User talk:Cyphoidbomb

Rupees-US Dollars

The reason I made that edit is because boxoffice grosses are usually in US dollars on the English Wikipedia. People are going to think those billion dollar grosses are in US dollars. By clarifying that its in rupees and adding US dollar conversions will give non-Indian readers a better understanding of the monetary values. Someone at my work was looking at the numbers and said "What. This movie grossed over $6.5 Billion at the boxoffice? That means its bigger than Avatar (2009 film) and Titanic (1997 film)". Umm no. So this makes it clearer for the non-Indian English reader.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Giantdevilfish, your points are noted, but the English Wikipedia is not the US Wikipedia, and converting to US dollars feeds into the system-wide pro-US-bias. The reason why many figures are in US dollars, is because the US film industry dominates the globe and there are major centralised sources like BoxOfficeMojo that tracks these figures in US dollars. An astute reader who is trying to perform legit research on Indian box office figures should be able to see that they're not in US dollars, and can do the currency conversions on their own accord. Sorry that your co-worker didn't spot the ₹, but that's kind of his/her own reading comprehension issue. Anyhow, if you feel strongly about this, you can always revisit the issue by opening a discussion at WT:ICTF, but based on previous discussions[1][2][3] I don't know that you'll get much support. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the ₹, I'm talking about the numbers in brackets next to it. How many non-Indians are going to know that that is a Rupee conversion and not a Dollar conversion? Most people outside of India don't know what a ₹ is (including myself) so that gives it a non Indian monetary reference for people that read the English Wikipedia. That's my point of contention. When people see numbers in Billions and Millions they tend to think of dollars rather than rupees (at least in the English speaking world).Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Giantdevilfish: I'm not sure if I really understand your last point, but if I'm interpreting what you mean correctly, does this edit help to clarify things? I added the {{INR}} symbol in a few parentheticals. I think I'm confused by what you mean when you say a "Rupee conversion", since both figures, ex: ₹650 crore (6.5 billion), mean the same thing, i.e. a quantity of rupees. I'm trying not to be overly didactic, and I'm being a bit presumptuous about your knowledge, but "crore" is an Indian measurement unit that means 10 million. In India, they're not really into "million" and "billion" labels and use "lakh" (1 lakh = 100,000) and "crore" instead. Per MOS:COMMONALITY, the general Wikipedia community prefers Western labels like "million" and "billion", but some Indian editors feel this is a bit confusing to the Indian readership, so they sometimes include an Indian "translation" next to the Western value. So ₹650 crore = 650 x 10,000,000 or 6.5 billion rupees. Does that make sense? Anyhow, I hope I haven't insulted you with the explanation. It took me quite some time to get used to the whole "crore" thing. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit more coherent now (remember being Canadian I'm coming from a Western point of view here). Initially one would believe that that 650 Crore becomes 6.5 Billion US Dollars. That was what made me do the edit in the first place. When a woman at my work brought it to my attention I was confused myself. I had to do research to find that it wasn't converted into US Dollars but another domination of Indian currency. It clears it up now.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Giantdevilfish: Psst! Your talk page doesn't say you're Canadian. I didn't know! One additional clarification: we're not talking about different denominations of currency, we're talking about different ways to represent numbers. Getting away from currency for a second, 10 crore maple trees = 100,000,000 maple trees. It's kinda like how in English we have "score" to mean 20, or "dozen" to mean 12. It's just a different way to represent a batch. Oh, and to make things SUPER exciting, in the Indian numerical system, you want to know how 10 crore is written? Like this: 10,00,00,000 It should be fun to try to wrap your head around that all weekend... Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Review of the article needed for Bajrangi Bhaijaan

Quite few times i had edited some few things (despite so called admin protection) on the page Bajrangi Bhaijaan. Heres the edits [4] and [5]. Adding wrong information of boxoffice and producers seems to be right? and if NO so the page should require pending change protection UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DATA USER SENDS SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH A "VALID" SOURCE. Still it has been targeted by user (suspected as socks likely). SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@D'SuperHero: Sorry, I don't understand what your concern is here or what you're asking me to change. The 626 crore figure was present as far back as September 2015 and was supported by this koimoi article. While I wouldn't consider that a useful reference, Box Office India seemed to place the gross in the 603 crore range. In this September 2016 edit, a user swapped it to the Bollywood Hungama source, presumably to address the need for a better source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Query for shelved films category

