Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Include additional column of Film industry

All the films' information can be sourced and put. By doing so all controversy surrounding language can be avoided, people will not object for multiple langauges being represented. Marchoctober (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What information? "Industry"? We haven't even settled on directors and producers in all the tables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious I would not get my way when I am arguing with a strongly opinionated Adminstrator, who wants to drive his opinion. The only way for me is to fight as hard as I can since I am against someone far powerful than myself, you may call me WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for that but, myself from USA my time is 2:36 am california on a weekday, though I gotta work in the morning I am staying up and putting up a fight because I know that the truth has to prevail.
Film industry is the column which represents where the film originates from. Marchoctober (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so we're in the same state, good to know. Ok, but how is that determined? How would something like the films at English-language Indian films be categorized? Looking at something like 36 Chowringhee Lane, we have a Bengali director, a Hindi-industry producer, a British/Bollywood lead actress, Bollywood cinematographer, a musician who seems to work in both Bengali and Hindu music, shot in Kolkata, and with a Hindi-working art director. Would it just be a debate on how much the film itself feels like it's Bengali cinema? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Its plain and simple you have to look for sources, put what the sources say. That will be mostly the production house/studio where the film originates. Marchoctober (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Question: - Do you want the studios that produced the films to be listed (e.g., Pixar)? That is, list the company that can be found in the "Production company" section of infoboxes on the films' article pages? One problem might be that there are often multiple studios (e.g., Inside Out was produced by Pixar and Walt Disney), but I think we could handle that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, producers we already have. I think Marchoctober is suggesting that akin to industry as he used here. I'm presuming a separate new column and not a replacement for the language column (but I don't know). For Baahubali, it removes any hint of the Tamil language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no point in explaining something to a user who adamantly refuses to understand how things work here. ("The only way for me is to fight as hard as I can since I am against someone far powerful than myself, you may call me WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for that but,"). Perhaps, the user should understand Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability. —Vensatry _(ping) 06:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is to have a separate column called "Industry" in addition to the present columns. In that way there will be no misrepresentation of any information and neither we will withhold any information.

For example "Baahubali The beginning" will be like

Year - 2015

Studios - Arka Media

Language - Telugu & Tamil

Industry - Tollywood (Telugu Film industry)

World wide gross - ₹515 crore (US$80 million)

This way, the films background can be truly represented and i don't think anyone in particular would have a problem with that. I feel it's just not satisfying individuals but Justice done 20.132.68.149 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any proposal to add an 'industry' column for reasons already outlined numerous times on this talk page. There is no definitive criteria as to what constitutes an 'industry', and I haven't been able to find any authoritative references to 'industries'. If you can find a source regarding film industries, published by a government agency (or an equally authoritative body), then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I am inclined to believe that this proposal is just an attempt to right great wrongs. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We get it. That was Marchoctober's way to make sure that Baahuabli doesn't mention Tamil as all, namely change it from language (which for all intents and purpose is at least straightforward) to the more vague "industry" so that Baahubali can be Telugu only. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682 No, what i actually mean is have both columns "Language & Industry". That doesn't take away Tamil from it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.149 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't support having a language column. If we removed the column but kept Baahubali on the Tamil list, do you really think that solves anything? No, it'd be the same fighting over removing the film from that table. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, lets also have industry column in every language list That way baahubali can be kept in Tamil list but it will be tagged as a product of Tollywood. That might help reach consensus and stop fighting. Just a thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.149.255 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• oppose none of the sources talk about this aspect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Include additional column of Film industry

