Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 460: Line 460:
Yeah but IBTimes took the reference from Forbes. Forbes mentioned it like "earned 130 crores" they din't mention the word box office anywhere. As we have clearly discussed that the box office collection is what is taken into account. That 130 crore for Veeram is based on a huge confusion caused by Forbes which is <b>Inclusive of Satellite Rights</b>. Thus, I suggest you to update the list to <ref>http://www.ibtimes.co.in/photos/all-time-highest-grossing-tamil-films-2881-slide-21707</ref>. Again to you're clarity Veeram 130 crores is inclusive of the satellite rights and distributor share, without it Veeram just minted 77.5 crores at the Box Office as the film ran for very few days as it shared screens with Jilla. There is a difference between earned and Grossed. Inclusive of all shares and rights the film earned 132 crores that's what Forbes told and Forbes article was not focused on Veeram Collection but on the top 100 celeb list on India. [[User:Ashikvc|Ashikvc]] ([[User talk:Ashikvc|talk]]) 14:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but IBTimes took the reference from Forbes. Forbes mentioned it like "earned 130 crores" they din't mention the word box office anywhere. As we have clearly discussed that the box office collection is what is taken into account. That 130 crore for Veeram is based on a huge confusion caused by Forbes which is <b>Inclusive of Satellite Rights</b>. Thus, I suggest you to update the list to <ref>http://www.ibtimes.co.in/photos/all-time-highest-grossing-tamil-films-2881-slide-21707</ref>. Again to you're clarity Veeram 130 crores is inclusive of the satellite rights and distributor share, without it Veeram just minted 77.5 crores at the Box Office as the film ran for very few days as it shared screens with Jilla. There is a difference between earned and Grossed. Inclusive of all shares and rights the film earned 132 crores that's what Forbes told and Forbes article was not focused on Veeram Collection but on the top 100 celeb list on India. [[User:Ashikvc|Ashikvc]] ([[User talk:Ashikvc|talk]]) 14:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> I don't see on the Forbes source where it specifies the earnings as inclusive of satellite rights. Do you have a link to a different Forbes reference that states this? I also do not see on the IBTimes slideshow that the gross figures are not inclusive of satellite rights. If you can find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for each film that clearly discern between pure box office and total gross, will reconsider [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> I don't see on the Forbes source where it specifies the earnings as inclusive of satellite rights. Do you have a link to a different Forbes reference that states this? I also do not see on the IBTimes slideshow that the gross figures are not inclusive of satellite rights. If you can find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for each film that clearly discern between pure box office and total gross, will reconsider [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015 ==

Revision as of 21:31, 20 October 2015

RfC: How should we classify Baahubali

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
RFC's are not vote counts, they are based on discussion, but not any discussion. They are weighted, and those citing policy with good policy based comments will have more impact on a close than "I just don't like it" or canvassed editors as that amounts to vote stacking. But as I said before a RFC is not a vote count. I find there is consensus for Tamil and Telugu. The majority argument rightly cites that reliable sources describe it this way. Even had I counted the canvassed editors who made comments other than WP:JDLI there would still be a consensus for Tamil and Telugu. AlbinoFerret 21:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How should classify the film Baahubali? This is both for the main table and for whether it should be included in any of the subtables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil and Telugu

  • Support both Tamil and Telugu as explained below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per the multiple reliable sources Forbes to the Guardian to the Times of India to IBN to NDTV to The National which identify the film as bilingual Tamil / Telugu. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for obvious reasons. The film was shot in both languages, there is no reason to deviate from reliable sources as a way to accommodate the fragile egos of a select group of readers. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Has been endlessly explained in above discussions. Cannolis (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a fairly unique situation, in that two versions of the film were made at the same time. I think the film should be treated as both a Telugu and a Tamil film. I don't really get what the fuss is all about except maybe some hometown/language/culture pride? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A wide range of sources make it clear that the film was simultaneously produced in both languages. --Carnildo (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since this is not only what independent sources tell us, it's what the producer has stated (it was produced bilingually because a monolingual approach could not have recouped the production costs). See the #Discussion section for sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per multiple reliable sources which has been presented above by various users. —Vensatry (ping) 16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu only

  • Support Telugu Only. Marchoctober (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Baahubali is undoubtedly a Telugu movie which is simultaneously dubbed into Hindi,Tamil,English and French. How could it be in the list of highest grossing tamil movies? This is a blunder mistake on wikipedia, it must be verifed as soon as possibleJohnnyBlaze007 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JohnnyBlaze007 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Support Its a telugu movie dubbed into another 4 languages. Ricky is behaving as a true Madrasi.175.101.16.161 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)— 175.101.16.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Struck ethnic slur. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchoctober: @JohnnyBlaze007: @175.101.16.161: are there any sources or policies that support your position?
  • Support Please go to the Wikipedia Page "Telugu Cinema". It doesn't mean films shot in Telugu, It actually means films produced by Tollywood. Similarly go to the page "Tamil Cinema" What it means is films shot in Kollywood. so if your intention is just to servce the technicality, your absolutely misleading people here. Baahubali is product of Telugu Cinema and I strongly support it to be mentioned only in the Field of Telugu. In the page of baahubali, it was anyway mentioned as Telugu & Tamil. But in the grossings we need to be careful not to mislead readersPradeeps369 (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Many films from Tamil like Enthiran, Indian, Singham, Shivaji ... were shot simultaneously in both Tamil and Telugu but, being considered as Tamil films. Though Bahubali - The Beginning has Tamil version its a Telugu film only. Will anyone consider those films as Telugu films? Enthiran bagged 2 national awards and many other awards, but it didn't get nominated to atleast one section of Telugu cinema awards like Nandi, film fare-Telugu and other. It is obviously telling that which way should one follow. PK talk 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Political Cricketer: Can you please show some reliable sources which state Enthiran, Indian, Sivaji and Singam are bilinguals. They are merely dubbed versions, get your facts right before arriving at random conclusions. —Vensatry (ping) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vensatry: Here, source is provided for Enthiran from India Today. Not satisfied? Wait until next year's film awards and Baahubali's Tamil nominations. PK talk 12:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was a speculated source my dear friend. I can show you some sources which say OK Kanmani was to be made as a Tamil-Malayalam bilingual. Besides, the article plainly states the film is a bilingual; I don't see a mention of the word 'Telugu' anywhere. Since you are very confident about India Today, here is a source (published after a week the film got released) which says on Baahubali, "The multilingual film has been made in Tamil and Telugu simultaneously and dubbed in Hindi". —Vensatry (ping) 13:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many movies like Baahubali, Enthiran are shot simultaneously in two languages. Here bilingual indicates no.of languages, in which movie was shot. But one won't consider Baahubali as Kollywood film. I'm thinking that it's better to me to stop......until next yearPK talk 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Will anyone explain me, when will a movie be considered as bilingual. Director/Producer announcement as bilingual or shooting in two languages?PK talk 13:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tamil films like Enthiran/Robo, I, Indian, Singham, Shivaji ... were shot simultaneously in both Tamil and Telugu but, being considered as Tamil films. In all Telugu versions of the above films, no where you will find letters in Tamil but you will find them in Telugu only. Some portions of these movies are re-shoot to suit Telugu audience. Similarly, Bahubali - The Beginning is a Telugu film only and some portions are re-shoot to suit Tamil audience. If we add the gross earnings from all the versions including dubbed languages, how can we give a particular film a Tamil only or Telugu only film. Either we need to include a single language from where it has originated like Bahubali from Telugu language or include all the languages in which the movie was released including dubbed languages The Guardian. If Bahubali is included in the list of highest grossing Tamil movies list, then why wasn't Eega movie included in Tamil list as it was also produced in Tamil along with Telugu version simultaneously? Because it is not in the top of the list? Everyone wants to take credit if we are successful. And why was Eega movie got National Award for Best Feature Film in Telugu even though it is produced simultaneously in Tamil also? So, it is better to include Bahubali only in the Telugu list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 11:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Support Certainly it is a telugu movie and not telugu and tamil. The movie is shot primarily by telugu and for global audience. Due to the market similarities, and for revenue making purposes some shots were shot twice while rest is dubbed. This is a common practice and even tamil films are shot twice for lip sync purposes or add specific scenes with telugu or the target market actros to make it more marketable. For example, I or Robo have added mixed tracks and that doesnt mean they are telugu films. srikrishnak (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is primarily a Telugu movie and shot with few scenes in tamil that doesn't mean it is a tamil movie. Here bilingualism is not the issue. while mentioning in the grossing list you should consider production and from which language the film originated not bilingualism. I have 4 instances to classify it as a Telugu movie and remove from the tamil list. The production is from a Telugu production house and not even single from tamil is involved in it. The story, script, direction, music, cinematography etc... almost entire crew is from Telugu film industry including cast. If we look at the release almost 75% released in Telugu version and (Hindi dubbed version(from Telugu)) and the rest is from others. In the collections almost 80% is from Telugu and Hindi dubbed version. Also only some scenes were shot in tamil for tamil audience and the rest is dubbed in Tamil.

