Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films/Archive 1

Doubt
My question guys is: Is there any importance to who the producer(s) of the film is? I think the better think we can do is to give the heroes of the film. What do you say? -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the producers are the one who get the earnings. its important to mention 'em. moreover, other lists on box-office like "List of highest-grossing films" only mention the names of the studio/producers. Anant Singh 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Numbers?
Hey guys, I was trying to figure out the money involved in this movies, but while I know that 1 dollar is roughly 43 indian rupees, I just dont understand the numbers included here: what does it mean Rs. 86,50,00,000 ???... 865 million rupees???, 86.5 million rupees???... 865 thousand rupees and zero cents???... maybe I'm just ignorant, but I would like to understand this... anyone??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.14.44.23 (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers and regular updates
I found the data very irrelevant as no data has been updated since a very long time.Numbers are without proper proof.And please mention a proper heading identifying significance of every table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.135.206 (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant material
As the title of the article says it is the list of highest grossing films, the rest of the article about actors/actresses/producers and the ridiculous Bollywood news section are completely irrelevant. Fay06 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Love story 2050
It does not figure in the list of box office india.com http://www.boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=all_time_earners&PHPSESSID=531c41c505570e9a9ecd907def3d52fc Trakesht (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Boxofficemojo.com
Hello all.

Should we use figures from www.boxofficemojo.com? Atleast for the latest films, since they're all available there.

Perhaps, we could have the first list of film grosses from boxofficemojo.com and so on... aJC freak y A k  16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

New topic
BIG PROBLEM : The list is outdated.The list is wholly wrong.someone mistakenly edited it.OSO is second highest and Ghajini is first.Please check the correct sites and verify.
 * How is the list outdated?? It isn't!! Whenever the pages of BOI & IBOS are updated, so is the article. The former is currently updating their website and thus the collections of some of the films have been changed. I plan to make the new changes a.s.a.p. As of now, when unadjusted for inflation, Om Shanti Om has still grossed the highest amount. I am sure that Ghajini will gross more than OSO but as of now the latter is still leading. Please do not add incorrect information to the article. Regards --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

hey people!

don't you think that IBOS is giving false numbers. almost everyone of us know that IBOS is just made to support some selected people but not to inform us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondeslover (talk • contribs) 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

3 idiots
3 idiots hAS GROSSED 120 CRORES .59.94.203.180 (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, now 3 Idiots has grossed 240 crores!! It's 2nd week collection is higher than it's first. Surely it should be mentioned. Thenietzscheapostle (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on what you are going according to. According to BOI, it still has not. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding new tables
My page Bollywood Boxoffice Dashboard was deleted because of similarity with your page. Would you like to add two tables to your page 1. Top movies of each year 2. Total business of top 10 movies each year. Let me know, I can really help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepguptawiki (talk • contribs) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What the heck!
I think someone has gone totally nuts. I am a huge SRK fan, but even I know that My Name Is Khan did not gross Rs. 218 crores net! Someone please explain to the concerned editor that net and gross collections are very different.

The table looks very unreal. Please correct it.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A combined table
I think it is now time that we come back to a proposition made by Bollywood Dreams, which I feel is an excellent one. This proposition is that we have a combined table for both BOI and IBOS figures, and utilise their averages for ranking purposes. This will save lots of trouble and confusion, and will also help in evening out some anti-khan elements harbored by IBOS. As we all know, IBOS is very anti-muslim and always tends to favour the Bachchans, Kapoors and Akshay Kumar. Taking averages will somewhat alleviate the problem.

I think this proposition warrants long and intensive discussion. The editors who are willing to debate on this are welcome to participate. As soon as you feel that we can debate on this, please inform me.

Cheers,

Ankitbhatt (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This will not save, but will create a lot of trouble and confusion. The numbers of BOI and IBOS are different, which means we will have to give either site a preference and the other numbers will be unorganised and will have to be in sortable style to be seen properly. Each site in a different table.
 * Also, what you just said about IBOS is just a speculation. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A new table
I suggest that, taking example from the list List of highest-grossing films, we create a table listing out the biggest hit of each year. For example, biggest hit of 2006 was Dhoom 2, 2007 was OSO, 2008 was Ghajini, 2009 was 3 Idiots, 2010 is MNIK. What do you think guys? I'll start the table as soon as possible.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have completed the table. Entries for 2000 to 2010. Hope you like it.


 * Ankitbhatt (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Extended The Table
I am going to extended the table which was created by Ankitbhatt. Great work by Ankitbhatt. I am going to complete the whole table till 1940, where was the bollywood films begins and don't worry about the calculation. I am updating through Box office India.com. Tks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surper1988west (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet another New Table!
Hey guys! I created a new table - Highest-grossing films by month, unadjusted for inflation. But there is one film missing. And that's the April record. I can't find it. If someone does, please don't hesitate to add it to the table.

Cheers!

Ankitbhatt (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Dhoom 2 Suddenly increased?
Few days ago & many months ago I check Dhoom 2's nett gross is Rs. 78,86,00,000. But Now it is Rs. 80,53,00,000. How that is possible. Is Dhoom 2 still running on the theatres or it by mistaken correcting now by BOI????? SURAJIT (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Expansion
Hey guys.

I just got a new idea. What if we expand the list of highest-grossing Bollywood films for each source from the top 30 to the top 50? I think this will be better, and put up some well-deserving films (such as Veer) into the list. I do understand that the article is already quite lengthy, and another addition might not be so nice. But still, I really feel that 30 is rather an odd number, and we can have a list for top 50. What do you say guys?

Just as a beginner, I will expand the list sourced from BOI from the top 30 to the top 50. If you like it, you can keep it. If you don't, then please state here why you don't. After some debate, we can come to a final conclusion.

Cheers!

Ankitbhatt (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have expanded the table. Problem is, I don't know the net collections of several 2009 films yet, so the list can be incomplete. Also, I need to know the exact collections of Veer. I'm still working on this table. If anyone finds out the exact net collections of Veer, please don't hesitate to put it up in the table (if it can).


 * Ankitbhatt (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

HUGELY OUTDATED TABLE : MASSIVE REVAMP REQUIRED
I recently visited the site IBOS, and saw the adjusted Box Office Figures, and I am sorry to say that the figures are GROSSLY OUTDATED according to this source. The whole table requires a complete make-over, and I would be delighted if somebody help me in this process. Thank you.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A new table "Biggest opening day gross of all time"
Guys I am adding a new table of Biggest opening day gross of all time. After seeing this link on Box Office India = http://www.boxofficeindia.com/npages.php?page=shownews&articleid=1703&nCat=news

Hope you all will appreciate my work. Tks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surper1988west (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Enthiran" not a Bollywood film
Enthiran is not a Bollywood film, so it can't be included in this list. Please correct me if I am wrong.  Managerarc [Talk]  09:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is true. Enthiran cannot be included in this list because it specifically talks of Bollywood films, not of Indian films.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 13:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rs to New Rupee symbol
As is happening everywhere, I suggest a change from the Rs. being used in this article to the new rupee symbol, in keeping with the uniformity of India-based articles.

 Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 13:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Biggest grosser of 1999
Boxofficeindia.com has updated the tally for 1999. The biggest grosser was Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam not Biwi No.1. Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.61.47 (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be Hum Saath Saath Hain according to this link, so I made the change. BollyJeff  ||  talk  14:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And the users are private of useful info
It is worrying as a list with thousands of edits by dozens of users can be considered copyvio. The result is that the normal users (those who do not consult the history) are private of information. Fortunately, common sense still prevails in Wikipedia and this non-article (it would be best to simply delete it) is an exception. Caiaffa (talk) 16:08, 12 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.

 Ankit Bhatt  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, Ankit Bhatt, 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.  Ankit Bhatt  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.  Ankit Bhatt  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.  Ankit Bhatt  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.  Ankit Bhatt  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)


 * 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please state the exact change you would like to make. &mdash; 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)

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)

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)

Top lifetime grossers
Here is a list of films (till 2010) which shows top lifetime grossers worldwide. Boxoffice India --Rossi101 (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Rossi101

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.243.182 (talk) 18:29, 14 September 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.

