Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Copyright issues?

Since I just saw this, any idea why there's such a restriction? Copyright claims?I see the full list for Hollywood movies et. al? And what's the point of listing random positions instead of having a proper list? Is it going to resolve anytime soon?

Sorry for being such a pain, but thought I'd ask anyways, can't really bother checking the whole archive :P Ravingranter (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bodyguard 2011

Salman Khan´s Bodyguard movie is the highest grossing Bollywood movie ever for a single day and the highest grossing opening Bollywood movie ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.79.186 (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ready 2011

Ready is behind Dabangg when it comes to highest grossing Bollywood movie on the opening day and first weekend of release. So please change it! Tees Maar Khan is not no 2, its Ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.79.186 (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC) FOR GOD SAKE CAN U PUT THT INFORMATION UP, THT SALMAN KHAN BODYGUARD IS THE HIGHEST OPENER DAY AND WEEK,PLZ MAKE WIKIPEDIA ABIT TRUTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.243.182 (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I AM GNNA SUE WIKIPEDIA, IF THE DNT PUT BODYGUARD AS SECOND AND READY AS FOURTH, PUT IT OR I WILL SUE U!!!, THEN U LOT R GNNA REGRET UR LYINGS

Discrepancy

I am really surprised to see that some of the article like highest grossing tamil films has been removed from Wikipedia.

If members think there are no official source to that, then the article like highest grossing Bollywood films are in deep question?

Wikipedia should apply the same rule to any film article.

Copyright concerns

During the recent AfD on this article, it was brought to light that the content here is not public domain compilation of fact, but rather what the court refers to as "soft ideas"--that is, opinions of experts rendered based on a variety of figures. Accordingly, only a fraction of this content may be included to meet WP:NFC. I had reduced the list from 30 titles to 10, in keeping with established precedence for such non-free lists (for example, The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time includes 10 out of 500, or 5%. According to edit summary on the reversion of my reduction, this is somewhere between 30% and 15%). I will list this at the copyright problems board so that another administrator can review the matter and weigh in, since my decision has been questioned. (Note, I am not involved and have never been involved in the development of this article; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination) for further explanation of copyright concerns and for my comment as an uninvolved administrator asked about those copyright concerns.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On further examination, I've blanked the majority of these lists until we work out an approach that is comfortably within non-free content policy and guideline or until we can determine that the material is free. One of these tables, for instance, reproduces 10 out of a source list of 27. Per [1], this is not a raw compilation of data, but rather a subjective analysis including a variety of factors (akin to CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports and CDN Inc. v Kapes). Unless we can figure out otherwise, we have to treat this material as non-free. I will invite further review of this situation at WT:C, WT:CP and WT:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can figure it IS a copyright infingment we should treat it as free.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the way policy works. On Wikipedia, we verify content is free before using it; the content is published under claim of copyright. --Moonriddengirl

This is not what te policy says.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

^(talk) 22:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is; "If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license"; "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I think discussion should be prior to entire page blanking. Many editors have worked hard on conducting these lists in an original way, and now, without getting any support and without any substantial policy which supports this, you have blanked the entire page. This is not done. Do not forget that many editors have supported keeping this article as it was on its recent AFD, so what you're doing now does not seem to be correct or acceptable. Please restore the page and then discuss and decide whatever has to be done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what is done with copyright concerns; if the material is not immediately deleted, it is blanked pending resolution. This is to prevent our continuing to publish content to which we do not legally have a right. I am very concerned with this content; more than I was this morning, when I thought reducing the one list might suffice for at least a start. I have since discovered that another of the lists, for example, reproduces 10 out of 37 items on a page of the source.

I have requested feedback from other contributors experienced in copyright work, and I hope to be able to get some guidance from our attorney. I have no interest in blanking content we can legitimately use, but I am afraid that this material does not comply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why then wouldn't you do the same with List of highest-grossing films? I highly disagree with this content removal. I hope things change until tomorrow, this looks quite unfair, especially after a tiring AFD. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As was explained at that AfD, this article is not based on statistics, but on estimates. Under the U.S. copyright laws that govern us, compilations of information based on value judgments are copyrightable. (See CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports and CDN Inc. v Kapes, for instance.) If List of highest-grossing films is based on actual statistics, then the statistics are not copyrightable. Again, per [2], this material is estimated. The question concerns how we can present this material without infringing the copyright of the sources.