All the films' information can be sourced and put. By doing so all controversy surrounding language can be avoided, people will not object for multiple langauges being represented. Marchoctober (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What information? "Industry"? We haven't even settled on directors and producers in all the tables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious I would not get my way when I am arguing with a strongly opinionated Adminstrator, who wants to drive his opinion. The only way for me is to fight as hard as I can since I am against someone far powerful than myself, you may call me WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for that but, myself from USA my time is 2:36 am california on a weekday, though I gotta work in the morning I am staying up and putting up a fight because I know that the truth has to prevail.
Film industry is the column which represents where the film originates from. Marchoctober (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so we're in the same state, good to know. Ok, but how is that determined? How would something like the films at English-language Indian films be categorized? Looking at something like 36 Chowringhee Lane, we have a Bengali director, a Hindi-industry producer, a British/Bollywood lead actress, Bollywood cinematographer, a musician who seems to work in both Bengali and Hindu music, shot in Kolkata, and with a Hindi-working art director. Would it just be a debate on how much the film itself feels like it's Bengali cinema? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Its plain and simple you have to look for sources, put what the sources say. That will be mostly the production house/studio where the film originates. Marchoctober (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Question: - Do you want the studios that produced the films to be listed (e.g., Pixar)? That is, list the company that can be found in the "Production company" section of infoboxes on the films' article pages? One problem might be that there are often multiple studios (e.g., Inside Out was produced by Pixar and Walt Disney), but I think we could handle that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, producers we already have. I think Marchoctober is suggesting that akin to industry as he used here. I'm presuming a separate new column and not a replacement for the language column (but I don't know). For Baahubali, it removes any hint of the Tamil language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no point in explaining something to a user who adamantly refuses to understand how things work here. ("The only way for me is to fight as hard as I can since I am against someone far powerful than myself, you may call me WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for that but,"). Perhaps, the user should understand Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability. —Vensatry _(ping) 06:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is to have a separate column called "Industry" in addition to the present columns. In that way there will be no misrepresentation of any information and neither we will withhold any information.

For example "Baahubali The beginning" will be like

Year - 2015

Studios - Arka Media

Language - Telugu & Tamil

Industry - Tollywood (Telugu Film industry)

World wide gross - ₹515 crore (US$80 million)

This way, the films background can be truly represented and i don't think anyone in particular would have a problem with that. I feel it's just not satisfying individuals but Justice done 20.132.68.149 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any proposal to add an 'industry' column for reasons already outlined numerous times on this talk page. There is no definitive criteria as to what constitutes an 'industry', and I haven't been able to find any authoritative references to 'industries'. If you can find a source regarding film industries, published by a government agency (or an equally authoritative body), then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I am inclined to believe that this proposal is just an attempt to right great wrongs. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We get it. That was Marchoctober's way to make sure that Baahuabli doesn't mention Tamil as all, namely change it from language (which for all intents and purpose is at least straightforward) to the more vague "industry" so that Baahubali can be Telugu only. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682 No, what i actually mean is have both columns "Language & Industry". That doesn't take away Tamil from it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.149 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't support having a language column. If we removed the column but kept Baahubali on the Tamil list, do you really think that solves anything? No, it'd be the same fighting over removing the film from that table. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, lets also have industry column in every language list That way baahubali can be kept in Tamil list but it will be tagged as a product of Tollywood. That might help reach consensus and stop fighting. Just a thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.149.255 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• oppose none of the sources talk about this aspect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Malayalam films

Don't include Malayalam films. They don't have any proper box office revenue auditing site or any at all. If you check, you can see different figures in various box office reports. Most of the films revenue are disputed, which are only known to the producers. Only include films from those languages which have reliable box office revenue auditing sites or dedicated reliable sources, otherwise it will question the reliablity and reputation of Wikipedia's List of highest-grossing Indian films article. Thanks--Charles Turing (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources used in that section (IBTimes, Times of India, Economic Times) are all reliable sources. You're gonna need a lot of evidence to support your claim that the figures are unreliable from these sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No part of the indian film industry has a proper auditing and accounting- the lack is described in the lead of the article. All of the figures for every entry are mere estimates. That is why we need to be particularly careful about using only reliably published sources - among which are the major news publications listed above -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Here i support (talk) as the list is sourced with proper way and are leading article writers in India (IBTimes, Times of India, Economic Times). So i think it should stay. Thanks....Ambeinghari (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Then we should keep only the films sourced from box office auditing sites like BoxofficeIndia, BoxofficeMojo, Rentrak etc which are more reliable than news sites, no matter how reputed they are. In the case of Malayalam films, only Bangalore Days, Drishyam and Twenty:20 has multiple reliable sources with same BO figures. And also there is an income source citing directly from the producer in it's press meet speech for Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja, which is less than the source from TOI, which is probably a mistake. So only the fans of these films wish to include a section for Malayalam films. And Wiki is welcoming them to spoil the article. --Charles Turing (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

So according to you we should remove list of highest grossing malayalam movies. If thats the case then only Bollywood movies have proper sources like BoxofficeIndia, BoxofficeMojo, Rentrak. No other film industry have official box office figures. So we should consider other reliable sources like IBTimes, Times Of India, NDTV etc. No point in removing malayalam section. Ambeinghari (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2015