Sir, as per policy We Are Not A Directory. Here there is a category Category:Unreleased Indian films where shelved films are categorized. We can make an exception for the films which are released in film festivals. But the films which are not releasing (in future too) does not need to have its own article else it must be created as draft. So may i keep the category for deletion or what exact action to be taken against this obsolete category? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@D'SuperHero: There appears to be a wider precedent at Category:Unreleased films. I I think there's significant academic value for a student to have access to this category page, as I can envision legitimate academic reasons to want to know why the films were shelved. Was Shoebite shelved because of legal concerns? What other films were shelved for this reason? Midnight Rider was shelved because a crew member was hit by a train and died. What other films were shelved because of deaths? Having a general category to track these films seems totally reasonable to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Sridhar84

Hello Cyphoidbomb whatever you have undone my update on saaho page is not correct. Please check the reference 1 which is mentioned in the page. The cast mentioned over there is for the film baahubali, not for saaho. That is what I removed in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sridhar84 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Failed Sock Puppet Policy

stop reverting constructive, and cited references of intellectual editors, and stop tagging them as block evasion which is not the case. They are contributing to wikipedia without disrupting its policies. Provide feedback to wikipedia on this unique behavior of padmalkshmisx which is actually helping wikipedia India related articles. Tell the arbitration committee about the failed Sockpuppet policy, which is neither helping wikipedia nor is a threat to editors. The sockpuppet system has failed.Paidiiijayraj (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What an idiotic post. The failure in the sockpuppet policy is the arrogant editor who, despite being asked to leave for editing non-constructively by violating community policies, obsessively keeps returning to waste the time of other editors. I have no sympathy or respect for a person who keeps having trouble over and over again and can't figure out that he is the root cause of his own troubles. It's like getting banned from a shopping mall because you were caught stealing, then coming back every day because you think you have a right to go to the food court. The security guards come to drag you away and you harp about how their policies are flawed. "Mm, no sweetie, the problem is: stay the hell out of the mall." I told you in early January that the only option for you was the standard offer. It's been 3 months. You would be half-way through the "stay away for 6 months" requirement, but for some reason you were incapable of this, and now the clock has reset, as I warned you it would. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bahubali The conclusion

Hi, The basic rule of only country name may not apply completely for Countries like India where it had more than four big movie Industries. I am not saying about just languages. Although these movie industries are based on Language they are still different from each other from where they are produced. All other movies which are made in single language are said by their industry name in South India except this movie. This would be biased and against Wikipedia policy I beileve. It would be better to add Industry base(Tollywood/Bollywood) independent of Language for India alone. The fact being here is the movie being telugu (even if its made in other language in parallel) is being supressed even if i am adding cited sources and again i beleivve its against neutral point of view as otehr movie pages in South india clearly mentions their industry name. agasthyathepirate(talk) 13:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Agasthyathepirate If this is something you feel strongly about, you might consider bringing it up in some wider forum like WT:ICTF, because your proposition would impact many articles. I'm not a stranger to Indian film articles, and I know very well that Baahubali is an irritant to people with ethnic pride issues (I'm not talking about you) who want the Telugu cinema industry to get "its due credit". This was discussed in depth at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films years ago, because some Telugu readers couldn't stomach seeing the word Tamil in the language column. I don't particularly care if the community decides some acknowledgement of ethnic industry belongs somewhere in the lead section, but cramming it into the first sentence, which is always jam packed with information, is not wise. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Agasthyathepirate: As an alternative, since we have to mention the studio anyway, perhaps constructing a clever, short sentence about Arka Media Works that makes the industry clear might work. A la: "The film was produced by the Tollywood studio Arka Media Works." Or "The film was produced by Arka Media Works in Hyderabad, the center of the Telugu film industry." At least then it's not crammed into the opening sentence and has sufficient connective tissue. But again, you should consider opening this up to a wider discussion at WT:ICTF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Help on List of highest-grossing Indian films