I doubt we will have an answer by tomorrow, but for what it's worth I've written to the Foundation in the hopes of addressing the question to one of our attorneys. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On Boxofficemojo's about page it is stated, "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends.". Come on, that's the way it works. Do not forget that despite copyright concerns, the article was kept. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Afd results do not trump WP:C nor WP:NFC. Local consensus cannot overrule the WMF Terms of Use. I understand that a lot of work went into this, but neither that nor the AfD have, unfortunately, any bearing on this issue. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So please do answer then, what about List of highest-grossing films (given the aforementioned facts)? And what if I contact BoxOfficeIndia and they permit this use? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

BOM uses a systematic and (probably) reproducible form of calculation to interpolate missing data in trends whilst BOI explicitly state their information is creative. It should be noted that although BOM copyright their website and the data compilation they do not attempt to copyright the data itself. As for your second question, if you contact BOI and get a free release statement so that Wikipedia can publish as much as we want from their website then the issue completely disappears, however it would seem easier for them to remove the commercial copyright restriction from their own website if they really wanted to do this. Fæ (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, when I hear words such as "probably" from you, I feel you write what's convenient for you, so sorry but I do not take it at face value. Let me repeat something you keep ignoring. On Boxofficemojo's About page it is stated, "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." That says it all and I would like to see either you or Moonriddengirl doing the same on the other page. As for my second question and your reply to it, I will try to contact them. I actually once did and got a reply. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you insist on assuming bad faith, I'll try to remember to ignore your comments in the future as you are not interested in collaboration. Bye Fæ (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am always amused how some of us non-copyright lawyers are so fearful of theoretical copyright violations. I would like to know what BOI says about the article. Circulation statistics of newspapers and record sales from not too long ago were also all based on similar guesswork--that didn't make the numbers copyright protected. We'd be deleting thousands of articles like Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1954 under such a standard.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• That it may endanger articles is really not a proper standard for judging when copyright problems exist, I'm afraid. And that circulation statistics of newspapers and record sales from not too long ago were also all based on similar guesswork doesn't make them not copyright protected. Our job here is to figure out to the best of our ability what content is "free" and what is not and to handle the latter appropriately. The last time I spoke to WMF associate counsel on a similar situation (on January 14), she said, "So unless you know the criteria involved in creating the list, it is impossible to even gauge the potential of a court finding that it warrants copyright protection. And unfortunately, even if you do know the criteria, it is very hard to predict what a court will say (especially because the courts vary in their opinions in different circuits on this matter) when there is a degree of creativity involved. You are really only safe if the list is purely formulaic." This one, evidently, is not. It seems that others may not be, as well. I have written again in the hopes of obtaining further guidance into what, in the absence of explicit criteria and evidence of formulaic compilation, we can do to minimize the risk to the project and our content reusers. User:Shshshsh, I will not evaluate any other article on this subject while waiting to hear back on this one. If our attorney is able to offer guidance, then it should be applicable to other lists of similar provenance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Godwin opine that something wasn't a copyright problem before and people still were going crazy about it and seeking to delete things. My point is that in a group of editors, some are going to always overvigorously seek to enforce copyright laws. The "best of our ability" in this area where expertise is needed, when that happens, may not be best for the project. But if wikimedia lawyers say we should do something, then we really have to comply, no question.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just to update, I received an e-mail from our interim attorney yesterday telling me that she hoped to provide us some guidance on this question in the next few days. Hopefully, we'll be able to resolve it soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial attorney feedback

I've gotten a first response from our associate counsel and have sent her a follow-up e-mail with some additional questions I'm hoping she'll have time to answer that might help determine how much of this is usable.

In terms of guidance on how much we can use, she says in brief that the more we use, the greater the risk, and that the more "important" the material is that we use, the greater risk. Specifically, she says, "If you list the top 5 out of a top 20 or even top 100 list, it's less likely to be fair use because the top 5 is usually what the public is the most interested in. Whereas if you give #2, #6, and #18-20, even though you are giving up the same percentage, it is more likely to be considered fair use." She also indicates that republishing the lists as we do "appeals to the same audience as the original" and is not likely to be seen as transformative. Although she suggests that 5% may constitute a problem, particularly if they are the top 5%, I've asked her if there are any kinds of percentages that we may use as a guideline (recognizing that there may not be) and will report here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearing copyright investigation: explanation of selection criteria

Taking the above discussion and the attorney feedback into consideration, clearing the investigation required to make choices on what to keep and what to remove. On a first attempt, I tried to highlight some entries that might be of particular encyclopedic interest, but I gave up without saving - as the reviewing administrator, I have no familiarity with the topic and am not qualified to decide what entries might be particularly interesting. Nonetheless, the article has been blanked for three weeks now, a situation which is detrimental to both our readers and other editors.