Please change Oru Vadakkan Selfie (21 crores) from the 6th position in Highest Grossing Malayalam Films to 7th position and add Narasimham (film) (22 crores) to 6th. Source is [1]. 106.76.213.174 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Verified and  Done. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Order of films

What order should we put the films in? It had been alphabetical in the past but in this edit User:Ari0005 moved Tamil and Telugu to just below Hindi films. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

After Hindi films Tamil and Telugu are having bigger and larger market and revenue for films in India but I think it should be listed in alphabetical order which is best for these type of articles. Regards Ambeinghari (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• alpha order -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Default should be alphabetical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Since we have the list of top grossing regardless of language, I don't see the need to order the sections buy gross. Order them alphabetically. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015 a

BAAHUBALI is at top http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/08/14/oops-pk-is-not-actually-indias-top-grossing-movie-ever/ Adityaragaditya (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Source does not support this. Says PK is no longer domestic top grossing. Still top grossing globally. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015 b

Vijay´s Kaththi 2014 release Tamil Film had a box office run about 180+ crore. Pls correct it in Top Tamil Films. 217.191.173.194 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Reliable source required. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

Baahubali is not a Tamil it's wholly a Telugu (Tollywood) film.

Kindly remove it from Tamil grossers Harishbabunuthi (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: See talk page archives. please note that the "language" column does not refer to a specific subset of Indian film industry such as Tollywood/Kollywood/Mollywood, etc. It simply refers to the languages the movie was shot in, not merely dubbed into Cannolis (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If it was pnly referring to the language it was shot in, why include collections from other languages in that list? Tamil movie list should have only Tamil collections and so for other languages. The global list is the first one that has all versions. The rest are language specific, so should include collections from only that language.

see the sources and the discussion above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Include additional column of Film industry

All the films' information can be sourced and put. By doing so all controversy surrounding language can be avoided, people will not object for multiple langauges being represented. Marchoctober (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What information? "Industry"? We haven't even settled on directors and producers in all the tables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious I would not get my way when I am arguing with a strongly opinionated Adminstrator, who wants to drive his opinion. The only way for me is to fight as hard as I can since I am against someone far powerful than myself, you may call me WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for that but, myself from USA my time is 2:36 am california on a weekday, though I gotta work in the morning I am staying up and putting up a fight because I know that the truth has to prevail.
Film industry is the column which represents where the film originates from. Marchoctober (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so we're in the same state, good to know. Ok, but how is that determined? How would something like the films at English-language Indian films be categorized? Looking at something like 36 Chowringhee Lane, we have a Bengali director, a Hindi-industry producer, a British/Bollywood lead actress, Bollywood cinematographer, a musician who seems to work in both Bengali and Hindu music, shot in Kolkata, and with a Hindi-working art director. Would it just be a debate on how much the film itself feels like it's Bengali cinema? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Its plain and simple you have to look for sources, put what the sources say. That will be mostly the production house/studio where the film originates. Marchoctober (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Question: - Do you want the studios that produced the films to be listed (e.g., Pixar)? That is, list the company that can be found in the "Production company" section of infoboxes on the films' article pages? One problem might be that there are often multiple studios (e.g., Inside Out was produced by Pixar and Walt Disney), but I think we could handle that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, producers we already have. I think Marchoctober is suggesting that akin to industry as he used here. I'm presuming a separate new column and not a replacement for the language column (but I don't know). For Baahubali, it removes any hint of the Tamil language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no point in explaining something to a user who adamantly refuses to understand how things work here. ("The only way for me is to fight as hard as I can since I am against someone far powerful than myself, you may call me WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for that but,"). Perhaps, the user should understand Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability. —Vensatry _(ping) 06:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is to have a separate column called "Industry" in addition to the present columns. In that way there will be no misrepresentation of any information and neither we will withhold any information.

For example "Baahubali The beginning" will be like

Year - 2015

Studios - Arka Media

Language - Telugu & Tamil

Industry - Tollywood (Telugu Film industry)

World wide gross - ₹515 crore (US$80 million)