But to classify it as a tamil film they have only one instance ie. stating it as a bilingual film which is actually not as Tamil version has some dubbed scenes. For all those who are mentioning baahubali as a bilingual i'm asking is the story, script and direction is from both telugu and tamil directors? not at all It's only from Telugu director and writer alone. Is the production house is from tamil? If you check the gross collections then look how much tamil version has collected nearly 15%. Then why are you including the movie in tamil list by adding other version collections 80% into it although it is not primarily a tamil movie. simply don't state bilingual as a reason. In the gross box office list, will you look at the language or the production and collections? In Hollywood if an English movie is also shot in French it is regarded as an hollywood movie not french movie. In the collections it will be listed in english list not in the french list similarly is the case of baahubali it should be included only in telugu list not in tamil. So remove it from tamil list.

Padukati raju (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Padukati raju (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]


Providing sources which say the film is from Telugu film industry and Telugu language: 1)www.bbc.com 2)theguardian.com 3)reuters.com 4) cnn.com 5) huffingtonpost 6)hindustantimes.com 7)timesofindia.indiatimes.com 8)ndtv.com 9)odishasuntimes.com 10)thehindu.com Marchoctober (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This News Article by TheGuardian.com which clearly mentions that the film is a Telugu movie and was made additionally in Tamil and dubbed into Hindi and Malayalam, but clearly states that it is a Telugu Movie. Marchoctober (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Baahubali: The Beginning was shot in both the Tamil and Telugu languages and then dubbed in various other languages. There is no disputing that amongst the sources. Rather than trying to figure out how much of a film constitutes a Tamil/Telugu (or Hindi or Punjabi)-"industry" film (based on actors/directors/producers/location shot), since it was shot in both Tamil and Telugu originally (and then dubbed elsewhere) it should be listed as both Tamil and Telugu language film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was removed from Tamil again with this misleading edit. I'm not in the mood to fight it anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Ricky81682 I challenge you to prove yourself right about the above statement you gave stating that was wrong or misleading information, please prove yourself with sources. Marchoctober (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Telugu Only. Marchoctober (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? As noted above, this is not a vote so policy discussions would be preferable and I know that there's pages of the same arguments going in circles but it would be really helpful if you could put it in a short summary here as many people may not respond to every repeated discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the sections

The above users all are biased users which is why I have started those sectionsMarchoctober (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone is biased but you and everyone who agrees with you. They are so biased that you require multiple discussions and pages and tangents to not a point other than "it's insulting for it to be called a Tamil film." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck ethnic slur Administrator not Assuming good faithMarchoctober (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) @User:Abecedare @User:NeilN[reply]

Unstruck. I have no idea in what universe would you call that an ethnic slur. It's a response to your repeated line that everyone else is biased. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck Ethnic Slur, In your universe calling one language as insulting is Ethnice Slur, even in your response you need not call any language as insult, doing so constitues ethnic slur, You may use more civil language. Marchoctober (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if that is an ethnic slur, i am the easter bunny.
what is problematic is the gratuitous effort to completely erase a well documented involvement of one language removed from the discussion because at best some people claim it was "only a part". complete hogswaggle! THAT is inappropriate ethnic warrior. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what to say. But, as per the trade is concerned, the Tamil version is lacking behind when compared to the remaining two major releases (Telugu and Hindi). If you want me to classify which language Baahubali belongs to, i would opt for a Telugu-Tamil bilingual. Because, the film's director S. S. Rajamouli told IANS — Given the budget of the film, it’s impossible to recover the cost involved if we release in one language. Right from the start, the plan was to make it as a Tamil-Telugu bilingual. Hence, we cast actors who are popular in both the industries. Here is the reference for the same.

When the director himself admits that Baahubali is a bilingual, i think that should be valued more than anything else. And, for all those who are concerned that Telugu cinema isn't getting its due recognition, i want to cite the case of Eega. That film, also a bilingual directed by Rajamouli, received acclaim mostly for its Telugu version. National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards South and all notable awards were received by the Telugu version only. In the case of Baahubali, Telugu cinema is being praised by the International media and fortunately, the same can be placed in the article and summarised in the lead provided the content is written neutrally.