 Ankit Bhatt  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)


 * Nothing is SRK or Salman or Akshay paid on Wikipedia. In fact nobody gets paid on Wikipedia. If you want anything added in here you'll have to follow the rules and play nice. Scieberking (talk) 23:18, 13 October 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) 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please discuss changes to the article before using editprotected. Thanks! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films section below. Scieberking (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain but I have no idea what is controversial or not because I am not familiar with this article. By all means I will update the information for you. The table is copied here for convenience. Please update and reactivate the template and I'll coppy it over. Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

IBOS is not as up-to-date as BOI, so how can you really fill out the table completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs)


 * Is this your comment Bollyjeff? Yeah, IBOS is not as up-to-date as BOI. They've not provided any data at all about Bodyguard, but they've sufficient data for other films. I've included the website in my version of table anyway. Scieberking (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated table

 * Comment: Thanks Martin. I've added the updated table in a different sub-section to avoid confusion. Scieberking (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 October 2011
Please remove this unneeded 143,48,31,000 figure from 3 Idiots nett gross in "Highest-grossing Bollywood films (extract)" section. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See comment above. Disabling for now, please reactivate if/when there is consensus. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films section below. Scieberking (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, this one was uncontroversial. ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests
Okay, but these two edit requests (1 and 2) are not at all controversial. First one is about removing the nett gross of Dabangg, some 143,48,31,000, according to IBOS network, a figure that's totally irrelevant to that of 3 Idiots. Second request is about updating the data, Opening week nett gross, using the latest list provided by the same old Box Office India website we've used since the very beginning. And that, of course, while retaining the 1,3,6,10 pattern. Anyways, I would invite you guys to "reach a consensus" for these two edits. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an extra figure sticking off to the side of the first table that should definitely be removed. Also, several of these tables are out of date now, as there have been several high grossing films in the past year or so.  These tables should be updated to reflect the new reality.  BollyJeff  ||  talk  12:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I meant. Scieberking (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
We have more copyright problems. Guys, please comment. I'm tired of dealing with unreasonable and frankly biased lawyers and editors over the reliability of this article.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 13:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boxofficeindia.com is the only available site which is reliable and maintains box office record details in India. Website is same as Box Office Mojo. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The point being that we cannot take a list of top 10 based on expert estimates straight from a BOI web page and paste it into this article without being concerned about the copyright that BOI claim for their creative figures. If the figures were verifiable box office accounts or reproducibly calculated estimates then there would be no copyright issue. At the end of the day we are not losing much content value; there is hardly any unique benefit for the encyclopaedia if we are just cut and pasting something that an article can link directly to (or link to an archive version). If you think the interpretation of legal advice is fundamentally wrong, then please first consider the guidance at WP:CIL and challenge those principles. If there is a good alternative interpretation it can always go back for a second round of legal advice. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Top grossing films of year and month
I wonder why it is the top 1 grossing movie that is given in these tables? wouldnt it be more interesting to tell everyone just a random 3rd or 6th highest grossing film of every month and year and let people interpolate for the top? 98.234.234.184 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

on a serious note why not just give top 1 movie in the tables above them? what information does 3rd 6th and 10th give any way.. they should be removed.. 98.234.234.184 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

i want to edit i want to enter movies data plz may i request you please open Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tere Mast (talk • contribs) 04:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

i want to edit to bollywood highest grossing films list i want to add correct information to plz give me permission to edit  Thank You  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tere Mast (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See above discussions on copyright. The article has a long history of this being ignored by unconfirmed editors. --Fæ (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Special edit request
Why do you not complete record enter in bollywood highest grossing films? Plz give one chance to enter complete correct and full record plz one chance Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabhahs (talk • contribs) 09:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The why is answered in the discussions above, please take a moment to read through them. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

Highest-grossing Bollywood films
Okay, so the up-to-date list for "Highest-grossing Bollywood films" should be like this using 1, 2 and 3:

1- 3 Idiots : 202,57,00,000 (BOI) - 1,89,38,74,729 (IBOS) 3- Dabangg : 140,10,00,000 (BOI) - 1,43,48,31,000 (IBOS) 6- Golmaal 3 : 107,56,00,000 (BOI) - 1,16,32,39,301 (IBOS) 10- Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi : 86,78,00,000 (BOI) - 73,52,37,848 (IBOS)

(The rest of them are: 2- Bodyguard, 4- Ready, 5- Ghajini, 7- Singham, 8- Rajneeti, 9- Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara)

It would be better to reach a consensus before activating an edit request so your comments would be much appreciated. Thanks guys. Scieberking (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The format doesn't look too great to me. I, for one, completely mistrust IBOS and treat it as an unreliable website due to it's very heavy bias. I still think bringing back the table in it's entirety would be good, but I'm sure certain lawyers are going to chatter if I even think about it.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 14:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ankit regarding the format. IBOS can not alone be a good reliable source. We must find few other sources. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not even a single site is totally unbiased. BOI is not, either. I've added the updated, formatted table below. The previous one was just a rough sketch. Scieberking (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That may be correct, but BOI is not even 5% as biased as IBOS. The amount of one-sidedness IBOS has is so laughably visible that it's an insult to even consider those figures for such a reliable entity like Wikipedia. Of course, this is only my personal opinion. Anyways, the table looks good enough.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We couldn't just exclude IBOS for the moment. We'll need a consensus for that, too. Anyways, the table is okay to be placed as you've said, I'm adding an edit request. Scieberking (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 17 October 2011
Please update this section with the table I've updated above. You'll just need to take the code from here and replace it. A consensus has been reached already. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. It seems there is general agreement that IBOS is not a good source to use; I can remove it if you like. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Martin. I'm not a fan of IBOS either, but we've been using the site since the very beginning of this article. We'll need a strong consensus to completely remove it. Scieberking (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated January 8, 2012
1- 3 Idiots : 202,57,00,000 (BOI) 3- Dabangg : 140,10,00,000 (BOI) 6- Ghajini: 114,67,00,000 (BOI) 10- Rajneeti: 92,93,00,000 (BOI)

Scieberking (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick update. I was confused as to what to do with this hodge-podge list when Ra.One passed Ghajini.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Here's the updated list of highest opening day grossers which uses this source:


 * ROCKSTAR Is 7th Biggest Opening Day Of All Time

The rough list is here, and the updated table is below.

1. Bodyguard - 20.62 crore 3. Dabangg - 14.45 crore 6. Threes Idiots - 13.00 crore 10. Housefull - 9.32 crore

Again, I would appreciate your comments before activating an edit request. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this looks good.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 12:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added an edit request. Scieberking (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated table (and text)
The following is an extract of the list of the top 10 Bollywood films, which have had the biggest opening day gross.

Edit request 18 October 2011
Please update this section with the table I've updated above. You'll just need to take the code and text from here and replace it. A consensus has been reached already (see discussion section above). Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've lowered the protection. The problem users seem to blocked anyway, so this protection is only harming the article. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's better. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why 2nd ranked film is hidden from this table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.40.62 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See previous discussions and you'll find out why. Scieberking (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Updated 27 December
1. Bodyguard - 20.62 crore  3. Dabangg - 14.45 crore  6. Three Idiots - 12.98 crore  10. Rockstar - 9.82 crore 

The list uses this BOI source. Scieberking (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening weekend nett gross
Here's the full list (all data from BOI sources):

1. Dabangg 	- 48,82,00,000 3- Don 2 - 45,40,00,000 6. Three Idiots  -	37,98,00,000 10. Raajneeti 	-	33,62,00,000 Updated Dec 27 Scieberking (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ra.one has grossed 53 crores in first three days, just edged Bodyguard, which grossed 52 crores. Please do not provide any misleading information, (as in the above post, in which 1.3 billion nett figures of Ra.one are given).

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you see the updated comment, we don't count extended weekend for any movie including Bodyguard and Ra.One (but Friday to Sunday). Secondly, there's a consensus to only use BoxOfficeIndia.com data (so Friday - 15.30 + Saturday - 14.55 + Sunday - 13.30). You should read everything carefully before making pointless, illogical and baseless accusations. Scieberking (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is senseless, you have edited the collections of Ra. one now, and now you are saying i am pointless ??? I have also given the collections from Box-office india, and it is the most reliable and authentic site. Do not try to be smart, you have edited the collections of Ra.one, previously you have written 137 crores collections, which was senseless, pointless, and and are not authentic !!!

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, Nabil is correct in citing the first 3 days for Bodyguard and Ra.One. However, please note that the table is for Opening weekend, not for Opening three days. There is a considerable difference between the two. In that respect, the current amount of 43.15 crore is perfectly right.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agreed.....