After some further thought, I believe the only way to do this is to use an arbitrary but consistent method. Therefore, all ranked lists were reduced to extracts retaining ranks 1, 3, 6, 10 (and 15 for the longest one). The list of highest grossing movies per year was completely removed as there is neither any transformative use of BOI's data, nor any sane way I can see to make a selection there. The last two lists appear to be based on compilation of data by wikipedia editors and I have deemed those to be a sufficient transformation of the data that they probably should be safe to keep - as far as I can tell, the information presents the BOI data in an original manner that adds something for the reader.

I realize this is hardly going to be satisfactory to many editors who have invested a lot of time in getting this article to its previous state. At the same time, the only other alternative here would be an outright deletion under the G12 speedy criteria, something even less desirable. In any case, I would like to encourage any group of editors able to come up with a meaningful (as opposed to arbitrary as I did here) selection criteria to revise the lists accordingly, minding the fact that per the attorney's feedback, we should avoid the top 5 for instance, or excessively long extracts. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking an arbitrary sample seems to produce an article that would theoretically fail WP:IINFO. Perhaps it might be better to alphabetically list the names of the top 10 films (unranked and with no figures) but then add the income range (by naming the 1st and 10th on the list alongside their figures)? This would provide meaningful figures, confirmation that any particular film has the notability of being in the top 10 and giving a sense of the market without just copying the numbers. Fæ (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if the top ten can all be listed without figures, along with a high to low range, it would be better than 1,3,6,10, which is absolutely silly looking. BollyJeff || talk 17:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe a reproduction of the top 10 list, even with the ranking removed, is clearly out of the question. It's still the same material and we add no value.

However, I've thought about this a bit more. I believe where we can make a difference to the reader is definitely not by reproducing BOI's works. What we can do, however, is present the list by adding information. Let me explain. The list at the bottom showing how long a particular movie has held the top spot adds value. Commentary indicating what made a particular movie in the top 10 click for the audience is an added value to the list. Highlighting movies that stand out, eg if one was made on a shoestring budget in someone's kitchen is an added value. Pointing out that a particular movie on the top ten was immensely popular despite having the worst critic ever or demonstrating that one movie was a smash hit with the public and went on to win every single award in the profession - that kind of commentary provides value to the reader not present in the original list and would, I believe, not just solve the immediate concerns about copyright, but could definitely set a new benchmark on how such top # lists are a strong asset to Wikipedia.

Food for thought, at the very least. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember though that wikipedia is not supposed to present original research, only sourced material. And now they are saying that we can't used the sourced material. Make up your minds, please. BollyJeff || talk 02:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't copy sourced material, and that isn't even new. And surely movies in the top 10 are notable enough to have adequate commentary that allows an explanation of their significance? Because if that's not the case and everyone is more worried about possible OR, there's a simple solution to the NFC problem, reducing the whole article to one line stating that BOI publishes a list of the highest grossing films. MLauba ^(Talk) 07:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally and very vehemently oppose your views about this article as they are so totally ignorant and biased to the extent that a child could see through it. I also am completely against this 1,3,6,10,15 ranking scheme that seems so alien and - pardon me - stupid that it can pose a true danger to the basic pillars of Wikipedia. Your ideas are laughable and your views are sorely in need of updating. It has taken years of maintenance and hard work by over 1200 editors to make the article as it was, and a rude, unceremonious blanking followed by these preposterous ideas will put off many very good editors from Wikipedia who may not want to have anything with Wikipedia now, seeing such blatant misuse of the Copyright laws. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A new approach seems to be needed

I'm a previous reader of this article before the copyright concerns were raised (and now, a reader of the article's history). I have no view or opinion on the legal side, but would like to think i represent at least some of the readership. The current article is both confusing and, perhaps misleading, due to its title. Is it possible that whilst the argument is debated in discussion, the film listings are removed but the references/sources are left? - At least this way the article does not lose credibility as a source for explaining (or in this case linking to) the reason why the reader has come to the page? marp (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Change extremely necessary

Being a very active editor of this particular article, I was shocked and dismayed to see that such an old and well-established article had suddenly been nominated for deletion. It was a bolt from the blue. And now I come back to see that thje article is in pathetic shape, and is so misleading and uninformative that nothing can be said about it - leaving the list as it is now is a major threat to the concept of quality endorsed by Wikipedia. As a desperate measure, I invite public consensus to restart the matter about the article's stripping of information and rework the list completely so that the article is informative, of sufficient length and of enough sources so as to satisfy every copyrightist in Wikipedia who is so ill-informedly biasing this article as a "No-Free Content" article.

I request editors to pitch in their views and discuss this matter further, as the current state of the article is appalling.

AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be an idea to raise a RFC which then also points to User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists as the general approach will be of interest to a wide variety of articles based on copyright list material. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We desperately need an RfC. I'd started drafting one, but have not published it: User talk:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. But, AnkitBhatt, please keep in mind that the person who told us that we could not use this content is one of the attorneys employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. She is not ill-informed, and she certainly has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. While it may be distressing to have to come up with a way to accommodate the copyright concerns, they have been substantiated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If he is an attorney it doesn't mean that he can just impose whatever he feels is right on the other editors who may be equally distressed at the mishandling of this list by him. He suggested the 1,3,6,10,15 ranking (which, pardon me again, is idiotic) and he imposed it into the article like as if he has created the article from top to bottom. I doubt he has ever seen this article even once before, so why the sudden throwing around of his weight? I suggest that MLuba be kept tight on his reins, otherwise he will end up doing little and harming a lot. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 05:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You've misunderstood; she's not imposing on "other editors" because she is not an editor. She's an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs this website. Accordingly, she has authority over legal matters here. And we have a responsibility to abide by the WMF:Terms of Use. If she says content is not usable under those terms, it isn't.

Too, she is not User:MLauba. MLauba is simply an administrator who tried to come up with a usable way to retain some of the information after the attorney said we could not reproduce it all and gave us some suggestions for what we could publish. Until his actions, none of it was published. The entire list was blanked. She weighed in on the opinion because a contributor raised questions about the legality of the article and she was asked to do so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do not seem to understand. Please review the previous discussions that took place. Clearly, it was MLauba who seemingly "suggested" the 1,3,6,10 ranking scheme. No consensus was arrived on that idea because there was opposition to it from BollyJeff and Fae. But Lo and Behold, we see that the 1,3,6,10,15 ranking scheme has been implemented. I repeat, this "idea" has been imposed upon the other editors rudely and unfairly, and she is going against the very most basic principles of Wikipedia which states that the general group of editors working on the article should discuss before implementing any drastic changes, and that the ideas put forth should be ratified by all, or at least basically agreed upon so as to keep the editing environment harmonious and peaceful. This is clearly a gross violation. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The changes made were in line with WP:BRD. In this case, reverting would mean blanking the article again due to the copyright issue. Personally, I would prefer to see the current odd selection left in place until a consensus is reached on a better layout. Fæ (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ankit Bhatt, you misunderstand what happened. I was the administrator reviewing the article when its listing at the copyright problems board came due. I haven't proposed something, discussed, and then implemented against consensus. The article was blanked at the time I reviewed, and I tried to find a way to retain some of the information while complying with the guidance from the WMF lawyer. I implemented the 1,3,6,10,15 scheme as a totally arbitrary method to avoid selection bias, and THEN I explained what was done on the talk page.
Removing potential copyright violations from public view we are aware of trumps all other considerations, and there is no need for the reviewing administrator to get any consensus about that at all. I could have summarily stubified the list to a two-liner without being out of line in terms of policy. Does the compromise I settled for look silly? Absolutely. Do you have a better idea that complies with the WMF legal counsel's guidance? Implement it. I proposed some possible venues to interested editors, but so far the only people commenting are unable to come up with anything better than my silly quick fix.
There's two things that are absolutely certain though. You cannot revert to a top X list that has the top entries listed in order as long as these lists match the sources as the legal counsel clearly told us that this was not acceptable. And ranting against the process or individual people will not do anything to fix it either. Good day. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got to agree with what Moonriddengirl, Mlauba and Fæ have said. No one has acted improperly here in removing the content and although I agree the 1,3,6,10 solution is ugly it's certainly far, far better than the copyvio tag which, at the moment is the only alternative. Editors here should probably also be aware of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, adjusted for inflation which I've now also cut down to the 1,3,6,10 format. I think however the long term solution is to merge that article with this one but there seems little point until the copyvio stuff is sorted.

On a possible solution note could we make it more prose than an article and comment on various bits of the list, e.g.:

• The top ranked film earned x, while all films in the top ten earned at least y.
• The most succesful studio is x who appear y times.
• There are x films from y year.

Obviously these are ideas and no where near suitable text for inclusion but they show the idea. Dpmuk (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I could probably do that, but I am discouraged from editing now after having to bow to the all-powerful lawyers who rule this world. BollyJeff || talk 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if this is the way Wikipedia seems to feel, then there is nothing more to be said. Clearly a massive hierarchial divisionism seems to entirely nullify the principles of democratic discussions, brain storming et al. It seems pretty obvious now that Wikipedia administration is losing all forms of sane flexibility and is instead opting for a rigid one-way system. In any case, if I am dwarfed by an administrator, a lawyer and several other editors, what can I do? I have simply no option except to keep quiet and watch a loss - a painful one, let me tell you, because I have worked much into this article - and slink away like some criminal. Good day to you Mr. MLauba. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 14:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt hyperbole will help enhancing the list at all. Copyright policies may be a pain in the butt, but along with WP:BLP they are the only two areas with direct legal ramifications. You ask what you can do? You can brain storm and lead democratic discussions on how to do better than a 1,3,6,10,15 scheme. It may help to think about this as a constraint to editing just like WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV or the MOS are.