So, i suggest this option — Specify Baahubali as an Indian bilingual simultaneously shot in Telugu and Tamil. Next, specify in the poroduction section that Rajamouli planned it as a bilingual only to recover the cost involved which he found impossible if released in only one language. For all who are concerned for Telugu cinema recognition, please write the content from International magazines in a neutral way in the "Legacy" section. As per WP:LEAD the same would be summarised in the lead section where we can see a statement similar to "Due to the success of Baahubali, Telugu film industry was noted and praised by International magazines such as Forbes and The Guardian". Any one who does or does not support this may explain their arguments below. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't have objective criteria here. What do you mean that by "the Tamil version is lacking"? We aren't removing it from the Tamil language just because you personally don't think it was the best version, that's a nonsensical way to categorize things. And it's not about whether the Tamil industry "deserves" or doesn't recognition, it's about a single film and what's the best way to classify the films on this page (I'm starting to learn towards a delete all the subtables and just list films approach). And if you care about more about praising Telugu cinema than anything else, you're here for the wrong reasons. That's not the point of this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ricky81682 Please Assume Good Faith Using terms like 'Nonsensical ways', accussing of having no objective criteria falls under, doesnot that count as personal attacks ? Marchoctober (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC) @User:NeilN @User:Abecedare[reply]
I appreciate Pavanjandhyala presenting reliable sources to qualify their statements, and they are certainly right in re-asserting that the film is bilingual, but I too share your sentiment regarding the mindset that a certain industry 'deserves praise'. This page is not for 'praising' a certain 'industry'. This isn't the scope of the page. This page has absolutely nothing to do with a film's industry. I am also in agreement that all subsections should be removed. Perhaps a new RFC should be started in the near future with regards to your proposal. Elspamo4 (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then here is my explanation. Baahubali is a bilingual simultaneously shot in Telugu & Tamil and dubbed into Hindi in order to recover the making costs which is confirmed by its director in an interaction to IANS. There is no need to project it as only a Telugu film for the acclaim Telugu version has received because that shall not change just because the film is a bilingual. So i suggest that the film (includes both the parts) be mentioned as a bilingual one in the lead and mention in the Production section that this film was made as a bilingual to recover the making costs. What say? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this bizarro argument about only the Telugu version being acclaimed coming from? Are there sources that say that the Tamil version is horrid or something? It's literally the same film. No, that's not a solution as it entirely ignores the other language it was made in. Further, arguing about the reason a film was made in various language (again without providing sources) as a justification for how it should be categorized is again original research as if certain reasons (budget, financing, marketing) are good while others are not. The film was made in two languages. We should not be coming back here when the next film make in two languages (or three) [made, not dubbed that seems clear] to debate about what reasons it was made in those various languages, whether one language makes it "more" acclaimed than another or "more" amazing or whatever that accomplishes nothing here in terms of consistency and is just people here picking and choosing based on their personal interests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ricky81682 @User:NeilN @User:AbecedareNot Assuming good faith and Personally attacking User by using terms like bizarro argument Marchoctober (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See. I provided the source in my first message here. If you missed it, here is the reference i quoted and it was not an original research as you say. With this, i can prove that Baahubali is a bilingual film. Coming to the acclaim problem, many websites such as Forbes and all mentioned the Telugu version of Baahubali in particular. This and the box office success of the film "as a whole" (i mean together in all languages) made a few quote that Baahubali is only a Telugu film. By stating the reason why this film was made as a bilingual, i want to make it clear that this is not just a Telugu film but a bilingual. Nothing else from my side. I'm done with it. What all can do after reading the content in that source carefully and this last message of mine here, please do the needy. I just wanted to make sure that the filmmaker's intention is clearly mentioned in the related articles (Baahubali: The Beginning, Production of Baahubali and Baahubali: The Conclusion) to avoid unnecessary confusions regarding the issue whether this is a bilingual or not. Thank you for letting me participate in this productive discussion and i think, its time i say good bye to this. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How does "bilingual" = Telugu only? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
snide: It runs through the "industry" which squeezes all the Tamil out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume Assuming good faith, calling a whole film industry to be squeezing out some language is simply accusation. Marchoctober (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
please actually read WP:AGF - it regards the assumption that other editors are here to improve the encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with mandating an an absurd "assumption about the motivations driving external corporations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Stay on the topic of arguing your viewpoints as attacking other users will not end well for you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Biased edits from each user:

Each of the above edits show their support of Tamil language let us suppose these are all fair, but why have they not undone these edits if they are all fair ? Inspite of seeing this information being discussed on talk page also ?? This proves their Biased nature. Marchoctober (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Marchoctober (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's conclusively proven to have been a bilingual production from the start, I guess this will be a textbook example of why a closer should look at rationales and ignore the head-count of "votes". LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Bahubali is included in the list of highest grossing Tamil movies list, then why wasn't Eega movie included in Tamil list as it was also produced in Tamil along with Telugu version simultaneously? Because it is not in the top of the list? And why was Eega movie got National Award for Best Feature Film in Telugu only even though it was produced simultaneously in Tamil and the content of both the movies are same? It is because Indian film awards are given only for the language in which the movie is originally made. Since Eega was not an original Tamil movie, it didn't get any award in Tamil language category. Same is the case with Bahubali. It's a original Telugu movie and when it receives any awards, it will receive the awards only in the category of Telugu language and not for Tamil language. So, it is better to include Bahubali only in the Telugu list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Let me put a small break here. The point is Wikipedia categorizes Indian films by language not by so-called industry. Evidence can be seen by Category:Indian films by language. Now, they could be misinterpreted as the same except we have English-language Indian films. The basis for inclusion there is the (primary) language in which the film was shot. There is no English-language Indian film "industry" place/populace whatever that would let us classify other films as in or out of this category other than by simple language. For the same reason, we should be classifying Baahubali as both Tamil and Telugu because it was shot in those language rather than using some personal opinions from editors as to whether a film has "sufficient" amounts of a particular film industry to be classified under that industry. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely biased editing on part of the administrator Ricky81682|Ricky81682], who is biased to make Bahubali to give Tamil color. Bahubali was maintained as Telugu movie until the gross collections of Bahubali didn't cross the gross collections of highest grossing Tamil movie "Enthiran". When Bahubali grossed more than Enthiran, they made it as both Telugu and Tamil movie. Why no explanations were given for "Eega/Naan Ee" movie, for which I have given lot of explanation above? When "Eega/Naan Ee" was produced simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil but considered Telugu only movie then how come Bahubali will be considered both Telugu and Tamil movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack other editors. Has Eega been brought up before? If you can provide a source about Eega, put it in a separate section and we'll list it on both. I don't recall it being listed on the Tamil film list when it was merged here. At to the National Film Award, that is determined by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India), correct? Does it classify films or are films categorized there and nominated based on the producers submitted it there? I'm just trying to flesh out your rationale for using that as a basis for categorizing films. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682You have attacked multiple users now you accuse the above user of attcaking you ? And the user has apologized to you. You have attacked and got away because you are an administrator you have not apologized , My personal opinion is your administrative powers be stripped off you for the way you are behaving and taking this page for a ride, I have no option but report you.