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I WANT TO EDIT BOLLYWOOD HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIES LIST PLEASE OPEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by James SLMN (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Blue colouring - proposal to remove from the article
The blue highlighting of whatever film is playing right now in cinemas seems meaningless. Plenty of films are being endlessly replayed at different cinemas around the world and the colouring fails MOS:COLOR and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd picked and implemented the idea from here List of highest-grossing films. Should I remove the colouring? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd support removing it. I know that in early forms of these film lists the highlighting was being used to show "current" films, but such types of reporting are against the ethos of a long term encyclopaedic view and lacked meaningfulness. --Fæ (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I do not favor this move to remove coloring from this list. Already the list is suffering from massive negative publicity due to its pathetic layout and contents. Plus, there is no proper foundation for this move, except a single editor's baseless claim that it is "meaningless". A case in point is List of highest-grossing films, which also shows coloring in spite of also coming under MOS and RECENT. When I tried to bring this to the attention of the said editor, he plunged into more policies but failed to tackle the actual problem, with flimsier excuses each time. I strongly suggest a return to a colored format, or a consensus with the Hollywood film list editors to see what they think. Editors' consensus is required. Thank you.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 14:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what "currently running" would mean, how you would account for re-runs in various cities or how the list would be maintained in practice? Presumably such films should be highlighted in some other way than just colour to accommodate mobile platforms, B&W LCD screens or those with special readers, such as our blind users. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest Fae to talk in a proper manner befitting an administrator. For one, if you are saying that running at one/two theaters is also called "now running", you are foolishly mistaken. A currently-running film is displayed only if it is still collecting a reasonable minimum amount of money at theaters (by BOI, this lower limit is ₹1 lakh). Second, re-runs among Bollywood films are very rare with minor exceptions such as Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (which isn't even in this list), or perhaps a 3 Idiots. These re-runs earn next to nothing as DVDs, TV, downloads etc. are all fully available by the time a re-run is thought. That's the very reason why re-runs are not encouraged by film theater owners. Third, I do not understand what mobile platforms have anything to do with this as I'm talking about films in theaters. Fourth, you are attempting at side-tracking the fact that each and every one of your "concerns" applies equally well for any other film list, actually more for Hollywood as classics like Titanic, Avatar etc. which may run at a few theaters for several years. But you are failing to answer this point simply because you don't have an answer, you just want to apply everything here and leave other lists as it is because "it isn't your duty to check every film list". There is the case of The Lion King, which had a wide re-release and earned lots of money in it, and hence it is a still-running film. And Karthik's argument is perfectly correct, highlighting ensures that the readers understand that the figures are liable to change. This will avoid much confusion on part of the readers, and will also ensure that we do not receive "hate" comments saying "This list is paid by so-and-so person, so as to under-report figures" (which is a very troublesome problem faced). I doubt you will/want to see reason, but at least I can put my argument up for other, more rational and logical editors to understand. Good day.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF  13:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unsure what "befitting an administrator" really means, if there is a guideline I would be happy to read it. I do not appreciate my questions being marginalized as being irrational or illogical.
 * If the lower limit of 1 lakh is the criteria, then I suggest you make this part of the local consensus here, though you should realize that BOI's estimates are not accounts of box office figures and so any such lower limit may be disputed. Presumably if a film makes more than 100,000 rupees after previously dropping below this arbitrary limit, then someone would have to update the table back to being coloured again.
 * My point about mobile platforms was about how this article would be displayed, not about how films get played. --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I equally do not appreciate the fact that you are continuously and systematically marginalizing my comparison, which you are still unable to respond to because you do not have any plausible excuse to cover it up. Frankly, you are acting most irrationally and illogically, and hence the phrase used. If you dispute this, I cannot help in any way. Regarding the lower limit, BOI figures are considered of high reliability even though they are estimates. Yes, if the film comes back above the 1 lakh mark after previously dropping below (which happens in 1 in 10,000 cases), then it will have to be updated in this table. What is the problem in that? Surely you are not believing that the editors who contribute to this list are lazy enough to be unable to add a small coloring code into the edit page? In case you are unaware, such updating is required of every Wikipedia article to keep WP accurate and up-to-date. I suggest that you obtain a better reason to avoid coloring than all this. And in case you forget, I demand an answer regarding the comparison. In case you ignore, well then God be with you. Good day.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comment: A classic example of what, how and why it looked "distracting". Agree with Ankitbhatt that this is a List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (in India according to nett gross collections), and not a List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in Overseas Markets. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, I never meant coloring like that, which is truly distracting. I have stated that I want the light-blue coloring in the row of the current-running film, exactly like how it was before.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 13:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. You meant it the way I'd put it before. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * It makes sense to denote which films are currently in their first run, because it is obvious that these are not the final figures and will be changing soon. Again, it is done with the Hollywood films, so it should be done here too. Get them to remove it and them come back here, because that is a more visited page that this one patterns itself after.  BollyJeff  ||  talk  21:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What's wrong if we highlight currently running films. It will also be an indication that these figures are to change. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some coloring (the way I'd done it) won't hurt. Only those which are in their first run (no re-releases, and second phase releases in more foreign markets) should be highlighted. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * Well, as Fæ says, plenty of films are still playing in cinemas round the world. For instance, 3 Idiots is still running in a few countries in the far-east and collecting hefty amounts adding to its gross. In 2009, it was around 340 crore and in 2011, it became 358 crore.  Secret of success  Talk to me  15:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Colors are distrating most of the time, and can make the text unreadable.  Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 15:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This list is for films running in India. I do not care much for their overseas grosses, as this list is based on Indian grosses and not overseas ones. And regarding distracting, I suggest we also see the Hollywood films list. I insist on comparing because frankly, that's the only way sense will prevail. Thank you.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 16:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Verdict
As of November 29, 2011, there are three editors who support bringing color back to this list, and two editors who oppose this. Please note that this is liable to change.

I guess that now the verdict is in favor of putting color back into the list. Thank you for your consensus.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 13:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bear trap
I have just blocked two newer users for copyright violation (in accordance with advice at WP:CIL) after giving them a fair first warning. If someone has ideas for how to make the article less of a bear trap, I would welcome some ideas. Unfortunately Moonriddengirl's experience of embedding hidden text as warnings was a bit of a bust. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Two ideas. First, I've added color to the edit notice. It may help, since the white edit notice pretty much disappeared. Hidden text might help a little bit, but as I've just discovered at Bollywood films of 2011, not entirely. I've added them in just in case. A brand new contributor just deleted the hidden note to put the table back there. :/ I so wish BOI would allow us to use this!


 * The only other idea I have is to turn it into a prose article rather than a list article. Like Bollywood films of 2011. It's more work, but it's transformative. I'm not exactly swimming in time, but if contributors are interested in doing this, I'd be happy to help, so we wind up with something better than the admittedly pretty awful situation we're left with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For one, I doubt adding color is going to change anything. Second, the textual matter you have put for the 2011 Bollywood films seems to contain only the list of Salman Khan movies. You may be a fan, but I suggest that you detail out the collections of each of the top 10 highest-grossing films inlcuding Ra.One, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara and Singham to name a few. Please do not make it sound like a pro-Salman biased piece of text. Thank you.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 16:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only am I not a fan, I don't even know who Salman Khan is. I'm afraid Bollywood hasn't made many inroads in my area. But the really cool thing about Wikipedia is that if you want to improve an article, you can! Go for it. :) We can't use the list, but you're welcome to write more information about the other top-grossing films. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Btw, where exactly do you live?  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The southern east coast of the United States. Internet safety being what is, that's about as specific as I like to get. :) --U/b> ser:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You needn't worry. I live in the other side of the world, and trust me, I'm no good at computer technocracy.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 07:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not worried about you. :) Unfortunately, Wikipedians are not always treated nicely. I've already had issues with stalkers due to my Wikipedia work. I don't want them showing up on my doorstep. :/ I could tell you horror stories about problems some other administrators I know have encountered, but they might not want me sharing them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Never knew that a Wikipedian's life could be fraught with danger and thrills :P. Seriously, stalkers? But why? After all, you're not physically harming them or something are you? You're just ... editing.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 07:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The only answer I can give to that one, I'm afraid, is that some people are nuts. :/ Honestly, though, beyond the random insanity issue, there are people who fight to use Wikipedia to promote their causes, and some of these people are willing to go to extreme measures. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There I agree with you completely. :/  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 14:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Special request
Can anyone please put the list of highest-grossing Bollywood films of 2011 here, with the figures form BOI? I know it can't be used in WP, but surely I could use it for my own personal uses? I will be very happy if somebody would oblige me in this.

And btw, have you guys received permission from BOI? The table is back to the 1 - 10 format.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 07:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if it is a copyvio in the article, then it would be on the discussion page. They are available on BOI to refer to. --Fæ (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read my comments very carefully, at least twice, before replying. I specifically said I am not going to put the table in WP, but would like to use it for purely personal reasons. Please understand personal reasons. Second, the list for 2011 films in BOI is incomplete and lacks the highest-grossing films. Hence the request. Third, I am well aware of the copyvio (I was intensely involved when the matter came up). I had just asked whether permission had been obtained or not. You could have simply said "No".  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 07:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought you were asking for the list to be posted on this page, that is what my answer referred to. Re-reading your text twice more now does not seem to change that interpretation. I did not answer your second question, the answer is still no as far as I am aware, but that would be up to the person that asked them to answer properly. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should see the line "I know it can't be used in WP, but surely I could use it for my own personal uses?". And in case you are doubtful by here I meant this talk page and not the article, which is verified by the above statement. I certainly hope you are not averse to putting the table in this talk page, or are you saying that the copyvios apply even for talk pages used by users for discussion? And in case you couldn't catch my drift in two readings, I suggest you read my comments thrice. Good day.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 12:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say that copyright applies to every space on Wikipedia, including talk pages. :/ See Copy-paste. The last I had heard, there was no progress with Box Office India, as they were unwilling to release the content under our license. I'll try to check and see if there's been any followup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that so? Most unfortunate :(. I really dislike WP's rigidity sometimes. Anyways, can somebody at least send the information to me by mail? I really need it. I will give my e-mail ID if anybody interested will tell me to. Btw, no headway with BOI? Sad. Hope some solution is reached, and soon. Cheers.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 09:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on IBOS
I have attempted to take this matter up before, and have been advised to make consensus regarding this. Hence, here I am. Very simply, I have one thing in mind - removing IBOS figures from this list. There are several reasons that I propose for removal, and I request all editors to carefully read through all of them :-


 * The figures published by IBOS are never quoted by reliable sources such as newspapers. Example being that most sources cite the net figures of 3 Idiots at ₹200 crore+, but IBOS says ₹189 crores.


 * An editor who has consistently viewed IBOS over a considerable period of time will get to know that the website is strongly tilted towards the Bachchan family. Commonly cited Bachcahn flops such as Teen Patti are rated hits in this site. In opposition to this, almost all the films of the three Khans have been under-reported, sometimes to the tune of 10-15 crores. That is a big difference, and cannot be ignored. There is no written hard proof of this, but as I said, observations immediately reveal everything.


 * A very worrying aspect is the fact that some very high-profile films such as Bodyguard or Ra.One do not have any IBOS net figures at all. In the list, such gaps look extremely wanting and give a general impression of unreliability.