Sir, please turn your kind attention to the above page. A user Rashqeqamar is repeatedly vandalizing the page and other related pages with his own POV. I have reverted this user for now but he is likely to vandalize the page again. Also this user threatens those users who happen to undo his edits. I don't know how to handle such users. Please help in maintaining the page as it is and protecting it from vandalism. You can warn this user far more efficiently. Vibhss (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Can you be more specific about what sort of vandalism they're creating? Providing diffs like this and then explaining what's wrong with it would be helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this user is segregating the box office figures for different language versions of films including dubbed ones, e.g. separate figures for Baahubali 2's Hindi version, Tamil version and Telugu version. This film is bilingual (made simultaneously into Telugu and Tamil) and it was already highlighted in the tables (by dark shaded columns) with a bilingual label. Isn't a film represented by its original language(s) ? Hollywood films are released in so many languages worldwide. Will the worldwide gross of such film be segregated into different languages ? Hindi and Malayalam versions of BB 2 are only dubbed version. Its original languages are Telugu and Tamil. Moreover, this user is also manipulating box office figures of films PK and Dangal when the figures are already supported with sources considered "reliable" as per WP:ICTF. I know different sources have different verdicts on box office figures. But same applies for Baahubali 2. Another user undid his revision with a suitable explanation and this user reverted him and later on "warned" him on his talk page not to break Wikipedia's "norms". That's all. Vibhss (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: I did notice some clear cases of vandalism after your note and have warned him about them. If he does any more of the numerical changes that aren't consistent with the source, I will block him indefinitely. I also told him he needs to seek consensus to limit the Hindi films to not include dubs. That's just a really controversial and non-intuitive decision to make without discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I would like to add that Hindi films like PK, Bajirao Mastani and many others also have been dubbed in South Indian languages and same applies vice-versa. If we mention segregated box office figures for all versions of BB 2, it would become mandatory to do the same for BB 1 and other films with various language versions. But I request you to keep track of this page as an administrator. This page is being heavily edited nowadays and many edits constitute vandalism. Vibhss (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Oh, it's been on my list for quite some time. And yes, you are correct, the suggestion to exclude dubs is idiotic. When Marvel releases a new Avengers film in China, they no doubt dub it into various languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, etc.) I'm not aware of any situation where we exclude money made from these dubs. I consider the user's change highly questionable and while I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't look like a good-faith change to me, particularly when he's clearly screwing around with sourced figures. If he does this again and I don't happen to be around, feel free to report him at WP:AIV and point to this comment: Note to Admins: The user referenced above (Rashkeqamar) has been engaged in good-hand/bad-hand editing including unambiguous vandalism. They've also made bizarre POV edits like unilaterally deciding to exclude dubbed films from worldwide gross figures. Given the shape of the user's edits, and the ubiquity of paid/unpaid sockpuppets who exist solely to fuck with Indian film financials, my instinct is to indef, since this sort of editing style tends to be persist even after blocks, wasting editor time. Of course, whatever you decide is fine by me. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, are you giving this note on your behalf ? I didn't understand this wholly. Vibhss (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The Great Father into the 50 Cr. Club!

What happen with the Great Father boxoffice collection? It was in the wikipedia website last week. Now, I dont see it. Someone changed it. please fix that. It got 50 cr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuliMurugan (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@PuliMurugan: I don't know what article you're referring to. Please be more specific. Also, check the edit history to see if it was removed with an explanation. From what I remember, the collection figures of Great Father are coming from the producer, and one editor in particular, Jupitus Smart, proposed that we wait a bit for the figures to settle, since we don't use primary sources for controversial data like box office figures, since a producer/director/actor/distributor would have every reason to exaggerate. Since there's this silly competition between Mohanlal and Mammootty, there is a persistent desire of the primary sources to declare new records being broken. None of that is Wikipedia's problem, as have no deadline and we are not a breaking news source. So you should probably open a discussion on the talk page of whatever article you're referring to. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the pieces of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMQFT (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why Revert on List of highest-grossing Indian films

As you can see List of most expensive Indian films movie has also a column which converts the budget to approx current budget. It's easy for any Wiki User to see and compare things between years. That's why that functionality has added to current conversion by year, it's not easy for a person to calculate by his own. I don't know how to use talk page and reply to the user so I modified here. Sanjan Kumar Patel 05:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjanind (talk • contribs)