You have a totally WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and for an administrator to have such mentality is fatal for Wikipedia. @User:NeilN @User:Abecedare Marchoctober (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to attack personally. For awards, the producer has to submit an entry for the movie. Is it possible for Bahubali to be submitted as an entry for Tamil version. It is not possible. Because "Dubbed/revised/copied version of a film" is out rightly rejected by the awards Jury [1] as Tamil version of Bahubali is copied version Telugu Bahubali and Tamil version is not in it's original form. Same has happened with "Eaga/Naan Ee". Producers know that if they submit the Tamil version, it will be out rightly rejected. Eega was eligible for National awards only in Telugu version and not in Tamil version. Same is the case with Bahubali. It is eligible for National awards only in Telugu version. If National awards jury is considering it as a Telugu only movie then how Wikipedia will consider it as both Telugu and Tamil movie. Please remove Bahubali from Tamil list. Otherwise, it will misguide people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're speculating here. Where is this "Tamil version would have been rejected" coming from? You don't have proof of any of this. Is this the same as the "the Tamil version was lacking" argument I've heard before? Ok, the point is it was the producers' choice to list it under Telugu and not Tamil (I doubt they could submit it in two categories) and it was not like some government agency's choice which would give us some more objective criteria to work off. That's my point. As to Eega again, no one has brought it up before (I don't recall it listed when I merged the separate Tamil article over here) and I mentioned it in the #Eega section below. I'm assuming you'll support including that in the Tamil section to be consistent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the form on page 17, only one language is permitted and this is submitted by the producers. I agree that any dubbed dialogue is also inadmissible as you said. I don't see any discussion about bilingual films. It's an interesting point none the less. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ricky81682 If this article is about Highest grossing Indian films why should Language be included at all ? Delete that distinction and the controversy is lost. In the current state of the article, though the Tamil movies made money in other languages and this article is about making money why are other languages not included in Tamil movies section, why do not you include that information ? Why dont you want to add information of atleast All versions in the Tamil language movies section ? I had created a new section on talkpage which was got rid of.. using a bot to archive, though that section was only couple of days old ? And why do you want to add multiple language information only for Baahubali and not any of the Tamil movies? Marchoctober (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in that, suggest it. That was the key part of the merger discussion that started in December 2013. The concern was that Hindu-languge films would dominate the various other languages. I'd advise a separate section rather than a new argument here. From what I can tell, all the films listed include all dubbed language grossing. I've asked about re-wording the "Languages" section to add a note that it's for the languages originally shot in, not dubbed or other things but that got archived I think. Do you think we should clarify it that way? As to your archived comment, are you talking about this archived section? You never responded to my question, what do you want? Just saying that it's "not fairly represented here" is not telling me what you want done. It felt like a random aside related to this discussion rather than a particular point. This is a locked article so I'm (any admin can do it but I'm here so I'm doing it to be helpful) not going to do everything that's suggested until it's clear there's consensus to do so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes I'm definitely interested, you are not being fair being an administrator and participating in the rfc by putting your support on the tamil and Telugu you have to be neutral, you cannot have an opinion, if you already have an opinion how can you judge the outcome of rfc, why do you think so many users are putting support for Telugu only? Why is it that you do not care for consensus? Being an administrator I request you to be neutral and open minded. please add that information with sources that all of the tamil movies mentioned on the article are made in more than one language and that same information needs to be represented on this article, you cannot put multiple languages only for bahubali. Marchoctober (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not judging the outcome of the RFC. It's an open RFC. I'm responding to everyone's points. This page was protected by User:NeilN here not me. Ask NeilN if you want it changed (but see the joke essay m:The Wrong Version for why NeilN may not). I'm trying to be consistent by updating all the numbers for the film together, the way it was protected. If you want to request that someone close the RFC, the proper place is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. As to the Tamil films, can you just put in a separate section for the films, separate from this discussion? You posted a list of films, arguing multiple languages with a multitude of sources. It's not just you arguing with me so these need to be discussed and that's not the way to have a coherent, reasonable discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright you are not judging the outcome of the RFC, but why would you put your support on one side? Would not the guys trying to judge the outcome of the RFC think an administrator is supporting a side probably that side is correct ? As an administrator I suggest you be neutral and remove your support /oppose comment, I find it very one sided especially because someone who is very powerful like an administrator can be in a position to influence the outcome of an RFC, your being neutral is essential and very important, or else it would be a one sided and unfair RFC. Also I will start that new section again, please read and understand before commenting that it makes no sense, earlier when I added that section you were saying what's your point. I do not wish the RFC be closed so quickly a proper discussion is required and why is consensus of no importance ? Why do you think majority of editors want something to be represented in a way ? Because that must have been the correct representation, please have an open mind and listen to both sides, it is important as an administrator for you to do so. Marchoctober (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@User:Ricky81682 Please see below the Tamil films misrepresenting information, you have not responded to my query earlier about a user deleting information, though I provided the diff which shows that the user deleted information relating to Tamil films that all the versions grossed the total amount and also provided sources, have you read through the sources ? Did you understand what I wrote ? All you said was whats your point? As an administrator when someone provides both diffs and sources backing oneself, you better pay attention and understand, I decided you are biased since you did not respond properly hence I started contacting NeilN, now that I see you are responding I am putting forward all this information again. Just Like how the above user talks about Eega film Baahubali should also be represented in one language. If Tamil were represented as Tamil only though they have been released in Telugu and Hindi, similarly Baahubali should be represented only as a Telugu film and not both. Or else all the movies in the list should be listed as released in multiple languages. I have provided reliable sources like BBC above which say it is a Telugu Film but then why is this information not being represented properly? Is it your own assessment that it is both languages? Unless you take a neutral stand on this article I would wish you stay away from this article and Adminstrators like NeilN should probably take over from you, we do not have faith in someone who is so powerful and is taking sides instead of being neutral. Marchoctober (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN Marchoctober (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really have an issue with the Tamil film industry for some reason. Let me start with Enthiran as your source says that it was released in Tamil and then dubbed into English and Telugu so are you now advocating that it should be listed in every language it was dubbed in? As I noted, PK was just released in China dubbed in Mandarin so do you think there should be a List of highest grossing Indian films in the Mandarin-language on that basis? You are still disputing that a film that is shot in two language shouldn't be listed in both though, right? I'm trying to see if you have an actual consistent, logical rule here or not. My view is pretty straightforward: use the language(s) it was shot in, ignore all the dubbed versions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ricky81682 If need be I may be forced to start and arbitration on the administrators board only to discuss Ricky81682 's neutrality. Being powerful and taking sides is very dangerous, also editing the article after it has been locked down, it is unacceptable.
I have literally seen you revert information on this page 3 times continously which is edit warring but you being an administrator got away with it I can provide the diffs. please see below:

diff1 diff2 diff3

Its really shit scary to normal users like me who do not have any power to see a powerful administrator indulge in edit warring , I really request User Ricky to stay neutral and if possible stay away from the article. Marchoctober (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was this really a rewrite of the article? Do you think the fact that you removed the film section from the Tamil section during your "rewrite" isn't going to WP:BOOMERANG on you? Do you think no one is going to ask you about that? You're also not arguing that an edit I did was wrong but that I didn't go through the protection and remove it from the Tamil section? Your objection is ultimately that when I updated the Baahubali numbers, I didn't also remove it from the Tamil section, correct? That I kept the status quo that NeilN protected? The RFC is still open so I think it would be edit warring for someone to actually change it now while there's still a discussion ongoing. But again, if you want to report it, go ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the difference between Dubbing and making in two languages ? The film was made only once, it was not made multiple times for god sake! Anyways lets accept your argument but, It comes from the Telugu Film industry which needs to be represented somewhere, as an administrator I request you to figure out a way, that could be like adding an additional column which says Film industry and keep the language column as is, then you may represent both languages. Why do not you try to find an amicable solution to this controversy instead of just locking the page you may re-open it and resolve the controversy. Marchoctober (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is in poor taste where you seem to dare me to report it (edit warring), all I am saying is you seem to be emotionally attached to this article, taking sides on the RFC inspite of being an adminstrator is really shocking for me Marchoctober (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is going off topic. Take it to WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If administrators take biasing approach, no one can argue with them and then all the Wikipedia pages are to be sourced by administrators only. When a user edits a page and the administrator reverts back taking biasing approach, what is the use of Wikipedia in public domain. I have clearly mentioned about Eega with source that it has to be submitted for National awards only for Telugu language by the producers although it is a multilingual film. If Eega Tamil version producer PVP Cinema(different from Telugu version producer) submitted for Tamil version, it could have been rejected citing that it is a copied version. If Tamil websites are mentioning that Bahubali[2] as highest grossing Telugu movie and Enthiran [3] as highest grossing Tamil movie, then how can Wikipedia consider Bahubali as Telugu and Tamil move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 08:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why is consensus of no importance to you ? There are far too many editors who want to see the article in a way which it is not currently represented as you have managed. Marchoctober (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My changing information on the page whether it will boomerang or not how do you know ? You should have waited for other users, there are so many articles on the wikipedia which do not have sources but they stay there only because of consensus why did you not wait for consensus ? why do you make changes to the article personally and why dont you wait for other users ? Please think like an admin, who waits and sees how other users react, they do not take action personally on the article, why do you have such a personal affiliation towards the article? Marchoctober (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I struck that comment. I'll drop it. Waited for what? Are you talking before protection or after protection? After protection, I haven't done a thing to change the actual disputed issue in the RFC, namely Baahuabli's languages. Are you objecting to the changes in their box office results? You can't be objecting to edits to any other films since that hasn't nothing to do with what's in dispute. Should I have to wait and engage your "all these users show their support of Tamil language" and are biased arguments? It's not a vote, especially when you're violating the canvassing rules with posts like this and this and now you've moved from it's Telugu only because whatever reason to now wanting others films listed as bilingual based on their dubbed versions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concerned administrator never cared for the language when Vishwaroopam was made simultaneously in Tamil and Hindi(It's User Bhuvannalla, who changed the language from Tamil to "Tamil and Hindi" for Vishwaroopam). Similarly, the concerned administrator never cared for the language when Eega was put only in Highest grossing Telugu movies though it wass made simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil. The concerned administrator never cared for language of Bahubali(It was mentioned as only Telugu) until it crossed the gross collections of highest grossing Tamil movie "Enthiran". The administartor never cared for the situation when we type Highest grossing Indian films in google, it shows Highest grossing Tamil films in the brief description of Wikipedia (Though I raised it in his Talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.135.5 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to know what films are in what languages? And the amount of discussion going on at #Eega shows your real interests here. And no I can't fix Google's spidering issue but if you really take offense to that, ask it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Boy do some people really have a chip on their shoulder. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ricky81682 The admin User:NeilN had asked the other user redpenofdoom to invite other users to participate in RFC, I saw that and I also followed the same but later I was warned by User:NeilN I did not know about Canvassing rule until NeilN had warned me and immediately after he warned me I never repeated it. The previous version when it was locked was Telugu only but this time just before it was locked it was edited by this user see diff and then it was locked Marchoctober (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:CANVASS. Asking people to vote in the Telugu section is not the way to do it. Do it in a neutral format. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If not by vote what is the way you want this RFC to be resolved? Why are you not being neutral by removing your support comment ? Marchoctober (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, stop pinging me. It's annoying and I'm sure NeilN won't appreciate it either. Because I explained my reasoning there. It's the format. I want someone to evaluate the arguments and decide whichever ones are better based on policy grounds. Whoever said I claimed to be neutral on this issue? I have a view (I started the RFC for a reason). Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is not productive. Does the view of how to classify Baahubali affect whether or not we have a reliable source about the Kannada films? Only if you're holding a grudge because you're not getting your way on that one issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say you have stooped to my level and presented your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality as well, your above edits show what i say. Marchoctober (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not supposed to know what films are in what languages? Then why are you giving importance to the language of Bahubali, when you left the language of other movies to users. Leave it to users, who are updating the information.

Now that you have said you are not neutral I may have to go reach out for other adminstrators, as your administering the article is no longer valid as an admin, you are equal to a user while on this article because you are opinionated. Marchoctober (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would not this diff constitue as edit warring as there was an active RFC when this edit was made ? Why have you supported it why have you not undone it ? Because it represents your opinion on the RFC ? Power in wrong hands leads to bad things in the world. Marchoctober (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AN3 is that way. Feel free to discuss it with another admin there as no matter what I won't be blocking anyone when I'm clearly involved. There's only about 1300 more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per involved you must not act as an admin ever on that page but you have violated by acting like one until now, you should not edit the article. You have been editing the article from the day it was locked. And I strongly believe that you have made multiple biased edits, so you stay away from editing the page anymore. I am really surprised, I have never come across any admin who has such strong biases. You have to contact other Admins on Wikipedia:NoticeboardsMarchoctober (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchoctober: Having violated WP:CANVASS, you're in no position to accuse Ricky81682. You clearly don't understand the very basic purpose of an RFC and how it works. —Vensatry (ping) 16:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second break