 * IBOS, if they put up net figures, updates them extremely late. Often, it takes them months to put up any sort of net figures, and more often than not they differ considerably from other sources. If you see IBOS now, you will see the List of films stuck at the same form for over two months. I have personally checked IBOS everyday to ensure that this is true.

Keeping all this in mind, I strongly feel that IBOS is a completely unreliable website that should not be used in Wikipedia due to obvious lack of neutrality, verifiability and speed of updating. I request consensus from editors regarding this issue. I also hope emotional attachment to IBOS does not cloud your judgement, please be fair and take up all viewpoints seriously. Please add your viewpoint under the Support or Oppose section - if you feel IBOS should be removed, please comment under Support; If you feel that IBOS is necessary, please comment under Oppose. Thank you.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 05:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * According to the site, Sholay and Hum Aapke Hain Kaun have an inflated gross of more than 900c, while Boxofficeindia (reliable source), mentions it as somewhere over 300c. Also, most of the gross figures (more than 95%) in the site contradict BOI and other sites. There is a wide gap and I have not seen any reference to the site in the media. Hence it is absolutely unreliable.  X.One   SOS  08:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perfectly correct. There is actually no need to go so far back (a ₹900 crore gross, even from a mega-blockbuster like Sholay, is a ROTFL joke). You can see, say Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi or Ghajini to see the huge disparity.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 08:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

5-nil? Wow. This is one consensus to remember.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 12:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not going to oppose this, but I have one comment in favor of IBOS. They list film budgets, which BOI does not. They have been used in many articles to site budget figures, so if a ban is passed, those figures will need to be cited from somewhere else. Got any suggestions? I used IBOS for Sholay.  BTW, the gross of 15 crore is right in line with BOI, its only the adjusted gross that is off.  Something to think about, but I do not oppose removing it from this article.  BollyJeff  ||  talk  13:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The listing of budget is not available for many films, especially the recent ones. See Bodyguard or Ra.One or even Dhoom 2 and 3 idiots. Believe me, just because they list the budget of a near-30-year old film does not make them necessary for net figures at the Box Office. Secondly, I have never suggested a "ban" of IBOS from Wikipedia. Yet. While it is completely unreliable, you have to see that banning the site will have little effect because IBOS is never consulted in any film article at all, and hence the question of getting different sources does not arise. This itself must show exactly how weak IBOS' standing is right now.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 17:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) While working with Box office section for Ra.One, I was searching if i could get any source from, IBOS, however i failed. It seems that site has died. Recent release are not at all available. I'm not sure about the biased issue, but the site is no where up-to-date, and as far as my concern, doesn't look reliable too. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - The site is definitely not notable and contradicts claims of reliable sources to a very great extent.  X.One   SOS  08:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Yes IBOS is indeed dead and most preferably should note be used here on wiki no more. I don't cosider it a reliable source at all, even the way informations are presented in there isn't admirable! --Meryam90 (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per WP:RS as not a reliable source.  Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 10:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Should be removed per Meryam and Ebe. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -even BOI has had its doubts but should defnitely be used for figures instead of this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Verdict
Due to rapid consensus, it is clear that editors have unanimously voted in favour of removing IBOS figures from this list. There is an extremely strong consensus of 6-0 regarding this, and I deem this sufficient for removal. Scieberking has already done the removal, so that's the work done. Any further comments can still be discussed, but unless there is a huge turn-around in the consensus, the IBOS figures remain out of this list. Thank you.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 17:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the list, highest-grossing Bollywood films
I really want to know why the ranks in the list, highest-grossing Bollywood films, are only 1, 3, 6 and 10. And, also what does "extract" above the table mean? Somebody please tell me so I can be able to contribute to the article. Vinayaka Halemane (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Start by reading just a few paragraphs above: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films, then read the archive if that's not enough. BollyJeff  ||  talk  18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It was quite an unfortunate and over-the-top power-show-off type "discussion", which ultimately led to the forced acceptance of an incredibly powerful (and equally dumb) lawyer's viewpoint. of course, according to him it was accepted "by consensus", even though there were 3 editors against it and no particular editor openly for it. Ah, the advantages of being a bureaucrat.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 09:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ankitbhatt, could you clarify who the "him" is that you appear to be attacking in your statement? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion that took place. However, in case you are getting ideas, I have not referred to you. Actually, I have no idea of the gender of the person, but I guess its a "he". You will easily understand once you see that long-drawn-out battle that took place on this talk page.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 13:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, I had no idea you were a Wikipedia attorney.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 13:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please desist from making speculative personal claims about me or anyone else. Refer to WP:PA. Fæ (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarify as to what you mean by "speculative claims".  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 09:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure he means that you are speculating that he is a Wikipedia attorney. He isn't. :) What you say about our attorney is uninformed. None of them are "dumb", and none of them attempted to read consensus in this matter. There's no reason they would. They simply explained why under the laws of the United States (the ones that govern us) we could not safely copy these charts. Once copyright is established, we don't have the option of overriding Copyrights. While it's disappointing that we can't use the list, it is not our attorneys' fault that this is so. Blaming them for it doesn't make much sense; they didn't make the law and they might not like it any more than we do. But their job is to help us understand it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the way he reacted to my statement about WP attorneys made me feel so. Anyways, it was just a question; as usual, Fae is capable of giving only brusque answers peppered with WP policies. Regarding attorneys, no matter how much you defend them, the truth is that the said attorney forced, I repeat forced, other editors to accept the absolutely trashy 1,3,6,10 format that this list has descended into. There was no consensus regarding this, and this move later received stiff opposition from Shahid, Rahul and me. But of course, bureaucratic special powers enable some airhead people to over-rule everyone else to massage their over-inflated egos. I have no doubt that there is a considerable bias regarding this list; Box Office Mojo is also known to make estimates, yet we have not deleted that list have we? And very conveniently, some editors chose to bypass this. Believe me, there will be no peace of mind to the people who have brought the article to this state. It is against WP principles to arm-twist others to accept self opinions, and even worse to cattily ignore valid counter-arguments. Please stop your constant rescue mission of these people. You may like them, but I have powerful reasons for disliking them very much, and nobody can force me to think otherwise.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 12:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ankitbhatt, please consider that "brusque answers" might be appropriate when faced by offensive and aggressive statements including descriptions of other contributors such as "dumb", "airhead" and "over-inflated egos". Your understanding of the consensus process in this case and how our community reached a practical interpretation of the attorney's advice is incorrect, presumably because you have not bothered to review or take time to understand the background of User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. I can see your behaviour, including deleting talk page comments from other contributors, has caused concern elsewhere. It is no surprise that experienced editors might no be in a rush to react to your inflammatory complaining. You may want to take some time to reconsider your behaviour before this becomes an issue requiring a detailed review and possible action by an uninvolved administrator. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then. I see that people are again beginning to ignore everyone else and focus on me. Great. Since so many editors find me a totally unnecessary presence, I suggest you to take me back to ANI or something. I believe it to be the third time, and I really am in no mood to defend myself this time. I heard somewhere that one can go for a self-block; perhaps you could tell me how to do so.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 13:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No reason this should turn into some kind of dramatic confrontation (although if you want to request a self-block, the process is set out at WP:BLOCKME). It would be better if you'd simply stop using phrases like this: ""bureaucratic special powers enable some airhead people to over-rule everyone else to massage their over-inflated egos." This is inflammatory and just inaccurate. My "rescue mission" is not what you seem to think it is; I want to make sure the record is straight. Your language has the potential to mislead and confuse other readers. None of the Wikimedia Foundation attorneys has ever edited this article or this talk page. They did not force "other editors" because they are not, themselves, editors. And they did not cattily ignore counterarguments, because they aren't here. You are welcome to dislike the attorneys (although disliking them for doing their jobs and explaining US copyright law does seem a bit odd to me), but you should not misrepresent them. They were consulted and gave their legal opinion; their involvement ends there. At that point, the only room for consensus is determining how best to implement their professional advice.


 * You know one alternative to the silly list format is to write text, like the excellent work you've been doing here. It's not as easy to read as a table, which is too bad, but until Box Office India decides to give us permission (and it isn't our attorneys' fault that they won't), we can't use the table, except in this weird excerpt form. Why not convert it to text? We could get the information in then, so long as there's enough supporting material around it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2011
-please add a list for the highest grossing movies worldwide, because that's the list that matters eventually.