@Sanjanind: I explained the reasons why this was problematic on your talk page. The editors from the Indian film task force at Wikipedia don't particularly care for arbitrary conversions to US currency. Adding more of the thing the community doesn't seem to like would require a new consensus to be established. This means you need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page and get wide support. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will append a signature and time stamp to your posts, so that editors know who wrote the comment and when. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Look why are you so concerned about the volume of information, if your knowledge is less we can't help on this. And it's necessary to compare all year collection at present value, I know it's not 100% correct, that's why est. is written there. We don't need a brainless editor like you who not able to decide what is correct and what is wrong u just follow what you want. So don't revert the necessary change. Wiki is a website of knowledge it's not your personal page that you want to keeps what you want. Not even adding Dangal collection which is from a genuine source. I think you hate India so plz. Sanjan Kumar Patel 19:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sanjanind: 1) Personal attacks won't be tolerated. If you're not able to engage in discussion without resorting to name-calling, you should find another hobby. 2) I've explained that the issue is one of community preference. You're free to read the discussions here and here. If you disagree with community consensus, your remedy is to open a discussion on the article's talk page or at WT:ICTF and seek community feedback. Who knows, maybe someone will suddenly think that converting to US dollars is a great idea. Calling me names isn't going to sway the community to see things your way. I did happen to come up with possible way to include the inflation information without stepping on community consensus, but you'd have to apologise for calling me brainless in order to hear it. 3) Please sign your posts with four tildes. Your signature needs to have at least one link to your user space, and using tildes ~~~~ is the easiest way to achieve this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cyphoidbomb: I think the page's protection level should be temporarily increased to Extended confirmed protection or Pending changes protection. As Baahubali 2 is in theaters, page is subject to disruption by mostly new users who constantly remove/ change the languages of the Baahubali 1 and 2 or inset gross figures with un-reliable sources. As the editor and protecting admin of the page, what is your opinion on this? regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC).

@DRAGON BOOSTER: I think it's probably not a bad idea. I think there have been a few accounts that have come out of extended retirement to make changes to The Great Father. Like this guy. Or throw-away accounts used to inflate Dangal.[6][7]. Or this guy monkeying with the languages of Baahubali. Or this guy who has come out of a 2015 retirement to delete Tamil from Baahubali. Or this guy who has only been active on Wikipedia since 29 April but whose first edit contained properly formatted citations. Definitely curious. I don't think that super-long-term ECP is warranted, but for a period of 3–4 weeks it might be beneficial to prevent damage, after which the normal long-term (1 year, I think) semi-protection should be restored. If you think that's reasonable, feel free to request it at WP:RFPP. I'd prefer to abstain from administrating on this issue. You're welcome to quote me if you wish. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for your reply. I thought before requesting at the concerned page, I should run it by the protecting admin. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC).

Dangal collections

I don't know why you are biased about Dangal collections. Dangal collected 72.68 crores in 3 days in China according to trade analyst Taran Adarsh. Dangal which was released in Taiwan in April 2017 collected 35 crores gross. Why is this biasness I don't understand. Why are you not adding the collections and showing less than actual. Saisiddharth4u (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Dangal worldwide collections are not at all accurate

I don't know why you are biased about Dangal collections. Dangal collected 72.68 crores in 3 days in China according to trade analyst Taran Adarsh. Dangal which was released in Taiwan in April 2017 collected 35 crores gross. Why is this biasness I don't understand. Why are you not adding the collections and showing less than actual. Saisiddharth4u (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Saisiddharth4u: What article are you referring to? Dangal (film)? Where are the references for the Taiwan figures? Here you raised it to 817, but did you add a reference? No, you did not. So it's absurd to call someone "biased" when you don't perform the most basic action required in editing: providing sources. Also, per this comment you left on your talk page, where you say "Check out Aamir Khan's video message about Taiwan collections", even if you had included a link, we do not use primary sources for controversial content like film finances. A producer/director/actor/distributor has every reason to inflate these figures. Per WP:RS, we care what reliable secondary sources with established reputations for fact-checking estimate the finances to be. And lastly, please remember that the entirety of Indian film finances is based on estimates balanced against inflated claims and corruption. All of the data should be taken with a grain of salt, not placed on a golden pedestal and treated like indisputable fact. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Then on what basis you put Dangal collections. I think you don't even know that the film was released in Taiwan. It was released in Taiwan, at least it would have collected 1$ for example I m saying, you completely ignored that. Saisiddharth4u (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Saisiddharth4u: 1) Please don't create new section headings when you respond to comments. Just click "(edit)" in the appropriate section, indent with colons, and respond. 2) I don't understand your question "On what basis you put Dangal collections." The 802.68 crore value came from this source, which indicates 730 crore was grossed before the China release and this source, which indicates the 72.68 crore gross from China. 730+72.68=802.68. I don't know anything about the Taiwan release, because I haven't seen any references. Yes, if it was released in Taiwan, it presumably made $1, but where are the references? You also need to keep in mind that Wikipedia has no deadline'. We're not in any insane bloodthirsty rush to post a film's financials minute-by-minute. When there are quality references, we can update accordingly, in a perfectly relaxed fashion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Scooby-Doo#S.C.O.O.B_Retitling