From all the above conversations, not even a single user is claiming that Bahubali is a Tamil only movie. But lot of users claim that it is a Telugu only movie. Wikipedia administrators have to think that how such strong urge will come from certain users saying that it is Telugu only movie but not even a single user is claiming that it is a Tamil only movie(even though one section is created for "Tamil only" in the RFC) if it is assumed as a bilingual movie by neutral users. There should be certain users, who should try to own that it is a Tamil only movie. This almost shows that it is not at all a Tamil movie as no one is claiming it as a Tamil movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it is very difficult to come to a conclusion regarding the language of Bahubali, the consensus should be obtained in the following way. Count all the votes in favor of "Tamil only movie" and in favor of "Telugu only movie". Allocate one vote each for each category in whose favor it is voted. Split the neutral (both Telugu and Tamil movie) votes and allocate each vote one in favor of "Tamil only movie" and one in favor of "Telugu only movie" as neutral voters supported both the languages. If "Tamil only" votes are far greater than "Telugu only" votes, term it as a Tamil movie. If "Telugu only" votes are far greater than "Tamil only" votes, term it as a Telugu movie. If both votes are nearly equal in number, term it as a "Telugu and Tamil movie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

better yet, we should include the bias of the Tamils. It's clearly a Telugu film by those who really get how the two people work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.83.143 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's mighty convenient for you to suggest ignoring the predominant opinion. It's approaching tendentious editing and is considered a disruptive use of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive Indian films is Telugu only. We should be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.216 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That another article in inappropriately reporting data does not mean that we should follow suit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the information that this film originates from Telugu Film industry and definitely not from Tamil film industry not present on the article? Only additionally it is made in Tamil language. Why is the information that the film origination is from Telugu film industry not being represented on this article? Why is it being so strongly stopped from being represented that the film originates from Telugu film industry and how should that information be represented other than like in language??

You guys do not want to represent this information on the article in form of language then you propose - How would you represent this information on the article? You have to come up with some form of representation of that information.Marchoctober (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop, right now, making wild, unsupported, false claims about other editors intentions. Any one reading this page and taking even a cursory look at the contributions will see who is flailing in wild nonsensical realm that the article should "not represent" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the way to representing this information here but none of you are willing to co-operate or understand what i am saying. Marchoctober (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested adding more trivia in a manner that is not supported by the way the sources . That is not going to happen. we represent the topic as the majority of reliable sources represent the subject - they DO NOT concern themselves with "industry". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why include all versions in language-specific collections and other questions

1. How come dubbed or parallel versions get added to language specific collections? For example, when we list a film in the category of highest Tamil language collection, the collection should be only of the version of Tamil language without including Telugu or Hindi versions. It is absolutely wrong to add dubbed/parallel versions of another language into a certain language and jack up the collections. The best example currently is Baahubali. The global figures list is correct to have all version collections, but when it comes to Tamil or Telugu languages, the collection there should be of Tamil or Telugu Baahubali collections (only as the case may be). By adding all versions collections into Baahubali for Tamil and Telugu language specific, it is gross injustice to other movies in that list that were released only in one language. The same holds for Endhiran, I, Viswaroopam etc. It will then be good to compare the films within that language rather than the absolutely meaningless list now where Tamil Baahubali collected about 80 crores, but has been given 556 crores!!

2. In the global figures list, it will be good to demarcate the following: Domestic and Non-domestic. It will be interesting to see which movies had good domestic market and non-domestic market. For example, Baahubali will top the domestic list, but will only be third over all. This is again a helpful and interesting addition.

3. In the same global figures list, collections for dubbed and original version can also be mentioned. This way we will know how much the original movie collection was where absolutely lot more focus is given.

4. Number of footfalls, world wide nett, average per theater show, etc. are other interesting additions to the global list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordProsperity (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list of the highest grossing Indian films, and so we provide the highest gross. Other than sporadic niche coverage, no one breaks out the figures based the way you are suggesting and so we dont either. You are fee to make your own blog somewhere and provide every variation of cut that tingles your interest, but we are not a fansite.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redpen This is not a fan site, and this is not a stupid site either. Stop judging people just because you don't understand something. You are not even able to answer a direct question instead you are trying to bully people? If you don't have proper knowledge about indian film industry, and if you are not mature enough to understand, stay silent or stay away from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.149.255 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer why a specific language version must include all other language version collections. This data is available on the net. In fact wiki provides the same for every movie. Regarding other suggestions, yes they are not easily available, I agree. But your answer asking me to put up a blog elsewhere is very condescending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordProsperity (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the List of highest grossing films. It is not Portion of gross of film incurred under X conditions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why have the heading "Highest grossing Tamil films" ("Portion of gross film under X conditions" as you claim where X is Tamil language). That list should have only Tamil specific collection otherwise just have one single table and list all the movies in that. Highest Baahubali Tamil gross is definitely not 594 crores - it is factually incorrect. So also Baahubali Telugu gross. The TOTAL gross has been listed in the first table and that rightly includes all languages. The other tables should just stick to the language specific versions as their respective headings clearly say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.147.191.23 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE

Why is real information being stopped from being represented if there was any misrepresented information then it may be prevented to be on the article, when an article gives all the information including the details, the article appeals more to the reader, rather than avoiding and hiding information, which serves no purpose, it is good to present all information. What is the purpose of hiding information?? Not providing full complete information makes the article more unclear as information becomes applicable to context ? When read out of context the information gets misrepresented. Marchoctober (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To explain context here in Telugu language if the film baahubali is represented is it possible to calculate the exact money it gained only by filming in Telugu language? There are only number available for the film released in all versions, so that same information along with All versions has to be represented if not out of context the film will be misrepresented as if it made all money only from one language though it is made in multiple and released in multiple languages.Marchoctober (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one, nowhere, cares to separate films into film revenues by language. You can't find a single reliable source that cares about which language tickets are made in. If you can find the hundreds of sources required to do that, please provide those. Otherwise, people aren't particularly interested in your newest argument that would require hundreds of volunteer hours by others about something that no one other than you seemingly cares about and all of which looks like another of your latest attempts to attack a particular film because a particular Indian social group may or may not be attached to that film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