-please use opening week from fri to thu for bodyguard and ra1 if you chose to use their opening weekends from fri to sun

Seeta mayya (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to use to create the list? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

every list is incomplete
please correct the list. every top ten has few entries and rest of them are missing. for example highest grossing weekend has 1 and then no. 2 should be popping but its no. 3 next. please correct it kindly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgrandkingishere (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 December 2011
http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3625 Please edit

123.252.212.218 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't have a list of first three days, but opening weekend (friday to sunday). Nobody answered this for four days so I'd to do it. Scieberking (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking, could you please post the entire list of highest opening weekends here if not in the article. Bodyguard's opening weekend collections are? Don 2 should be second right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raonebest (talk • contribs) 08:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here it is. As a matter of fact we'd a brief discussion about the first three days (wed, thu, fri) vs. weekend (fri, sat, sun) issue, which involved an editor called Nabil Rais, me and AnkitBhatt. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell me Bodyguard's opening weekend collection? Because its Wikipedia tells something else. So could you just post the figures. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raonebest (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bodyguard's fri to sun was 46.75 crore (actual weekend), and wed to fri was 52.62 crore (first three days). It had an extended five day weekend of 85.50 crore. As I've told you, we can't use Wikipedia itself as a source, because it's so vulnerable to trolls and vandals. Anyways, I will try to fix it there. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request.
Can someone change the list as Ra.one is the second highest grossing Bollywood film.. The reference for this is the ra.one wiki page itself. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra.One Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.204.2 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not, but Bodyguard is (140,95,00,000 vs. 114,77,00,000; this list is for Hindi version only). A bogus claim by the production company doesn't mean a thing. Scieberking (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exercise caution while making such comments. I believe that the user is referring to worldwide collections of Ra.One, which is the second-highest of the year (though Don 2 looks certain to pass that now). It is better not to go about talking like a wounded animal simply because your wish of putting the lower (and consequently, incorrect) figure for Ra.One was not fulfilled. I am well aware of your stand regarding Bollywood. Everyone is very familiar with your much-publicized issues regarding the 240 crore logic, but fact is fact and the whole collections (including language dubbings) are included. And this isn't even over; the collections will rise further post the second phase, so perhaps then you may find some new fault and make a mountain out of a molehill.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF 16:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 240 crore is a bullshit figure, which, as a worldwide figure, is irrelevant here anyway. You certainly need to quieten down, and avoid your old habits. No point in calling me or someone else a "wounded animal". And you don't even need to respond here or anywhere else. I'm quitting this article as well now. So just stay off my yard! Is that clear? I'm not going to tolerate any of this stuff anymore. Scieberking (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use and List of highest-grossing Indian films
Considering the page notice on this article, can someone take a look at List of highest-grossing Indian films? It uses BoxofficeIndia.com as its only source. Perhaps it should be trimmed down to a top 10 list per the above discussion. jonkerz ♠talk 16:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted as a dup of this one. BollyJeff  ||  talk  16:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've boldly redirected that page to this one as it certainly couldn't stay in it's current form given the copyright problems. To me the information in it seemed subtly different to what's already here so someone may wish to merge, taking into account the copyright restrictions.  That said if we start copying too many tables, even in a redacted form, I'd worry about us starting to go beyond fair use.  I didn't as a) I wasn't sure what the differences were and b) I'm trying to stay out of content and only deal with copyright problems. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the adjusted section?
It was added on 19 January 2012, and it's gone already. BollyJeff ||  talk  13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Adjusted section? I haven't seen any such section on this article. But that must be because I haven't visited this article in some time. Bollyjeff, could you point out exactly which source you use for putting adjusted figures? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at the box at the top of this page with text beginning: Text from List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, adjusted for inflation was copied into List of highest-grossing Bollywood films... BollyJeff  ||  talk  13:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I noticed. But what is the source of the adjusted figures? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The ones from 1994 are here. The older ones need to have their pages searched for the links. BollyJeff  ||  talk  14:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes its definitely usable. Strange why the section was removed, but I think perhaps in this section also we have to follow the extract format as figures are obtained from BOI. Why don't you try that? I am busy with expanding this list up to near-FL status, so hopefully you could do it. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

BOI
the article should make note somewhee that the copyright of BOI doesnt allow the list of highest gorossing films. (it highlights the deviency instead of being deceptive). I have now done that on the page.Lihaas (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but why should the lead be re-written? The notice at the top seems very strange. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New table
I have added a new table to this list: Highest worldwide debuts, as per a new report released by BOI.com. As with most other lists here, the list is in extract form with ranks of 1,3,6,10 so there should be no problem. Any feedback would be appreciated. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Expanded table
The fully expanded table for the list of films ordered by month has been added, complete with a set of references to prove the authenticity of the figures. An explanation is also given in the section regarding how the film is made; to note, this list is the only list we can use in full because this list is NOT directly published by BOI; however, it is completely derived from BOI lists and reports, hence is reliable and is not WP:OR. A discussion about this had also taken place at the initial copyright discussion of this page; you can refer to it for further details. A photo shall be added soon. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Section is perfectly ready, with a photo to boot. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood's 100 crore club is totally different from this article page.
Bollywood's 100 crore club  is totally different from the page"List of highest-grossing Bollywood films". Bollywood's 100 crore club is only including those Bollywood films whose nett. gross in India has exceeded 100 crore Rs. It doesnot include all Bollywood films ,irrespective of their gross in India or worldwide.It is totallly a seprate page with 9-10 reliable sources.So no need to even thinking of deleting or merging that page with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghajinidetails (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is derived from this article. The subject is not notable enough to warrant its own article, especially when a pretty explicit "List of highest-grossing Bollywood films" exists. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films by month
Why do we have this separate section in the article? Is the "collection-release month" relationship established by some third-party RS? Or are we trying to do this (resulting in OR)? One would then even start a table based on Saka calendar. (Is this discussed before?) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the above section for more clarification. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah! Long discussion! Will read sometime.... §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dabangg is not the 3rd highest grossing film worldwide
Dabangg is not the 3rd highest grossing Bollywood film worldwide. There are 4 films which have grossed more than Dabangg worldwide. Not only 3 Idiots & Ra.One but Don 2 (231 cr.) & Bodyguard (229 cr.) have also grossed more than Dabangg.

Check out these links:

http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/boxoffice-analysis.aspx?analysis_id=66

http://www.imdb.com/list/iRp4Y6JH8jI/

SourabhDev (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We have to use reliable sources for our statistics. Our most reliable source is Box Office India, and it states that Dabangg is the third-highest. Besides, the list does not include dubbed versions. Hope this clarifies. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're not including dubbed versions & you calling it worldwide gross!

SourabhDev (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Both these sources doesnt mentions anywhere that Don 2 grossed 241 crore. Both mentions 206 crore. The number you put for Worldwide highest selling is wrong:

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/arounddetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=4409&nCat=/

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/arounddetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3997&nCat=

I wud need a reply plz

--Amulgupta (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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 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, 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 •  Talk 2 me  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  •  Talk 2 me  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, 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  •  Talk 2 me  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  •  Talk 2 me  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  •  Talk 2 me  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.  Ankit Bhatt  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)

Amount must be inflation adjusted
It seems to me that list is made according to the nominal value of money but I think the ranking of films must be according to the real value of money that those films have earned. This will give a fair chance to some old movies who have earned a lot in their times. Alok Bansal (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much information
I think the highest grossing in a month should only give January, April, June, October and December else people will get blinded by all the extra month information coming from wikipedia which only supposed to be a source of confusing informations. 71.198.73.2 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Full Protection
I've fully protected this page for a week due to the persistant introduction of copyright violations (see above.  Editors (often IPs) will complete the tables and then other editors will edit them.  This makes trying to remove the copyright violations extremely difficult.  I'm aware that the tables may well need updating but the current way this is being done is just resulting in versions that are likely copyright violations.  If someone posts here with the updated tables they'd like in the article, taking into account the copyright concerns (i.e. the tables only having 1,3,6,10 or similar in them) along with a source where an administrator can verify them then the tables will be updated.  Please use Edit protected to get the attention of an administrator. Dpmuk (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2012
Ra.One
 * 2011
 * Red Chillies Entertainment
 * ₹314,78,00,000Bold text
 * Anubhav Sinha

182.185.18.37 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please also provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2012
Dear Sir, Rowdy Rathore and Bodyguard and Ek tha Tiger is not included in the list of Highest-grossing Bollywood films in India (extract) and Highest-grossing Bollywood films worldwide (extract)

ShreeGanesh1967 12:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an extract; the list cannot include them all for copyright reasons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How Come???
Can any one explain How come Ra One ranked No 3 in the Grossers' list in India, as statistics show it grossed INR314,78,00,000 and no 1 film grossed 	INR202,57,00,000 ??????? Umerali2204 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ra.One actually grossed ₹114,78,00,000. Its an error which requires correction, but the article's protection is preventing it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing & Proofing must be allowed!!
This message pertains to the Admin, who decided to No-Edit this page.


 * The figures of some movies are given wrong, movies are not in an ascending order and other typos.

It's a concern of all of us to provide and obtain encyclopedic and correct info. Dismissing such important concern will not give a good result, as mistakes must be fixed. Otherwise, the page shouldn't be Public at all.

Salman 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talk • contribs)


 * The phrare net gross is spelled nett gross. Is this an Indian-English pharse? I changed the the nett to net because I though it was a typo. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Box Office India website has the same spelling as nett so that is the likly source of the typo. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted list
Why the list of movies adjusted for inflation has been removed??? and all this day list, month list included ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.248.209.104 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The list
In accordance with information from the Wikimedia Foundation attorneys, including the top 5 of this list may not comply with fair use. See Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films/Archive_1 and subsequent sections as well as Copyright in lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 November 2012

 * 3
 * Jab Tak Hain Jaan
 * 2012
 * Yash Raj Productions
 * ₹172,57,00,000
 * Yash Chopra

Harshalhshah (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. You also need a reliable source for that.&#0032; ⋘HueSatLum ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Highest-grossing Bollywood films worldwide adjusted for inflation needed as per article of highest grossing films
inflation-adjusted figures are needed to show films of old era importance. ~*~BesharamsunBesharamsun~*~ 08:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2013
Please add link for this following Movie as they are already available on Wikipedia page. and their link is given in page at somewhere middle but as per my observation most of page have link on first occurrence of word(or subject).

list is given below: 1) Ready to Ready (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_%282011_film%29)

2) Golmaal 3 to Golamaal 3(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golmaal_3)

3) 1930s to 1930s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films#1930s)

4) 1940s t0 1940s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films#1940s)

5) 1950s to 1950s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films#1950s)

6) 1960s to 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films#1960s)

7) 1970s to 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films#1970s)

8) 1980s to 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films#1980s)

9) 1990s to 1990s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films#1990s)

i am sure it will make Wikipedia database rich and it will help other user to direct from one page to another easily.