The key thing to remember is that Wikipedia is meant to be a free encyclopedia. Content copyrighted by others is not free, and it isn't ours to give away. Are some aspects of copyright ridiculous? Absolutely. But in the end, the core question to ask here is what do we provide that BOI doesn't? What value can we add that BOI tables don't convey? As the two tables I left intact demonstrate, there is actually a lot that Wikipedia can provide.

I understand the removal of a large piece of collective work is painful. I take no pleasure when I have to take a GA that happens to be tainted by copied content back to start level. But lashing out isn't going to solve any issues. What you can do, however, is use your expertise on the subject to demonstrate how to work around those copyright constraints, and set a an example for future list articles to follow. Because there is certainly a smarter way to handle this than 1-3-6-10. I'm just not smart enough to think about it all on my own. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems you did not even look at my previous comments properly. I had been suggesting brainstorming and discussions right from the start (unlike the imposition of things upon others). The only problem seems to be that the editors are afraid to do anything in opposition to certain "legal forces". Mind you, I have none of that, and I would love to open up an RfC (as I had asked Moonriddengirl). Until everyone is ready to shed their inhibitions, we cannot proceed, and I suggest that you help in removing these inhibitions. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to open up the RfC, although as I pointed out at my talk page it will not enable us to restore this article. We cannot oppose "legal forces". We are all bound by Terms of Use here, and if a Foundation employee says that content is not safe for use, we don't have any recourse but to find an approach that is safe. There are websites that don't care about legalities, but Wikipedia isn't among them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Full Protection

In light of the on-going reintroduction of copyrighted material without permission, the article has now been placed under full protection. Again, as evidenced by the discussions above, the current presentation of data is less than satisfactory, but blanket reintroduction of the material against our copyright policy (and without discussion of viable alternatives) is simply not acceptable. Please propose changes here using the {{editprotected}} template. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No.2

Where is No.2 in the lists?

Someone involved in numerology has edited the list. Someone dyslexic has edited the list.

LOL Am now rolling on the mud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.0.120 (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lt. Shahbaz, 22 June 2011

i want to edit bollywood highest grossing films please give a permission

Lt. Shahbaz (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Only admins can edit this List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. This page is fully protected due to Edit warring / Content dispute (Repeated reintroduction of copyrighted content without evidence of permission). GaneshBhakt (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please state the exact change you would like to make. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright?

According to Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service collections of facts are not protected by copyright.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take time to read the discussion above, this has already been covered. The numbers are expert estimates and have creative content, they are not collections of facts or simple measurements. Fæ (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this page SRK paid?

I ask that question because, I do NOT see Dabangg or Ready in the higest grossing films of all time. Instead I see SRK's movies in the list, and funny how they do not come even close to Salman's Dabangg and Ready in box office success.

So please change it or I would have to file a complaint against you. That you are taking bribes for this page. It seems pretty obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SairaMehnaz (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is not "SRK paid", as you put it. The problem is that there have been certain, very large and very silly copyright "problems" surrounding this list. So, a new system of ranking has been implemented - putting up only the 1,3,6,10 and 15 ranking films. Unfortunately, Salman Khan's films do not fall under these ranks. That is the reason of the absence of the films you mentioned. Unfortunately, though it is known that the list has become misleading and extremely silly, legal authorities refuse to find a solution as they have "suggested" this new ranking system, and have now become complacent. For more accurate information, you may have to view the history of this page. The inconvenience is regretted.

AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WELL IT LOOK LIKE IT IS SRK PAID CAUSE THERE IS NO BODYGUARD OR READY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.243.182 (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wamiq Husnain, 16 July 2011

I want to edit this page as i get all information about bollywood high grossing movies.

Wamiq Husnain (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You will be able to edit this page when protection expires. --Danger (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious?

This list is a silly joke. Either remove it or make it more logical. A 1,3,6,10,15 order looks like a terrible joke. Scieberking (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening week nett gross

According to this latest list by BOI, the following films should be mentioned:

1. Bodyguard
3. Three Idiots
6. Ghajini
10. Housefull

Scieberking (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)