This way, the films background can be truly represented and i don't think anyone in particular would have a problem with that. I feel it's just not satisfying individuals but Justice done 20.132.68.149 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any proposal to add an 'industry' column for reasons already outlined numerous times on this talk page. There is no definitive criteria as to what constitutes an 'industry', and I haven't been able to find any authoritative references to 'industries'. If you can find a source regarding film industries, published by a government agency (or an equally authoritative body), then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I am inclined to believe that this proposal is just an attempt to right great wrongs. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We get it. That was Marchoctober's way to make sure that Baahuabli doesn't mention Tamil as all, namely change it from language (which for all intents and purpose is at least straightforward) to the more vague "industry" so that Baahubali can be Telugu only. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682 No, what i actually mean is have both columns "Language & Industry". That doesn't take away Tamil from it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.149 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't support having a language column. If we removed the column but kept Baahubali on the Tamil list, do you really think that solves anything? No, it'd be the same fighting over removing the film from that table. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, lets also have industry column in every language list That way baahubali can be kept in Tamil list but it will be tagged as a product of Tollywood. That might help reach consensus and stop fighting. Just a thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.149.255 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• oppose none of the sources talk about this aspect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redpen of doom You have been on this page from the very begining I have presented Multiple sources that the film originates from Telugu film industry Please see the following:

@Ricky81682 Please see the above comment. 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)

Guys You are all simply arguing for the sake of arguing, Why do not you understand that the film originates from Telugu film industry thats why there are so many people claiming it is Telugu film alone also so many sources like above which say it is a Telugu Film, None of the sources or even user claim or declare it is a Tamil film only, It was made only additionally in Tamil as there are Heavy Tax benefits by making in Tamil language and releasing in Tamil Language. Marchoctober (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Abecedare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchoctober (talk • contribs) 06:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should each of you do original research as what film industry a Film belongs as long as you have proper sources for the film industry that information must be represented. Why is there so much discussion ? Please see the below sources where Dubbed Tamil films are heavily Taxed:

• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/drop-in-number-of-dubbed-films-in-tamil-nadu/article3133438.ece
• http://www.indiaglitz.com/no-festive-dubbed-releases-council-tamil-news-73664.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchoctober (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposal is to add yet another column of information that editors are going to have to maintain and keep from being vandalized so that one film, Baahubali: The Beginning, will be prominently labeled/promoted as being made in Tollywood. It's time to drop the stick on this. I've seen some really ridiculous POV arguments over ethnic/language/city/country pride, and this is high atop the list. It's not enough that the article mentions that the film was produced in Tollywood? We need to indiscriminately add that one fact to List articles now? What about when there are disputes about whether a film was made "chiefly" in Tollywood or somewhere else? What if a film was financed by Tollywood, but production was outsourced to other regions? Are we going to add another column to divide up the regional participation so that people are aware that Tollywood was responsible for 51% of this film, thus it is "chiefly" a Tollywood film? The entirety of this dispute can be summed up with a statement from Pradeeps369 at Talk:Baahubali: The Beginning, "People please give due credit to Telugu and stop being cheap and taking the credit for the work that has nothing to do with Tamil"[2] This is an emotional dispute, not a rational one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To add to Cyphoidbomb's post, there are sources that conversely label Baahubali as a Kollywood film: [3], [4], and [5]. I'm positive that this would be the case with almost all other films on the list as well. These divisive proposals are simply attempts to use this article as one of the theatres of a digitized Indian ethnic conflict. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

See this link where it speaks of Telugu Film industry, not Language you are giving me language sources I am speaking of Film industry sources . If you can please provide reliable sources that say that the film originates from Tamil film industry like what I provided for Telugu film industry.Marchoctober (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33503057

We all know what you're talking about, and it's clear that you're here to make sure that one film is credited as a Tollywood production. In most other film articles the "industry" is typically focused on the nation, i.e. the country that produced the film. There's an American film industry, there's an Australian film industry, there's an Italian film industry. However, you're focusing on further subdivisions within Indian cinema. We are not here to perpetuate India's 1000+ year-old system of subdividing their people into arbitrary castes, or subdividing Indian accomplishments according to city, language, ethnicity, etc. This is a global encyclopedia, not the Indian propaganda encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb You better stop giving lectures about indian history and stick to the point. India is divided into number of Film industries and there is nothing wrong in acknowledging facts. Every industry in india has its own strength and they make there own movies. Thanks