Mihir6692 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not exactly sure what you want done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Connection of this article with other poorly written, questionable quality articles
This article has been a top most reference article of many of the movies release in recent time. The title as well the topic of it is biased enough and being used again and again in many individual pages of movies, this one sounds like a tool that can be used to promote biased information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulbaba (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Pointless Article
Should this article not be deleted if it gives no information? Why make an article about something and don't tell the same? Its like saying here is a secret but unfortunately I cant tell you. 174.62.79.67 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

these are hindi films....
there are other language films in India. such as kannada, telugu, tamil and malayalam and bengali...hindi films are not the only indian films....this article is a crap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.182.130 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express box office
CE has grossed more than 150 crore in domestic box office here is the link. It was confirm by Taran Adarsh http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/top5-hindi-movies/id/991/date/2013-08-16

here is another confirmation link https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh

Scroll down abit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.6.17 (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
can i add chennai express to list of highest gross single day collection table on this page. The data is from a reliable source. --Param Mudgal (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Complete Data?
Why there is no mention of other Bollywood's Highest grossing films? On shanti Om was among top 10 till 2009-10 but still mentioned in top 10. Many films have passed it. It is strange that current released film like Ek tha tiger and YJHD are mentioned but what about several others films of 2012? It doesn't reflect update and true fact.— Prashant 16:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This may help.— Prashant 16:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look in the talk archives, you will see that we are not allowed to list them all. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  16:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, the name of the article should be changed to "List of selected highest-grossing Bollywood Films". No? If you can't put the correct data, then how could you say it's a list of hugest grossing films? Here it has only selected films but all those films were surpassed by over 20 films. Still, some are highest grossers. Good joke!— Prashant 18:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of angst over this. Probably it needs updating with the correct 1,3,6,10, etc films now.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * and the title of the stupidest and meaningless list goes to? 174.62.79.67 (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So, for whom you (others) are waiting for. Go ahead and update the article.— Prashant 19:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Figures in rupees only
Figures written in Rs only are difficult to comprehend for readers who are not much familiar with this currency. It makes my head spin! undefined — Bill william compton Talk  08:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express is Current Holder
Chennai Express is the current holder. It is also written on highest grossing film in India only. It got 208 crore I think there is an error please check. Chennai Express record have been created — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.111.246 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2013
This article needs updation. The source boxofficeindia.com is not at all reliable.

Ankurvirmani19 (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌: NO, IT IS RELIABLE. STOP GIVING US STUPID ADVICES.Jionpedia ✉  09:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express box office
Chennai Express got 350 crore world wide gross as of now here is the link http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/boxoffice-collections.aspx?id=1688 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.108.217.142 (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Rohit shetty is no 1
It should be Rohit shetty highest grossing film director not rajkumar hirani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.108.152.152 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express box office
3rd Wednesday world wide grossing is 392 crore drawing with 3 idiots Domestic collection is 216.86 crore Here is the link http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/boxoffice-collections.aspx?id=1691 Confirm by taran Adarsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.111.246 (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Rohit Shetty
Rohit Shetty is the current highest grosser director not hirani please change Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.180.41.218 (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 August 2013
Please change the movie Dabangg 2 with Chennai Express at the number 1 spot in the Opening Weekend Net Gross Collection as Chennai Express has earned more than 100 crores in its weekend. http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/boxoffice/id/570145 : This is the link from where i can prove that.

Param Mudgal (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes chennai express smashed all records for opening weekend.

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5952&nCat= Pmnikhil (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Already done Celestra (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013
In the section "Highest Grossing Bollywood Films in India", the first row of the table should be changed

from

1	Chennai Express	2013	Red Chillies Entertainment	INR2,026,700,000	Rohit Shetty

to

1	Chennai Express	2013	Red Chillies Entertainment	INR2,062,800,000	Rohit Shetty

Source - https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh/status/371511603474087936

Also in the section, "Highest Grossing Bollywood Films Worldwide", the second row of the table should be changed from

2	Chennai Express	2013	Red Chillies Entertainment	INR371 crore (US$59 million)	Rohit Shetty	Blockbuster

to

2	Chennai Express	2013	Red Chillies Entertainment	INR378crore (US$60 million)	Rohit Shetty	All Time Blockbuster

Source - https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh/status/371511603474087936 Source - http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/boxoffice-collections.aspx?id=1680

Sounaksrk (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Already done Celestra (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

highest grossing film all time
I've just visit the list of top actors provided by boxofficeindia.com. This is the exact phrase which got me up "Naya Daur is a box office record breaker for Dilip Kumar but Mother India which releases a few months later breaks Naya Daur's records". Here the link since the article is associated with the source provide by boxofficeindia.com. So can Naya Daur considered in the list of Highest-grossing Bollywood films throughout history. Here is the another link from the same source which has Naya Daur in the second position, above Shree 420 in the third position which was the all time highest grossing film while its nett gross is below than Naya Daur's nett gross. In a nutshell, I would like to say that Naya Daur was the highest grossing film of alltime till Mother India which was released several months later after Naya Daur and eventually break the record set by the former. Ason27 (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 1st November 2013
In the page of "List of highest grossing Bollywood films" the highest grossing Bollywood film in India is still shown 3 Idiots as in 1st position with total earn of Rs 202.57 crore but this record has been broken with total earn of Rs 208 crore or more by Chennai Express which is still in 2nd position in that above mentioned list, showing a total earn of Rs 200.55 crore.

So I request the members of Wikipedia to update it and to give Chennai Express 1st position in Highest Grossing Bollywood film of India with a total earn of Rs 208 crore or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDon100crore (talk • contribs) 07:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 8th November 2013
please change opening weekend nett gross list. krrish 3 has broken record of chennai express. reference http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2013/hrithik-krrish-3-7-days-1st-week-collection-box-office-124336.html

Jaydipfadadu (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the link you gave covers the opening week (7 days), not the opening weekend. The entry for the opening week already has Krrish 3 in top spot. --Stfg (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 4th November 2013
'''The Highest Grossing Bollywood Film is now Chennai Express, the current record holder. You people are still keeping 3 Idiots in 1st position. Net income is 420 crore. Check it in this link http://www.filmjagat.com/2013/09/chennai-express-box-office-journey.html. Please change it quickly.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDon100crore (talk • contribs) 05:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please be precise about what change needs to be made. There are three sections about all-time highest-grossing: worldwide, in India, and in India (inflation adjusted). Also, please stop using bold type, which looks like shouting, please stop addressing complaints to "you people", and please avoid saying things like "Please change it quickly." We are all volunteers, and not to be hassled. --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit on the 1st table
Chennai Express has definitely earned more than 3 Idiots. So there is a major flaw in the 1st table of the page. Chennai Express earned over 400 crores INR, and this was the original data given on the page. But it has been altered over the weeks. Care to have a second look?

14.99.219.16 (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No reliable source( Nationalise Newspapers or Magazines) mentioned it more than 3 idiots not even Boxofficeindia.com.Koimoi and Bollywood hungama are not reliable in this matter as their figures are always quiet high than trustable sources and there is no hurry to add it. ---zeeyanwiki discutez 05:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A Wish
Thanks for accepting my Edit request of 4th November 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDon100crore (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Krrish 3 is the Highest-grossing Bollywood film in India.
--Shiva rama krishna reddy (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please change Highest-grossing Bollywood films in India list. Krrish 3 has broken record of chennai express. Reference: http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/krrish-3-highest-grosser-of-bollywood-beats-chennai-express-lifetime-record/

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/522688/20131116/krrish-3-box-office-collection-breaks-chennai.htm

Krrish 3 is in 1st position in Highest-grossing Bollywood films worldwide list.
--Shiva rama krishna reddy (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Please change Highest-grossing Bollywood films worldwide list. Krrish 3 is in 3rd position. Reference:

http://www.koimoi.com/box-office-verdict-bollywoods-top-worldwide-grossers/ http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/282/

Krrish 3 is in 1st position in Opening week nett gross (First 7 days of release) list.
--Shiva rama krishna reddy (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Please change Opening week nett gross (First 7 days of release) list. Krrish 3 is in 1st position.Krrish 3 has broken record of chennai express in Opening week nett gross (First 7 days of release) list.

Reference:

http://www.indicine.com/movies/bollywood/chennai-express-vs-krrish-3-box-office-comparison/

Krrish 3 is the Highest second week domestic nett film.
--Shiva rama krishna reddy (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Please change Highest second week domestic nett list. Krrish 3 is in 1st position. Krrish 3 has collected Rs 59.48 crore in its second week at the domestic box office.