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your post yesterday, and also invite you to continue contributing to the discussion if you'd like. There have been several editors now whom have continued readding the "new" title, despite that they have no source to back it up. I think what may be happening here is that people are simply presuming that because the article citing the release date change refers to the movie as "Scooby" (which is logical, as it's the name of the franchise), that the title has suddenly changed despite the article not mentioning any change in the title. I'm attempting to invite any editor who continues adding this unsourced content to discuss on the talk page, but it would be nice to have you as a second voice :) Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind providing insight on this one more time, if it's not a burden? Some new information has been presented and it would be great to have another voice, rather than just my opinion against Jstar's. Thank you again! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Great Father Collection

You have said that the great father collection Source is fake.But in the Section of Mohanlal movies that Sources are used alSo all know that actor,producer and director has confirmed the news regarding SOcr. I will provide the Sources that are reliable

1.Onlookers Media - http://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/great-father-enters-50-crore-club/

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

3.Mollywood Times - http://mollywoodtimes.com/2017/04/22/the-great-father-touches-the-50-crore-mark/

4.1ndian Movie Planet - http://indianmovieplanet.com/great father 50 crore club/

5.South Live - http://ml.southlive.in/movie/film-debate/baahubali-2-kerala-boxoffice

6.FilmFaktory - http://filmfaktoryoin/official great father touches 50 crore mark/

7.Muyals - http://muyalS.com/ml/201'7/04/22/9reat father 50 core club 2/

8.Review Rating - http://www.reviewrating.org/tag/the-great-father-movie/

9.FilmiBeat - http://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/news/2017/the-great-father-50-crore-club-dulquer-salmaan-s-telugu-debut-other-mollywood-news-of-the-week-259453.html

10.Kerala BO Updates - http://www.kboupdates.com/2017/04/its-official-now-the-great-father-touches-50-crore-mark-from-world-wide-boxoffice/

11.Pycker - https://pycker.com/movies/my-dad-david/news

Sir these are the sources i provided more sources are available fron Asianet news , Kairali tv etc

muhammed.suhail (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: When did I say the Great Father collection source was fake? I seem to recall saying we don't use primary sources like claims made by producers, directors, actors, distributors. I have also probably said that another editor, Jupitus Smart, has raised questions about the origin of the claims. This user has opened a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films, which is a more intuitive place to discuss this than on my talk page. I've also told numerous editors that they should read WP:UGC so that they understand why blogs and other faceless websites (like Onlookersmedia and kboupdates) are insufficient. And I have also told editors to look at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources to become familiar with what sites are and are not considered reliable. Filmibeat is not. So I really think you should read the pages I've pointed you to, then trim down the above list to just the reliable sources, subtract the sources that seem to be relying on claims made by the producer (Mollywood Times looks like it's reprinted the producer's 50 crore celebration poster) and then continue this discussion with Jupitus Smart at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: then the source used for Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol is Malayala Manorama. The Great Father 50cr also reported by Malayala Manorama. Mohanlal last two movies collection report are officially reported by the crew members of that films. only for Mammooty movies these discrimination is held. Even the producers are reported its collection. Even in the news channels this report is confirmed. muhammed.suhail (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because a normally reliable source prints a detail, that we are required to accept that detail as gospel without question. That's ludicrous. If a reliable source, Manorama in this instance, ascribes the source of the data to the producers, then it's still insufficient for inclusion, because the actual source of the data is the producer, i.e. a primary source. We only care about data that is independently verified. Do you understand the difference? Now in this discussion I asked Jupitus Smart to clarify the phrasing he found in the Manorama article, because Google Translate wasn't very helpful to me and I don't speak/read Malayalam. According to him, the article attributes the producers as the source of the 50 crore claim. If you don't agree with his interpretation, you should discuss this with him on that talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Then the collection report of [[Muthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol] and Puli Murugan collection is provided by the producer and actor of that crew themselves. After there confirmation the news are spreaded. When it comes to Mammootty movies these are happened. The collection of both the Mohanlal movies are firstly posted by him and that movie producers. For Mohanlal movies all are official but in the case of Mammootty movies even producers confirms it the report is fake. muhammed.suhail (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: If you want to discuss the specific financial claims of either of those other movies, you should do so on their respective talk pages, or wherever you find the numbers to be problematic. Be prepared to demonstrate why you think each of the figures reported should not be included, and note that you'll have to be well versed in our reliable sources guidelines in order to do so. I have zero interest in the competition between Mammootty and Mohanlal or the competition between fans of Mammootty and Mohanlal. The subject you brought up is The Great Father, and if you want to argue for the inclusion of the 50 crore figure, you're going to need to do so at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films, not on my talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Bank Chor