Tamil Actor Superstar #Vijay's #Thuppakki movie is the biggest blockbuster movie in 2012.. But Wikipedia team never added it in highest grossing tamil films list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Highest_grossing_Tamil_films #Thuppakki collected 180 crores. but your team never added it. For proof pls check : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms and see another proof Official Source with statement : http://content.icicidirect.com/mailimages/IDirect_ErosIntl_Q3FY13.pdf if you can't believe we have a video proof in which #Thuppakki producer kalaipuli S thanu said "Thuppakki collected 180 crores"...Please add immediately now to this highest grossing tamil film list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Highest_grossing_Tamil_films Haariiss (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ev, one thing that concerns me about this request, is that both sources seem to attribute the film company as the source of the information. "Eros International announced the release of financial results for the quarter ending 31st December, 2012. As per the announcement made by Eros, Thuppakki made a total box office collection of Rs. 180 crore (domestic) There's no indication that Times of India verified the claim independently, and although we can use primary sources (an actor, a producer, a press release) for some types of information, we can't use primary sources for controversial content, which would include box office receipts. A movie studio would absolutely have a reason to inflate their success, which presents a conflict of interest. Thoughts? (I know you know all the wikilinked stuff stuff, I'm explaining in detail for the benefit of other users, including the one who opened the request.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: yeah you're right. I found two other sources from later dates that put Thuppakki under 100 crore. ([4], [5]) I'm going to remove it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sources only indicate domestic gross, not worldwide. The other films show worldwide gross. Is that an issue? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

The latest reference provided for Bajrangi Bhaijaan gross does not seem authentic or reliable. The numbers simply do not add up. Koimoi shows a global gross of 609cr. The movie is at the end of its run and a 16cr gross seems unlikely. Inspiredrighteous (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that was not a valid source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of highest-grossing Indian films

fixed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of highest-grossing Indian films's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sarkar":
  • From Bollywood: Sarkar, Bhaskar (2008). "The Melodramas of Globalization". Cultural Dynamics. 20: 31–51 [34]. doi:10.1177/0921374007088054. Madhava Prasad traces the origin of the term to a 1932 article in the American Cinematographer by Wilford E. Deming, an American engineer who apparently helped produce the first Indian sound picture. At this point, the Calcutta suburb of Tollygunge was the main centr of film production in India. Deming refers to the area as Tollywood, since it already boasted two studios with 'several more projected' (Prasad, 2003) 'Tolly', rhyming with 'Holly', got hinged to 'wood' in the Anglophone Indian imagination, and came to denote the Calcutta studios and, by extension, the local film industry. Prasad surmises: 'Once Tollywood was made possible by the fortuitous availability of a half-rhyme, it was easy to clone new Hollywood babies by simply replacing the first letter' (Prasad, 2003).
  • From Cinema of India: Sarkar, Bhaskar (2008). "The Melodramas of Globalization". Cultural Dynamics. 20 (1): 31–51 [34]. doi:10.1177/0921374007088054.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2015

217.191.165.132 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Vijay´s Kaththi Film has a total run of 160 crore and Vijay´s Thuppakki has a total run of 130 crore, pls edit it in Tamil Films[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

Why tamil is there in bahubali , as it is a telugu film you should only mention it as telugu film... Pinky321 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above. We need an outside administrator to review the consensus and make a decision. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC close

I can't remember how we normally close talkpage RFCs (do we use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, for example?), so I'll give a decision and a closing rationale and ask anyone to do the actual closing with my rationale.

Closing this RFC as Tamil and Telugu. The both-languages side has provided strength of sourcing, and the arguments of the Telugu-only side are weaker in sourcing and, indeed, appear to suffer from a lack of reality. Pradeeps369 makes a decent argument, suggesting that there's a standard classification (i.e. this is unambiguously Tollywood, so it should just be listed under Telugu), but no solid reasoning is given for making it a classification instead of a categorisation: why must it be only one, and why can't it be both Tollywood and Kollywood? Elspamo4 makes a good response, arguing that it's both.

Final advice, i.e. not part of the close itself: it would help if you'd come up with a way of indicating that this film and Vishwaroopam have editions in both languages, because when I came along and saw the discussion, I initially thought they were macaronic, i.e. a single film incorporating dialogue in both languages. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every one knows and regard Baahubali as a Telugu movie but only the administrators are giving Tamil touch to it because in RFC clearly they classified movie as Tamil-Telugu instead of Telugu-Tamil. Only the administrators are in favour of Tamil and no user is involved in favouring it to Tamil which clearly explains .... it is Telugu movie. There is a difference between a movie which is single film incorporating dialogues from two languages which can be stated as bilingual movie but in this case it is a Telugu movie which is shot additionally in tamil how can they consider it as a bilingual film. Here no administrator is considering or bothered about the production or the team which made the movie. They are mainly bothered about the language, not a single administrator know about the film industries in India. There are many film industries which have their own rules and regulations and no film industry is related to one another. They have their own elections and representatives, taxations, etc and the list goes so on... If you don't consider these they what is the need to maintain this page. Then why hundreds of movie websites are running separately based on the different film industries. No relevant collections were considered in case of this movie. Tamil version of the movie which collected approx. 80 crores mentioned as 600 crores movie although it as nothing to do about Tamil. In international film festivals it will be released and also regarded as Telugu movie by the international media. Even in all the award nominations next year it will be clearly in TELUGU NOMINATIONS NOT TAMIL and all the awards will be declared in Telugu category only. Please do not provide such irrelevant and wrong data by giving wrong assumptions to people.
Padukati raju (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we didnt consider collections. We considered whether the reliable sources presented that the film was created as a bilingual film. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to Nyttend's actual concern, most Indian films are dubbed in multiple languages but perhaps a note or something can be worked on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2015

Baahubali 72 days collection now 650 crores. Please update. http://aajkanaukri.howwhenandwhere.com/baahubali-72-days-collection

Mohitjoshi2410 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We only use reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight - like major news papers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Bengali) films

As per the merge consensus achieved to merge all Indian films into 1 article. No sources has been provided in article and would require refs to be added before merge. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - we already have bengali languaeg films listed and there is no sourced content to merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Seems like redirect is the way to go if the "merge from" article is unsourced. If the content can be sourced, then perhaps it could be merged. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2015

Tollywood movie srimanthudu has collected more than 200 crores according to latest stats but still showing the old stats Dharmendra Reddy Nara (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source as requested: http://movies.ndtv.com/regional/from-mahesh-babu-to-srimanthudu-director-with-love-1220314 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.143 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015

Thuppakki total box office collection(all versions) is Rs. 138.56 crores and Kaththi total box box office collection is Rs. 144.5 crores (tamil version)(approx) 103.232.239.71 (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2015

1.32.70.80 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

Add Thuppaki to Tamil Highest Grossers as it collected 180 Crores in the Box Office citation http://www.moviecrow.com/News/1959/eros-announces-thuppaki-collected-rs180-crore Full Analysis Report : http://www.kollyinsider.com/2013/01/thuppakki-50-days-box-office-collections.html Ashikvc (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The site you have chosen as your reference appears to be a blog with no established reputation for fact-checking. Please find a unique source from a reliable publication. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

Remove Veeram as It has collected only 77.5cr gross which does not include Satellite Rights and Dubbing Rights. Forbes Report is the total amount collected which does not come under theatrical gross(Amount Collected at the Theatre Box Office alone). The Total Box Office Collection of Veeram Report is here : http://www.metromasti.com/kollywood/news/Veeram-Vs-Jilla-worldwide-box-office-17-days-collection-2912014/37713 Ashikvc (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Gross box office values are what WikiProject Film cares about. We don't include DVD sales, TV rebroadcast, etc. etc. We aren't here to do detailed accounting of films, only to present basic information like budget and gross, which, by the way, are already of highly questionable reliability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thuppakki Box Office Collection Change request.