Reference:

http://www.indicine.com/movies/bollywood/krrish-3-second-week-box-office-collections/

https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh/status/401235701821222912

Background color for Krrish 3
Give light blue background color for Krrish 3 because it is currently in theaters. Thankyou.(182.186.52.52 (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC))

Reliable Source
This article is based on which source ??? Boxoffice India or any other source. I would suggest to stick to one source that should be reliable and releases accurate figures for collections in India and Overseas. I have seen that a number of misleading sources are used to cite the collections of films. And article is missing a number of Bollywood films which have remained one of the highest grossing films of Bollywood.

Your valuable comments / suggestions will be appreciated. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Current record for highest domestic collection in india is chennai express ,Krrish 3 has collected 171.97 crore please refer to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6245&nCat= thank you

Karansangaj06071995 (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Krrish 3 is in 3rd position in Highest-grossing Bollywood films worldwide list.
--Shiva rama krishna reddy (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Please change Wikipedia page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films" table " Highest-grossing Bollywood films worldwide" Rank 3 from "Ek Tha Tiger" to "Krrish 3" because Krrish 3 has break the record of Ek Tha Tiger of 319 Cr and already reached to 321 Cr. Sources which are already used as a references are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films_worldwide http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/krrish-3-now-3rd-highest-worldwide-grosser-beats-ek-tha-tigers-record/

Krrish 3 has grossed 1.72 billion net in india
krrish 3 has grossed 1.72 billion(172 crore)in india please change it reference 1)http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6245&nCat=   2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krrish_3

Karansangaj06071995 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

#Krrish3 Weekend 3 breakup: Fri 2.44 cr, Sat 3.02 cr, Sun 3.76 cr. Grand total: Rs. 235.22 cr nett. All Time Blockbuster... All versions
The Reference from "http://www.koimoi.com" (has been used many times in the wikipedia and considered Authentic) is declaring Krrish 3 as no 1 bollywood grosser of all time "http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/krrish-3-makes-107-profit-3rd-wednesday-box-office-collections/", Everywhere except "http://www.boxofficeindia.com/" declaring krrish 3 earnings to crossed chennai express by a big margin, still why we are considering "http://www.boxofficeindia.com/" as reliable??? Also no details have been given in their statement in "http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6245&nCat=", they have said that week 2 earning of Krrish 3 is "Week Two - 42.86 crore", but how can it be possible if on Monday only film has collect 35.9 crore (This has already been given in the wikipedia page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films" table "Single day nett gross", so as per them in 6 days of the second week of movie release it has only earned approx only 6 crore, how can this be possible???, This proves that boxofficeindia is giving wrong information, and Wikipedia such a big information hub and well considered authentic by a huge number of person reference to the wrong info. Taran adarsh who is considered as most recognized trade analyst has also tweeted that Krrish 3 has crossed the chennai express earnings "#Krrish3 Weekend 3 breakup: Fri 2.44 cr, Sat 3.02 cr, Sun 3.76 cr. Grand total: Rs. 235.22 cr nett. All Time Blockbuster... All versions." "https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh/status/402343990579572736", Please correct the info.

Please change page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films" table "Highest-grossing Bollywood films in India" rank 1 from "Chennai Express" to "Krrish 3".

115.117.113.132 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all don't make unnecessary requests for edits. It could lead you to getting blocked. You asked the question above I'll reply there.   Sohambanerjee1998   13:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Krrish 3 has grossed 1.76 billion (176 crores) in 3 weeks
krrish 3 grossed 176 crores in 3 weeks reference 1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krrish_3 2)http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6256&nCat=

krrish 3 is not highest grossing movie in india please read full article at http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-industry-insiders-say-collections-figures-of-krrish-3-are-exaggerated-1922365

Karansangaj06071995 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Box Office
While there are multiple sources for box office reports but consensus was created for boxofficeindia.com as reliable source.Newbies or ip's keep adding other sources periodically.Please refrain from doing that and if still an issue,start a fresh discussion and bring consensus for others.All sugeestions are welcome. ---zeeyanwiki discutez 07:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

krrish3 wrong figures
115.118.74.219 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Krrish 3 figures are wrong please updated it correctly.

Thanks & Regards,

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Krrish 3 is now the highest Bollywood grosser (Domestic Collection) of all time
Please change Wikipedia page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films" table "Highest-grossing Bollywood films in India" Rank 1 from "Chennai Express" to "Krrish 3" because Krrish 3 has break the record of Chennai Express of 226.70 Cr and already reached to 237.76. Sources which are already used as a references in the page to mark chennai express no 1 are now showing Krrish 3 as no 1 like http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/251, http://www.koimoi.com/box-office-verdict-bollywoods-top-worldwide-grossers/, http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/523046/20131118/krrish-3-box-office-collection-blockbuster-ramleela.htm,http://variety.com/2013/film/news/krrish-3-tops-chennai-express-box-office-record-1200853093/,http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/box-office-krrish-3-beats-chennai-express-and-becomes-all-time-highest-grosser/1/325283.html,http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/krrish-3-highest-grosser-of-bollywood-beats-chennai-express-lifetime-record/,http://www.indicine.com/movies/bollywood/highest-grosser-of-all-time-krrish-3-beats-chennai-express/,http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/251   http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/krrish-3-highest-grosser-of-bollywood-beats-chennai-express-lifetime-record/

115.117.113.25 (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks useful. Inform someone like User:AniceMathew or User:Sohambanerjee1998. They are the most frequent editors of this article. &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Nopety Nopety Nope. boxofficeindia.com still has not said so. This is turning out to be a real pain in the ... See the Krrish 3, Chennai Express, Krrish 3 User_talk:Abhi/Archive_2, Talk:Krrish_3 for more.   Sohambanerjee1998   07:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Reference from "http://www.koimoi.com" (has been used many times in the wikipedia and considered Authentic) is declaring Krrish 3 as no 1 bollywood grosser of all time "http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/krrish-3-makes-107-profit-3rd-wednesday-box-office-collections/", Everywhere except "http://www.boxofficeindia.com/" declaring krrish 3 earnings to crossed chennai express by a big margin, still why we are considering "http://www.boxofficeindia.com/" as reliable??? Also no details have been given in their statement in "http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=6245&nCat=", they have said that week 2 earning of Krrish 3 is "Week Two - 42.86 crore", but how can it be possible if on Monday only film has collect 35.9 crore (This has already been given in the wikipedia page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films" table "Single day nett gross", so as per them in 6 days of the second week of movie release it has only earned approx only 6 crore, how can this be possible???, This proves that boxofficeindia is giving wrong information, and Wikipedia such a big information hub and well considered authentic by a huge number of person reference to the wrong info. Taran adarsh who is considered as most recognized trade analyst has also tweeted that Krrish 3 has crossed the chennai express earnings "#Krrish3 Weekend 3 breakup: Fri 2.44 cr, Sat 3.02 cr, Sun 3.76 cr. Grand total: Rs. 235.22 cr nett. All Time Blockbuster... All versions." "https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh", Please correct the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.113.132 (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OMG you're getting it wrong the figure published is for Week 2 only, not Week 1 + Week 2. According to WP:CONSENSUS Boxoffice india.com is the only reliable source for Box office figures and you would have understood it had you read the links I gave you. Please go through them. Are you Abhi?   Sohambanerjee1998   13:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please list the Wikipedia articles where Koimoi is used as a source.  <font face="Footlight MT Light"> Sohambanerjee1998   13:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As per the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources -

""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"

And Below is the factual content news reporting from one of the most established newspaper of India - Hindustan Times (Established since 1924) http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/krrish-3-on-record-breaking-spree-collects-rs-228-23cr-in-fortnight/article1-1154027.aspx

Also the means (Wikipedia:RS) by which Boxoffice india.com is marked as reliable, same applies to bollywoodhungama.com and Koimoi. In fact bollywoodhungama.com is more trustworthy than Boxoffice india.com, because of the ALexa ranking of bollywoodhungama.com is 3,017 while for box office india is 22,982, a huge difference, better rank means more visitors and more people trusting on bollywoodhungama.com than Boxoffice india.com, Also Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd suited well for Definition of source by the Wikipedia:RS, As they have well known publisher and creator of the work, while articles in case of boxofficeindia dont have such clarity.

And as per bollywoodhungama.com http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/boxoffice/id/525408

Still if you think that boxofficeindia.com is the better or only reliable source please give any special reason and reference why so and why news reporting from most established newspapers of India can not be a reliable source.
 * Its good that you went through the RS policy now go through the LINKS! and this one: WP:CONSENSUS.  <font face="Footlight MT Light"> Sohambanerjee1998   07:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

you have not answered my question...Please answer..And yes I have read the WP:CONSENSUS...And then only asking you to update the article...If we will ignore the news from established news sources it will be deteriorating for Wikipedia as so so many article are based on them as reliable sources.