Hi, Cyphoidbomb - I'm wondering if Bank Chor isn't a candidate for G11 - it's obviously promotion of a film that hasn't been produced. I saw where you added a redirect but we're getting heat over the NPR backlog. Your thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme With the exception of the idiotic "most famous stand-up comedian" bit, I don't think I'd consider the article unambiguous advertising. There is a trailer out,[8] so we can assume principal photography has begun, and there has been some press coverage on it.[9][10][11]. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Question - does that justify article creation, or does it have to be an actual film? I wasn't aware in-production work passed GNG. Kindest regards - ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: A film doesn't have to be released in order to warrant an article (Midnight Rider (film) is an example of a film that was never released, but became notable for an accidental death that took place while filming.) There should preferably be some GNG before a film article is created of course, but the most basic criterion is WP:NFF, which requires editors to establish that principal photography has begun, as anything can derail the planned release of a film. And in this case, there was no establishment of that back when I redirected the article, but I think having trailer footage suggests that it's being filmed. Hope that helps, if not, keep askin' stuff! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC notification

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Disney's_Beauty_and_the_Beast}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC notification

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Tarzan}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason for removing Great father from Malayalam Top grossing movie list?

@Cyphoidbomb ..Please clarify the reason you removed great father from the list?The reasons you mentioned above for muhammed suhail's questions seems to be very funny.... 1. What source you want other than the one suhail listed above to include Great father in the list?

2.Why Mohanlal movies like Oppam,Munthirivallikal and pulimurugan has included in the list with the same source as he provided for Great father?If you remove Great father from the list,then the same is applicable for above Mohanlals movies as well.

3.Who is the user Jupitus Smart to decide the credibility?If he is a malayali,then definitely he will be the fan of mammootty or Mohanlal.SO how can you consider his confirmation as the source for editing wiki?Dude...many people are refering this and you should not loose your credibility by saying these kind of lame excuses.

So the case is simple.Either you include Great father also in the list with the sources provided by muhammed or you remove other movies from the lists those are referred by the same sources as used by Great father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.kottappuram777 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagar.kottappuram777: You want me to clarify the reason I removed Great Father from the list. What list are you referring to. It's helpful if you link to the article in question. Also, are you sure I removed it? Because I think Jupitus Smart has been the most vociferous opponent of that data. If you've read my responses to Muhammed.suhail, then you have all of the information you need. We don't take a producer's word for their gross claims, we don't use blogs, we don't use random faceless websites, we want independent verification. Sites that look like they're just acting as press release outlets should not be used. As I'm sure you are well aware, Indian film financials are inherently unreliable, so getting upset that the inherently unreliable data you believe in is not being represented, is rather fruitless. If you have questions for Jupitus, feel free to talk to them directly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Since 1 and 2 has been discussed multiple times in multiple forums, there is no point in discussing that again. As for 3, yes I am a Malayali, and no I am not a fan of either Mohanlal or Mammootty. See this if you think I am a Mohanlal fan trying to degrade Mammootty's movie - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randamoozham (upcoming film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suchitra Mohanlal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohanlal Special all of which were deleted after I nominated them. And since every Malayali has to be a Mohanlal/Mamootty fan, what are you, @Sagar.kottappuram777:. You seem to have the name of Mohanlal's character in Ayal Kadha Ezhuthukayanu and yet you seem to be fighting for a Mammootty movie. And if you can provide a better translation, you are always welcome to do so. I was requested because I knew the language and if you think my translation is incorrect or obfuscating, please provide a better translation. Jupitus Smart 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb...I didnt tell that you removed the movie from list and i respect you.What I mentioned was,how can wiki take the opinion of a malayali admin for updating malayalam films as definitely that person will have special interest for a particular actor.Also the reason for removal is not convincing.Tell me one thing,if not producer,who will confirm the final collection?You mentioned that independent should confirm...which independent ?From where they get the details of collection?If I am not wrong they will get the collection from distributor/producer.Then what is the problem with statement "Producer confirm the collection".

