we trust Digital Native (which is the original source) which nobody has heard of. Anyway I won't be reverting The News Minute edits and will leave that for Cyphoidbomb to decide, as this information is available in English.

And since you are all here, let me also take this opportunity to provide some suggestions. Mammootty's movies have very bad Wikipedia pages because fans like you are not interested in adding good information but are only interested in adding bloated figures. See how well the pages of Mohanlal's new movies are written and how informative they are- Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol, Pulimurugan, Oppam. Even his flop movies like 1971: Beyond Borders, Kanal (2015 film), Loham and Peruchazhi have long informative articles. And now take a look at The Great Father, Thoppil Joppan, Puthan Panam , White (2016 film) and Utopiayile Rajavu all of which are small uninformative articles which do not even have a plot (story) section.

If the time you spend in fighting for improving The Great Father's box office figures can be used for writing the plot for the movie, you would have done something worthwhile at that. Even if you add the 50 crore figure now, almost every reader knows that the numbers are fake and it will not have any impact. But if you improve articles of Mammootty's movies, it will have an impact on every reader. Cheers. And thanks for reading the long post. Do not form any more new sections and if you have to say anything comment below. Jupitus Smart 18:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding a Currency conversion of year collections to present date so that it will easy for viewers to compare and view to data easily. e.g. Collection of 18Cr(1990) in present date approx ₹18 crore (equivalent to ₹177 crore or US$21 million in 2023) Sanjan Kumar Patel 19:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Consensus could be construed to already exist here for the full removal of INRConvert templates from this article, and another discussion about INRConvert in general can be found here. The prevailing attitude toward INRConvert seems to be that we are arbitrarily converting Indian rupees to US dollars, which promotes pro-US bias. Why not Euros? Why not Yuan? 2) The use of the default INRConvert template is problematic for older films, because by default the template converts a number to the present-day equivalent of Rupees and US Dollars. 3) The inflation adjustment switch helps even the data out, but we're still presenting US values. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Agree with your point about why we only convert the INR to USD. Actually, my point is that we should convert the collection value to an approx collection(exact is impossible) value in present date.

i.e. ₹18 crore in 1990 is (equivalent to ₹124 crore in 2017) so is there any template exist which will do this only show equivalent INR value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjanind (talk • contribs) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanjanind: Please sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. If you're having trouble finding the tilde key on your keyboard, click the pen and signature icon at the top of the edit window. Or click the four tildes that appear at the bottom of the edit window to insert the tildes at the end of your comment. Note that this is a requirement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Change

Baahubali 2 : The Conclusion - languages to Telugu,Tamil to Telugu, Tamil and Hindi

and same holds true for

Baahubali: The Beginning - languages to Telugu,Tamil to Telugu, Tamil and Hindi

Because Both movies were released in Hindi as well, and has also contributed significant share in amount.

Reference http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/box-office/baahubali-2-the-conclusion-box-office-collection-day-10-films-hindi-version-surpasses-500-crore-mark-worldwide/articleshow/58572333.cms Mohitsharmaniit11 (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Bahubali and Bahubali 2 are two cinematic parts simultaneously shot only in Telugu and Tamil. They were released in Hindi as dubbed versions. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The language for Bahubali 1 and 2 is Telegu AND Tamil Lebroned (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We must focus on some development in the franchise screen it shows a lot of movies still running and appears as Baahubali beginning is still running . How to clear those green colored cells.. And we must include dollar alongside according to me.. ^∞😃 Nabeelgm 😃^∞(Talk)

• Nabeelgm (talk • contribs)

Nabeel Gm 08:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Nabeel Gm 08:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please remove Baahubali from 'Highest Grossing Tamil films' section. Both Baahubali part 1 and 2 are Telugu films. Nani4215 (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Baahubali was filmed in Tamil, and thus, it is a Tamil-language film. You seem to be focused on industry, which is beyond the scope of what this article is intended to track. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]