||This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Threads with no replies in 20 days may be automatically moved.
Worldwide Gross of PK : Rs 743 crore and BoxofficeIndia as primary source for Hindi films
In Overseas Gross of Indian Films including Hindi,Telugu ,Tamil films the data is consistent, but only in case of domestic gross in India(due to entertainment tax and also due to producers' stating more collection at times), the gross collection vary 3-10 crores range. The sites which you mentioned, ibtimes and indianexpress are NOT trade websites, they quote data from trade websites, like Boxofficeindia.com like TimesofIndia do , as here
- So, the data should be taken from a trade website who deals with collection from every territory and quote its figure on its site consistently. In this case, Boxofficeindia.com is site which gives data for Hindi films and Hindi-Dubbed films . it is much better than Bollywood Hungama, which is not quoting regional collections and takes data from producers. so Boxofficeindia.com should be given priority. there was data differences 3-4 years back in Krrish 3 collections when producers exaggerated the worldwide figures of film by 60 crores from actual ₹ 187 crores to ₹ 255 crores.
Worldwide Gross of PK from Two sources: 743 crore first source:
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion has hit 1000 crore GROSS Worldwide box office in ten days. The film had gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore a few days back. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide but now with its China run it can go over 900 crore but its not catching Bahubali - The Conclusion.
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion which has smashed all box office records has also taken the Worldwide crown in just six days. The film has gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore with business close to 800 crore. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide. PK at 743 crore and Dangal at 702 crore.
PK was released in Hindi only
The worldwide gross should be changed from 792 to 743 crore.--Rashkeqamar (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Emphatic "no way": As a summary for anyone who might be confused by all the bolded text, the user is proposing that the Indian cinema task force prioritize Box Office India over all other sources (TOI, IBT, etc) for Hindi box office figures. Per my comment here, I think this is a ridiculous proposition, because "prioritize" means that any source with a contrary opinion would no longer be valid and BOI would be our singular go-to. I believe this would be a gross violation of WP:UNDUE, as other reliable sources with different viewpoints would be excluded from consideration. Since the entirety of Indian film finances are derived through proprietary estimates, not through a central auditing system like Box Office Mojo, there simply is no way to establish a singular authority with any faith of extreme reliability. In the case of how the gross of PK should be represented at List of highest-grossing Indian films, I think a range of 743–792 crore could be appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792, IndianBio, Bollyjeff, DRAGON BOOSTER, Editor 2050, and Ssven2: Sorry for the ping, but response at this page tends to be a bit low. Comments kindly requested at Talk:Baahubali_2: The Conclusion#Production Budget of Film is misleading. The issue is how the budget of Baahubali 2 should be presented. One editor, BoxRox believes that a budget estimate of ₹250 crore total for parts 1 and 2 made by Rajamouli in 2015 should be used for determining the sequel's budget. Many recent sources (as detailed in the discussion) put the figure at 250 crore, which BoxRox feels is inaccurate. Comments on how to present the figures are appreciated. Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- For part 1, it is 180 crores, while part 2 is done at 250, making up a total of 430 crores. But I feel only one person can tell us how much the film costs: SSR himself. One of us can tweet to him saying that Wikipedia wants to know. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- And you must try your best to avoid violating WP:COI. Sometimes it is common for production companies to fradulently overstate their films' budgets (like Franchise Pictures did with this piece of gem), but I think producers would have stopped doing so after seeing what happened to the aforementioned film. I think both films were not completely shot together; 40% of Baahubali 2 was complete when Baahubali 1 was released. So maybe during the shooting of the remaining 60%, the budget increased. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- That is possible, with most of it spent on marketing, pre-release distributions (now it is K productions instead of Studio Green) and promotions. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Ssven2 and Kailash29792: The comments are appreciated, though we usually comment at the target discussion. Ssven2, we typically don't rely on primary sources for controversial content like finances. Part of why the Kabali gross figures were so heavily inflated is because the figures were being pumped out by the producer/marketing dept. Though I do understand your point. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: That was for the BO. This is for the production budget. I really don't think SSR would lie about that. I do have an idea though. One of us can add a footnote stating the different budgets estimated (like Eega's FA). — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792, IndianBio, Bollyjeff, DRAGON BOOSTER, Editor 2050, Vensatry, Krimuk2.0, Krish!, Numerounovedant, Skr15081997, Jaguar, and Yashthepunisher: The article is undergoing a FAR here. Please provide comments before it is closed. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This website was co-founded by Chitra Subramaniam only a few years back (2014), but I wonder if it passes WP:RS. Cyphoidbomb, do you have contact with anyone who analyses sources and can determine their reliability? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's no official Wikipedia "examination" that I'm aware of. Editors get together and reason through whether a source should be used based on questions like, "who runs this site?" and "does the site have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? And so forth. Do we know if any other news sources look to this site as a legitimate peer? Does The News Minute get exclusive stories that are then picked up by other media? (It's sort of tricky in Indian journalism, since we often see mainstream sites like IBT and TOI pointing to blogs like AndhraBoxOffice and Onlookersmedia.in for box office figures, which I don't think should count to establish reputation, because all these news sites are under pressure to report new financials, and don't seem to care where it comes from.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- If The News Minute fails WP:RS on the grounds of being a relatively new site, then that's not bad. But over here, Vensatry straightaway called it a non-RS, for a different reason. TNM occasionally conducts exclusive interviews (like this, this and this), but I think exclusive interviews from any site can be used, regardless of the site's reliability, as long as the interviewee is reliable, e.g.: Comicbookmovie.com. Still I would appreciate an explanation by Vensatry on why he does not consider TNM a RS. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Some queries about biography
1. While I am editing an infobox in a biography, should I not cite any reference? 2. In the infobox, should I write like - |death_place = Mumbai, India or |death_place = [[Mumbai]], [[India]]?