Leave all this...if that is wikis rule,then fine enough.But why other movies like ezra,oppam,munthirivallikal doesnt have this rule applicable?How can u consider catchnews as relable source?I didnt see that in the reliable source list.Also for Oppam/munthirivallikal the news came is manorama after producer declared the figures.Even manorama also gets the details from producer/dostributor..I dont think they will go to each theaters and count money and confirm...

Another point i want to bring to your notice is Pazhassiraja's collection.Times of India mentioned that it collected 49 crore.But wiki is not updating that.I checked the talk page there and what I got the reason for the exclusion is,they are saying producer confirmed it has not collected that much.Here you are saying you wont take the words of producer and there it is exactly opposite..really feel pity on people trying hard to play against mammootty movie..

What we are expecting from a non malayali admin like you is before come to a conclusion check all the above points and take action accordingly without again asking the opinion of a malayali admin.If you really want to ask the opinion of that person,do it for other languages movies..not for malayalam...its a request

@Jupitus Smart...Are'nt you smart enough to understand that I am a mammootty fan?That doesnt mean that I am a lal hater.That is the reason why i opt the name of a lals character which i like...and its my choice ....now coming to our point...tell us clearly...which source you are expecting to put great father in the list?How can you confirm Oppam,MVT and Ezra with the sources like catch news.Also manorama took the collection after the producer confirmed the same.SO why you are not removing those movies from list?Not able to understand why this intolerance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.kottappuram777 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please Update Pazhassi Raja in the list

Below one is report from times of india,which is definitely a reliable source where it is mentioned that pazhassi has collected 49 crore and nothing mentioned like confirmed by producer in the article.If you are not able to update this,Please confirm the reason for this as well

http://m.timesofindia.com/others/news-interviews/Hariharan-MT-Vasudevan-prepare-for-Randamoozham/articleshow/9807050.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.kottappuram777 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagar.kottappuram777: I'd prefer you open a request at WT:ICTF on this. You should also be sure to link the article you're talking about. There was a great deal of discussion here about whether or not that 49 crore figure was representative of the true gross, and frankly it's not something I care to get involved in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the credibility of sources you referred in the Malayalam movie section??

@Cyphoidbomb ..Please clarify how sources like catch news is credible?? Who is actually running that page?? and nobody in Kerala knows about such a page like catch news. What is the criteria for including it in the reference?? One more question in Kerala normally producers reveal the collection and then only media reports the collection of a film as official collection. It is same in the case of recent big hits like Pulimurugan, Munthirivalli thalirkkumbol etc. Then why The Great Father is not included in the list even the most popular media in Kerala manoramanews reported it collected more than 50 crore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathanlal (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vathanlal: Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This is necessary so that editors know who wrote what and when. If you have questions about the reliability of sources used in Indian cinema articles, you can ask for clarification at Wikipedia's the Indian cinema task force. According to the information I have, Catch.com is owned by the Rajasthan Patrika group and was founded by journalist Shoma Chaudhury.[12]. As for your last question, I've explained this numerous times on prominent talk pages: We don't regurgitate financial claims made by producers/actors/directors/distributors, or any primary source. These people, especially while their films are out, would absolutely have a reason to exaggerate their financial figures. Kabali was a prime example of this, with the producers releasing heavily-inflated figures that the media republished without thought. If Mohanlal said that he had the biggest dick in the world, would you take his word for it, or would you want independent verification before putting that fact in an encyclopedia? No difference. If you are familiar with Indian film financials, then you should absolutely already be aware that none of figures released are 100% accurate, since they're all based on guesses and manipulations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: thanks for your information.. For me this link http://www.manoramanews.com/news/entertainment/2017/04/23/mammootty-move-to-50-crore-club.html is really reliable because manorama is the most popular news channel in Kerala. Iam from Kerala and I know for every movies in the highest grossing malayalam movie section all medias reported the collection given out by the producers of the respected films. But in case of Great Father in the report by manorama unfortunately last sentence they mentioned the real fact that collection is revealed by producers which is not in other movie references. Anyway thanks. Vathanlal (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12May 2017 (UTC)