Not done: I think the point is that there is disagreement about whether to make that change. That disagreement constitutes a lack of consensus for the change and no one is going to make the change when there is a lack of consensus. Work toward a new consensus here, then have an auto-confirmed participant make the edit or open a new edit request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Celestra, To make a consensus, I have given so so many authentic reliable sources reference, Everywhere in Electronic and print media, Krrish 3 has been declared the all time highest grosser including top news papers, whose references has been used without questions in many places in Wikipedia, Still I dont know the exact reasoning why this guy Sohambanerjee1998 is favoring chennai express over Krrish3, Please take a look into the matter and correct the changes. Thanks in Advance,


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I concur with User:Celestra's prior closure of this request. I don't think you understand what is meant by consensus here. It does not mean that you keep posting sources and repeat your point over and over again. It means working together with other editors who disagree with you to resolve the differences and move forward. It's clear to me that consensus has not been reached in support of this edit. As such, this issue is not ready for an edit request. Once consensus has been reached on the talk page, any auto-confirmed user can edit this page, or an edit request can be used if necessary. If consensus is not possible on the talk page, Wikipedia offers multiple avenues of dispute resolution. Thanks, -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 21:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2013
krrish 3

37.107.107.46 (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ...is a film. Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also please make sure your suggestion is discussed and consensus is established before you make an edit request. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dhoom 3 in theaters
Dhoom 3 is currently in theater. Give its background color light blue use style="background:lightblue before the row — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.226 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Some wrong, please edit it
Prasensanyal (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Dhoom3 first day collection INR36,00,00,000 not INR30,90,00,000 2nd day collection INR33,36,00,000 not INR29,50,00,000 (these two figures are provided here in two different column) 3rd day collection INR38,03,00,000 not INR35,60,00,000 at one place it is written Chennai Express net gross INR2,085,300,000 and at one place INR227,53,00,000

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2013/dhoom-3-collection-cross-rs-200-crore-mark-box-office-128064.html https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/dhoom-3-opening-weekend-collections-highest-ever-in-the-history-of-bollywood/ http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/dhoom-3-day-1-1st-friday-box-office-collections/
 * User Prasensanyal, your concern is logical and legitimate. The prescribed changes has been made on the particular sections of the page in accordance to Wiki guidelines and authentic resources online. Salman 04:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talk • contribs)

The Bollywood box office figures are wrong in many places!
The box office figures provided for many films like 'Chennai Express' and 'Krrish 3' are highly inaccurate in most cases! And the references to these figures are not reliable! The figures related to these films are not relational as the same category has different figures on various pages! I would request you look at the site Bollywood Hungama or refer to trade analyst Taran Adarsh  for reliable figures. It would be a great help to the public!! My contacts: www.twitter.com/iam_shavonn www.facebook.com/iamshavonn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamshavonn (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Dhoom 3 2nd day(saturday) collections is wrong
Dhoom 3 2nd day(saturday) collections is INR 33,36,00,000 not INR 29,50,00,000 (these two figures are provided here in two different tables). The figure given in the 'Single day nett gross' table is INR 29,50,00,000 which should be changed to INR 33,36,00,000. Please refer to the following source(bollywoodhungama.com) for correct figures:

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/296 http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/298 https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.45.26 (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have updated the Dhoom 3's 2nd Day BO Collection from 29.5C to 33.36C, using the data from an authentic reference |1

Salman 09:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013
Some entries are wrong which is about the collection of Chennai Express and krrish 3 collection. and the correct figure of krrish 3 is Rs.228.04 Cr. in India and above Rs.350 Cr international and chennai Exp. collection is 226.08 Cr in India. Rites001 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dhoom3 has the Biggest opening day
Khokadas (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Dhoom 3: Day 1 (1st Friday) Box Office Collections breaks Chennai Express & Krrish 3′s Record .......... so Biggest opening day list should be changed and its 2nd day also collected 33.25 Crores ...........so Single day nett gross should also be changed.......... http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/dhoom-3-day-1-1st-friday-box-office-collections/ http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/dhoom-3-remains-consistent-on-1st-saturday-day-2-at-the-box-office/ http://ibnlive.in.com/news/dhoom-3-takes-the-boxoffice-by-storm-earns-rs--6958-cr-in-2-days/441036-8-66.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/dhoom-3-takes-box-office-by-storm-mints-over-rs-35-crore-on-first-day/article1-1165077.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.51.152 (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013
Khokadas (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Biggest opening day and Single day nett gross should be changed ........... Dhoom3 1st day collection INR360 and 2nd day collection INR33,25,00,000.....which is given wrong here...... check it http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/dhoom-3-day-1-1st-friday-box-office-collections/ http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/dhoom-3-remains-consistent-on-1st-saturday-day-2-at-the-box-office/
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013
my kind request is to change the record of DHOOM-3 its first day collection is not 30,00,000(30Cr) but it is 36,00,000(36Cr)

Abhilash399 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * * Not done. Krrish 3 did not grossed 36 crore in first day. It get 36 crore in another day which has been mentioned in "Single day gross". Thanks for your edit request. Yasir Mushtaq (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013
Gadar Ek prem katha is actually 286 crores ,please add it in top 10 list.

144.36.214.161 (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dhoom3 box office collections are wrong please correct it
Prasensanyal (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Dhoom3 box office collections are wrong please correct it...... http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2013/dhoom-3-collection-cross-rs-200-crore-mark-box-office-128064.html https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/dhoom-3-opening-weekend-collections-highest-ever-in-the-history-of-bollywood/ http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/dhoom-3-day-1-1st-friday-box-office-collections/
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013
Several numbers related to dhoom 3 are ither wrong or missing please find the details and source link below:

Highest-grossing Bollywood films worldwide: Rs 304.36 Cr --will change further Highest-grossing Bollywood films in India: Rs 199.08 Crore Nett --will change further Opening week nett gross (First 7 days of release): Rs 188.98 cr --final

http://www.bollymoviereviewz.com/2013/12/dhoom-3-eight-days-worldwide-box-office.html http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2013/dhoom-3-first-week-collection-worldwide-box-office-128316-pg1.html

Mtataria (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013
Several numbers related to dhoom 3 are ither wrong or missing please find the details and source link below:

Highest-grossing Bollywood films worldwide: Rs 304.36 Cr --will change further Highest-grossing Bollywood films in India: Rs 199.08 Crore Nett --will change further Opening week nett gross (First 7 days of release): Rs 188.98 cr --final

http://www.bollymoviereviewz.com/2013/12/dhoom-3-eight-days-worldwide-box-office.html http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2013/dhoom-3-first-week-collection-worldwide-box-office-128316-pg1.html

Mtataria (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. For the record, 20 requests for the same basic edit doesn't make it happen any faster. One request and wait usually works the best.  I don't have the ambition to research if there is any sock puppetry going on here, so I'm simply going to AGF at this point and hope that you simply stop using any alternate accounts if they are not directly connected to each other per WP:SOCK.  Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What happenned to 1,3,7,14 list?
I am so bored now., where is that interesting list that kept us guessing and telling us a secret but wont really tell.. that was far more interesting.. you could fill in the gaps the way you wanted. This list is just giving us info.. thats not what wikipedia is supposed to do.. it is supposed to make things interesting by teasing us.. 174.62.79.67 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My sincere request, can we please remove some numbers from the lists. It is giving too much information. I am disappointed. We only need to know the 3, 5, 8, 13th highest grossing movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.77.5 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014
[Copy of the entire article removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazmeerdj (talk • contribs) 08:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Edit requests usually entail asking for specific changes to be made to an article (along with an edit semi-protected template), not copying the entire (changed) article onto the talk page. At any rate, you copied it several weeks ago, and the article has been edited numerous times since then; I can't discern what exactly you wanted changed. Please submit a new request detailing the changes. Thanks, <b style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5 </b> 04:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Krrish 3 highest single day collection is wrong
Krrish 3 highest single day collection is INR 35.91 cr. The figure given in the 'Single day nett gross' table should be changed from INR 36.80 cr to INR 35.91 cr, and also the day should be changed from sunday to monday(day 4). Please refer to the following source(bollywoodhungama.com) for correct figures:

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.38.119 (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

someone please make the edits. the request was made on 29/12/13 and still no one has replied. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.35.21 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013
Krrish 3 collection has gone past 500 crore INR mark. Please change 6 	Krrish 3(Hindi version) 	2013 	Filmkraft Productions 	INR300 crore to 6 	Krrish 3(Hindi version) 	2013 	Filmkraft Productions 	INR500 crore

Addy Kaushal (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2014
in the higest grossing list please remove chennai express as dhoom 3 has already supressed it's collection and become higest grossing movie. higest grossing movies are added after the year end's & movie with higest gross is included, both the movies cannot be included in same list.

Wilder00007 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not just about one... -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2014
Psaran (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 11:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_(2014_film)
salman Khan starrer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_(2014_film) must be added in ths section. Updates needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.14 (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2014
1.23.153.19 (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC) please change the number of films for total worldwide gross of franchise for Don from 3 to 2(corrected) because there are only two films have been released under don franchise don and don 2.

❌ Don (1978), Don: The Chase Begins Again (2006) and  Don 2: The King is Back (2011) looks like 3 to me - although calling the third one Don 2 is rather confusing, - Arjayay (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2014
under section "Highest-grossing Bollywood films in India" it shows CHENNAI EXPRESS NETT GROSS IS INR 2,087,200,000 BUT CHENNAI EXPRESS REALLY COLLECT INR 2,6700,000,00.

101.218.25.149 (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2014
Kindly update the opening day distributor shares of the films listed thank you

203.129.195.130 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ You will need to provide the reliably published sources and a request in the form of "Please change X > Y" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014
The Bang Bang! Film (2014, Fox Star Studios) has grossed over 315 Crore ($51 Million) up to 318 Crore ($52 Million). This needs to be changed as soon as possible to keep this article up to date.

138.130.64.67 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also note we are not a news service - if the article states a given amount on a given date, then it is clear if that is out of date, which is acceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2014
175

223.176.237.209 (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014
42.2.59.12 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014
Nihad7somu (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)