--P.Shiladitya (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- P.Shiladitya, since Mumbai, India are common enough for Bollywood related pages, there's no need to link them. If the info which you intend to add to the infobox is cited to a reliable source in the main body then you can add that but if not then at least add a source in the infobox. However, don't add religion until very necessary and also the relatives info unless they are notable enough to have their own article. Hope that helps, --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Dear @Skr15081997: Sir,
- Thanks for your kind reply. I am new in wikipedia and want to learn rules. In the article Reema Lagoo, I named a part of the section 'Personal Life' as 'Death' and added a reference from Huffpost in the infobox, that all were reverted. And thus I asked the above question.
- Whatever, thanks a lot from the bottom of my heart.
- --P.Shiladitya (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- @P.Shiladitya: It looks like you're talking about this reversion] by Editor5454. The chief complaint seems to be that you created a unique section for death, which Editor5454 didn't feel was necessary. I don't quite understand why the references were removed. Some editors don't feel it necessary to include references in the infobox or in the lead if the references to support the statements (like a death date) are present elsewhere in the article body, but I consider this a very shortsighted approach to article maintenance. Vandalism is prevalent, and having prominent references for often-vandalised data like birth/death dates, location of birth, etc. are very useful and don't require other editors to search an entire article for confirmation of a piece of information. Though we don't need excessive referencing, there is no prohibition on referencing in the infobox or lead, and some infobox parameters like
|release_date= (in the film infobox) invite the addition of references. From WP:LEADCITE: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. I don't see why it would be any different in the infobox. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! The reason I removed the infobox reference was, like you mentioned, due to "excessive referencing"; three references in the body already supported the said content. A person's death on a particular day would obviously invite enthusiastic contributors to the page on the said day and the following few days. But, there should not be a debate on the date of death. On the date of birth, there could be, which I understand and thus, have promptly left a reference next to the birth date in the infobox. I am no very experienced contributor myself, and am not aware of the 'extremely lengthy and hard to read Wiki guidelines' myself. But, thank you for bringing this to my notice. I shall henceforth be careful and leave a reference in the infobox wherever required. I believe content should be added keeping in mind that these pages are here for eternity, and not a few days or weeks :) P.S.: Cyphoidbomb, you are doing a great job replying to questions and concerns of fellow contributors in such detail. Thank you! Editor5454 (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Skr15081997:, @Cyphoidbomb:,
Thanks a lot for your reply. It would help me a lot in editing. I hope, I will get your valuable help in future.
Thanks @Editor5454: for participating in friendly discussion. I asked this question to know more and thus, kindly do not mind anything.
Thanking again, --P.Shiladitya (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, I am always up for a constructive discussion. So, thank you for initiating one. Also, just to clarify on why I removed your edit "[[ ]]" on Mumbai ('linking'), is because the subject's birth place was Mumbai too (known then as Bombay), which I had linked. Generally no page is linked to, more than once from an infobox. But, I suppose adding "(now Mumbai)" next to Bombay is necessary. Anyway, thanks! — Editor5454 (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Should Golden Kela Awards, Ghanta Awards, Filmfail Awards and the likes be added to accolades lists? List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone and List of awards and nominations received by Bradley Cooper (both FLs) includes Golden Raspberry Awards. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I strongly agree. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Films of India awards
Hey guys, has anyone ever heard of the "Films of India Online Awards"? Their web presence appears to be here, but the anonymous nature of it with so little detail seems really sketchy to me. I first encountered this entity here when someone added a wixsite.com address at Neerja. The anyone-can-set-up-a-Wix-website notion bothered me, so I looked elsewhere on the project for instances of this site being used, then looked deeper. If anyone has any info on whether or not it's an award that anyone cares about (call me skeptical, since it only appears to have existed for 2 years) then I'll probably remove the instances. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The admins says that they need a reliable sources.The Source used for the malayalam movie Pulimurugan is catch news.How is it reliable.It is not like any news channels or indian express.How is it possible to use it.Please clarify for what reason it is used.Who is the editor in that.What is his qualfication.Muhammed.suhail (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
admin please give reply against this problem as of my point of view in the section of highest grossing indian films the list and the editing is been done in fan base especially in the section of malayalam movie. A source is used there is catch news which is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammed.suhail (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- For anyone else who has information about Catch's reliability, I answered a portion of Muhammed's question here, where I told him that Catch News is owned by Rajasthan Patrika and was founded by Shoma Chaudhury, who was fired after the site had been established. Jupitus Smart has previously expressed that he doesn't think Catch should be considered reliable. Does anyone from the Indian cinema task force have any opinions about this site? If nobody is willing to stand up for it, then it, like any other random website could wind up being disregarded as a reputable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Extensive discussion on Cyphoidbomb's talk page. Refer there. Jupitus Smart 16:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Jupitus Smart: Are you aware of WP:ICTFFAQ? I started compiling that a while back to help build a resource for this community, but it's not a strong document yet and many of the listed sites have never been discussed. Not sure if you have any time or interest in working on it, but it exists if you're interested. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: No I was not aware of WP:ICTFFAQ, though I am a little too pre-occupied now to actually contribute in any effective manner. I will try and opine on each publications once I make a full return. Jupitus Smart 03:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Aadhi Raat Ke Baad
There is an AfD that is relevant to your topic area at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aadhi Raat Ke Baad. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Reliability of assamtimes.org
Hello everyone, I would like to know if we can or can not accept assamtimes.org as a reliable source to support notability for films and actors? As per their Join us page anybody can join them and share write ups and ideas which they will endorse according to their editorial policy but I can't find what their policies are. I also posted this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 05:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)