@Cyphoidbomb And American, Australian etc.. Film industries can't be compared with Indian film industries as India doesn't have one major language instead it has multiple major languages with considerable number of speakers. Don't blabber just because you have to, Make points that at least makes some sense.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.149.255 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sticking to the point. This discussion was begun solely because a small contingent of editors want the Telugu film industry to be widely credited for a film that was shot in two different languages. This issue was not raised because Marchoctober wants to distinguish the Hindi film industry from the Malayalam film industry. This discussion is directly the result of Marchoctober not liking that consensus didn't swing his way at Talk:Baahubali:_The_Beginning#Primarily_Telugu_Version and now he's started the same argument in a different venue. I am not the only person to observe that this appears to be a language/ethnic/township pride issue, and this is directly relevant to the discussion. Wikipedia is not a battleground for these absurd fights. Tollywood is mentioned in the article. We don't need to expand other articles with trivial bits of information particularly when it's clear after numerous volleys that there are personal interests driving the proposals. Also, watch the personal attacks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anon: Of course there are numerous languages in India, hence why we added the 'language' columns. This proposal is not about languages at all. It's about petty ethnic conflicts and 'one-upping' eachother. This is evidenced in the fact that we already have a language column to present which language a film was shot in - what you're effectually asking us to do, by inserting an 'industry' column, is to take part in your ridiculous politics. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be crude, but I'm tired of playing dumb in regards to your motives. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: While I agree with you sticking to the language (and not industry although weirdly we talk of industry in the language section of that aticle), I disagree with you for adding the collection figures generated in other languages to a specific language. They are outrageously meaningless. Besides your point: "We are not here to perpetuate India's 1000+ year-old system of subdividing their people into arbitrary castes, or subdividing Indian accomplishments according to city, language, ethnicity, etc. This is a global encyclopedia, not the Indian propaganda encyclopedia." is totally offensive. Who is this "we" as if you are a representative of all wiki editors - why don't you speak for yourself? Also how dare you make some irrelevant offensive remarks of India's history - why do you claim castes/ethnicity are "arbitrary" if you have no knowledge of why and how they originated? You should by now know that India is like Europe. If you say French German and Spanish should all be seen as European with no regard to their ethnicity/language, it is laughable. For Indians, the divisions are similar - but for non-Indians those real details seem to be unnecessary. I seriously think wiki editors lack knowledge of India but somehow become editors of the articles representing India and funnily quote lectures about them with zero knowledge to Indians. Lastly what's wrong in having a clear information of sub-divisions in an article - more the info, the better it is for someone who wants to use it. See my whole discussion has been unnecessarily deviated from topic because you did not stick to the point (no you are not sticking to the point although you claim you are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.217.148 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't compare India to Europe and most of this stuff has either already been addressed or is already in the article. Except for ethnicity, which is suddenly a concern. Why do we care about ethnicity in a list of highest grossing Indian films? If a movie does well, why would we say, this movie did well and "Psst, it was written by Jamaicans!" As I've said at least twice thus far, this is a conversation that's been hashed out before, but is being artificially prolonged because it is motivated by one interest, which is to get one film promoted as "Telugu film industry". Nobody who is in support of adding a new column for "film industry" cares about any variable other than "Tollywood" or "Telugu film industry". That makes it inherently promotional, and on general principle, anyone who is experienced in editing here should absolutely scrutinize that motivation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So Under the current scenario You are proposing that Though there is information available about the film industry about a film it has to be hidden on Wikipedia for some silly reasons that India has multiple castes , languages etc?? By the way please assume Assuming good faith with other user, your attacking users does not help the cause. If there is some information available and it is well sourced and reliable it should be put on the wiki page, there should not be any hidden information. This hiding of information actually falls under WP:SNEAKYMarchoctober (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:NeilN Please be active your opinions matter here. Marchoctober (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Lemme paraphrase: 'Information is being hidden, and information shouldn't be hidden because hiding information is vandalism!' Clearly an argument made from desperation. If you're going to throw out policies, at least know what you're talking about. How did you pick WP:SNEAKY, exactly? Because it has the word "hiding" in it and you'd based the entirety of your reply on the word "hiding"? Please read it again. While you're reading, please read WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, which tells us that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. By that very definition, it means we are supposed to choose the depth of information that appears in this article. Not convinced? Read WP:V. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Finally, from a debate standpoint your response is flimsy. You've started from a false premise that information is being hidden, then built an argument upon your false premise for why the information shouldn't be hidden. You're basically arguing with yourself at this point. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

While at the SAME TIME arguing vociferously to HIDE the well documented information that the project was filmed in two languages. While we begin assuming good faith, we are not obligated to continue acting as if actions haven't proven that there is bad faith editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

@Cyphoidbomb: yeah you're right. I found two other sources from later dates that put Thuppakki under 100 crore. ([6], [7]) I'm going to remove it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Orphaned references in List of highest-grossing Indian films

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)