This is the Annual Financial Report Submitted by Eros International To ICICI bank. This clearly explains the Thuppaki Total Gross which stands at 180 crores. citation: http://content.icicidirect.com/mailimages/IDirect_ErosIntl_Q3FY13.pdf This Information which has been submitted to the bank is surely not fake. Eros clearly has to pay tax for the amount they have said in their report. If this is not enough and as you have already told moviecrow information which is a huge kollywood review site and timesofindia which is again a huge Indian newspaper articles(Its a National newspaper they can't just write incorrect articles without verification), I am resubmitting this. Based on this please add Thuppakki to the list. citing timesofindia link again: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms

122.164.190.4 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Times is merely reporting that Eros stated they made a lot of money. Do you have third party that puts their validation on the clam? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

The box office gross of Malayalam movie Drishyam, mentioned in the page is 60 crores. But the reference clearly mentions that, the said amount is only the amount collected in its theater run. The total gross of the movie is 75 crores according to their official facebook page.Reference - https://www.facebook.com/Movie.Drishyam/photos/a.586080214764319.1073741826.583839468321727/725803677458638/?type=3&theater It is requested to make the needful change. Athul Biju (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what is verifiable by reliably published third party sources, not pages with no editorial oversight and a conflict of interest that would lead them to overstate the income. If you have a more recent third party source that gives a higher number, please present it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thuppaki collection change

Add Thuppaki to Tamil Highest Grossers as it collected 180 Crores in the Box Office citation http://www.moviecrow.com/News/1959/eros-announces-thuppaki-collected-rs180-crore Full Analysis Report : http://www.kollyinsider.com/2013/01/thuppakki-50-days-box-office-collections.html Ashikvc (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The site you have chosen as your reference appears to be a blog with no established reputation for fact-checking. Please find a unique source from a reliable publication. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

Remove Veeram as It has collected only 77.5cr gross which does not include Satellite Rights and Dubbing Rights. Forbes Report is the total amount collected which does not come under theatrical gross(Amount Collected at the Theatre Box Office alone). The Total Box Office Collection of Veeram Report is here : http://www.metromasti.com/kollywood/news/Veeram-Vs-Jilla-worldwide-box-office-17-days-collection-2912014/37713 Ashikvc (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Gross box office values are what WikiProject Film cares about. We don't include DVD sales, TV rebroadcast, etc. etc. We aren't here to do detailed accounting of films, only to present basic information like budget and gross, which, by the way, are already of highly questionable reliability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thuppakki Box Office Collection Change request.

This is the Annual Financial Report Submitted by Eros International To ICICI bank. This clearly explains the Thuppaki Total Gross which stands at 180 crores. citation: http://content.icicidirect.com/mailimages/IDirect_ErosIntl_Q3FY13.pdf This Information which has been submitted to the bank is surely not fake. Eros clearly has to pay tax for the amount they have said in their report. If this is not enough and as you have already told moviecrow information which is a huge kollywood review site and timesofindia which is again a huge Indian newspaper articles(Its a National newspaper they can't just write incorrect articles without verification), I am resubmitting this. Based on this please add Thuppakki to the list. citing timesofindia link again: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijays-Thuppakki-makes-180-crore/articleshow/18691254.cms

Request #2

If you can accept IBTimes as a proof then watch this slideshow of top 10 grossers and can you please add Missing Movies(Thuppakki,Arrambam,Kanchana 2) and remove Veeram from the List. For your kind Information, This List Was prepared 5 months after Veeram Release and it clearly explains how Veeram is not a high grosser instead Ajith Kumar's Arrambam is indeed a high grosser.

Link: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/photos/all-time-highest-grossing-tamil-films-2881-slide-21707


122.164.190.4 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - You have already requested this change and it was declined. We don't use primary sources, in this case the production company, for controversial and potentially self gratifying box office values. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request #2

If you can accept IBTimes as a proof then watch this slideshow of top 10 grossers and can you please add Missing Movies(Thuppakki,Arrambam,Kanchana 2) and remove Veeram from the List. For your kind Information, This List Was prepared 5 months after Veeram Release and it clearly explains how Veeram is not a high grosser instead Ajith Kumar's Arrambam is indeed a high grosser.

Link: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/photos/all-time-highest-grossing-tamil-films-2881-slide-21707

122.164.190.4 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Your slideshow link puts Thuppakki's gross at 122 crore, Arramban's at 124, and Kanchana's at 113. The IBTimes puts Veeram at 130

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/vijays-kaththi-ajiths-veeram-top-grossing-tamil-films-2014-618958 Cannolis (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but IBTimes took the reference from Forbes. Forbes mentioned it like "earned 130 crores" they din't mention the word box office anywhere. As we have clearly discussed that the box office collection is what is taken into account. That 130 crore for Veeram is based on a huge confusion caused by Forbes which is Inclusive of Satellite Rights. Thus, I suggest you to update the list to [1]. Again to you're clarity Veeram 130 crores is inclusive of the satellite rights and distributor share, without it Veeram just minted 77.5 crores at the Box Office as the film ran for very few days as it shared screens with Jilla. There is a difference between earned and Grossed. Inclusive of all shares and rights the film earned 132 crores that's what Forbes told and Forbes article was not focused on Veeram Collection but on the top 100 celeb list on India. Ashikvc (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see on the Forbes source where it specifies the earnings as inclusive of satellite rights. Do you have a link to a different Forbes reference that states this? I also do not see on the IBTimes slideshow that the gross figures are not inclusive of satellite rights. If you can find reliable sources for each film that clearly discern between pure box office and total gross, will reconsider Cannolis (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ibtimes.co.in/photos/all-time-highest-grossing-tamil-films-2881-slide-21707

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

Telugu movie srimanthudu collections full run stands at 144.45 http://www.ibtimes.co.in/srimanthudu-total-worldwide-box-office-collection-mahesh-babu-starrers-lifetime-earnings-rs-650528 Aravitejareddy (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

In tamil thuppaki grossed 180 crores and Kaththi grossed 160 crores. Please change that... 203.90.4.235 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Changes require that the new claims are verifiable as having been published in a reliable source with a reputation for editorial oversight, like a major newspaper. Do you have a source for your claim? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F686718315

Leave a Reply