Talk:List of highest-grossing films in India/Archive 1

The Jungle Book gross
The Jungle Book (2016) gross which is listed here is 184 crore. But on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=IN&id=junglebook2015.htm its gross 38 million. Which is about 245 crore in Indian rupees. So, should it will rank on 16th place and also highest grossing foreign language film in India, both un-adjusted for inflation and adjusted for inflation. ਬੱਬੂ ਬਰਾੜ (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment
We need to have reliable sources for inflation adjustments like this inflation calculator, which could be quite reliable when compared to the current system being followed. ~Rajan51(talk) 13:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How do we know that site is reliable? Simply because it exists? Also, I just attempted a currency conversion on Indian rupees, using INCIPI1958 Indian index. It yielded no result. The USD conversion test I did seemed to work, but not INR. I'll also point out that since all financial figures are based on guesses, and in many cases are inflated or deflated either by producers or by editors who cherrypick one value over another, the concept of accuracy is a myth. So long as the data being fed into INRConvert is relatively up to date, we should be fine. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That could do it, but nit is not being used for all films. For example, the adjusted gross for Mughal-e-Azam would be ₹693 crore using INRConvert, which is much lesser than the ₹2,000 crore which is there now. ~Rajan51(talk) 12:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * since was the one who introduced this content, I think they should be brought into the discussion. I'm unclear how the data was established and the notes aren't extraordinarily clear. Math isn't my strong point anyway. But to your concerns, if I run the INR calculation through here, (which now seems to work), 11 crore rupees in 1960 converts to about 705 crore in 2017, if I'm reading it correctly. So the INRConvert template isn't too far off with inr 110000000 yielding "inr 110000000". It's probably off a few rupees since we're comparing to 2016's values. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no single consistent inflation rate, but it can vary from film to film. The INR inflation rates used by Template:INRConvert, for example, are different to the USD inflation rates used by Template:Inflation up until the 1980s. And after the 1980s, the ticket price inflation rate given by Box Office India is different to the inflation rates used by both templates. And in the case of Mughal-e-Azam, Mint gives yet another different ticket price inflation rate. Generally, I gave priority to the inflation rates given by sources specific to the film (such as Box Office India and Mint), then the USD inflation rate used by the Inflation template for films up until the 1980s, and then INRConvert for later films. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, but then how do you calculate the adjusted gross for other films released before 1980? I came across this film called Chandralekha released in 1948, whose gross when adjusted will be big enough to make it to the list. But I didn't know how to calculate adjusted gross. Is there any other way to do this? ~Rajan51(talk) 15:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be a bit complex, but the method I usually use is as follows: Chandralekha's gross was ₹1.55 crore, or ₹15.5 million, which we convert to US dollars in 1948. The exchange rate in 1948 was ₹4.79 per dollar, so the film's gross was $3.24 million. Inflating this using Template:Inflation gives us $ million in 2016. Then converting this back into rupees at the 2016 exchange rate of 67.175856 INR per USD gives us ₹2.15 billion, or ₹215 crore. This wouldn't be enough to make it onto the inflation-adjusted list, but its ₹1.55 crore gross would make it onto the records list, for holding the highest-grossing record for a year, up until Andaz and Barsaat in 1949. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Avatar Gross
As per the given two references(1 and 2), Avatar grossed roughly $24 million in India. This when converted at the exchange rate of 2009 give roughly ₹115 crore. However, the report on Hindustan Times mentions it as ₹145 crore while giving its gross as $24 million in USD. It could be possible that they might have taken the then existing rate(of 2015) to convert this. So I request others to look into this. ~Rajan51(talk) 6:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, the box office grosses for foreign films given in INR here look like they have been converted from USD to INR at the same exchange rate, even for films which released in different years. For example, Titanic which released in India in 1998 grossed $12,749,919(equivalent to ₹50.7 crore) in India. But the report shows it in INR as ₹ 84 crore which is higher and could have been converted at a later exchange rate. The same applies to other films too. So please look into this too. ~Rajan51(talk) 13:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about the Indian box office, INR figures should ideally be prioritized over USD figures. This should mean that Indian sources giving the INR figures should take priority over foreign sources giving the USD figures. But this is just my view on the topic. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree the we have to give priority to INR figures. But that doesn't mean that we should trust only Indian sources. We can get the box office gross in USD and convert it to INR. I know that this won't give the exact gross, but in the absence of reliable sources giving gross in INR, it can be used. And in the above case, this report clearly looks faulty. They have converted the grosses for both Titanic and Avatar at the same rate, even though the exchange rates were different and lower than their conversion rate in both 1998 and 2009. So in such cases, I suggest we try to find more reliable sources giving values in INR. If we can't we can still get figures in USD and convert it to INR. ~Rajan51(talk) 3:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hindustan Times is considered a reliable source according to WP:ICTFFAQ. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I know that Hindustan Times is considered to be a reliable source. But that particular report is clearly wrong. ~Rajan51(talk) 3:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If there are doubts about how Hindustan Times got its INR figures, then I don't see a problem with using Box Office Mojo's USD numbers and converting them to INR. But in that case, it would mean we'd have to prioritize USD as the standard currency for foreign films, unless we have sources giving INR figures. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Adjustment of grosses
The film in the list on adjusted grosses seem to have different factors used for adjustment due to the different sources used which kin of makes it contradicting. For example, for Mughal-e-Azam (1960), the multilying factor used is higher than the one used for Mother India(1957), which looks wrong and there could be more such things. So, I think we need to use the same method for calculating the adjusted grosses for all films. ~Rajan51(talk) 11:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't be calculating the figures ourselves, rather, we should be pointing to reliable sources that make the claims. This is something I have been worried about--Wikipedia becoming its own "authoritative source" as opposed to letting the industry professionals do the hard work. At List of highest-grossing Indian films we probably make some gross claims that are not consistent with industry opinion, because when you take estimations from various outlets, some of which would have converted Turkish lira to US dollars, which we then have to convert back to rupees based on whatever exchange rate we've found on the Internet, things can get REALLY inexact. Ex: Has any reliable source made the claim that Dangal has grossed 2200 crore rupees, or is that figure entirely the result of Wikipedian interpretation/calculation? Anyway, I think strong consideration should be paid to scrapping the adjusted gross figures unless the adjustments can all be attributed to a reliable source. And, if this is something you feel strongly about, you might consider inviting members of WT:FILM to the discussion. While I am commenting because you asked me to, I am not the arbiter of content and my opinion doesn't hold any more sway than anybody else's. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the inflation multiplier for Mother India should probably at least be the same as (if not higher than) Mughal-e-Azam. However, the inflation multiplier in the source only refers to Mughal-e-Azam, so it may be questionable to use that same multiplier for Mother India. That's why for Mother India, the standard Wikipedia inflation template is used instead. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We need to have a single reliable source/method for adjusting the grosses of all films. If a select few films have different sources, the table will become faulty. ~Rajan51(talk) 3:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia usually recommends against using a single source, but usually recommends using multiple sources. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * However, I do see your point about consistency. We could just go along with your earlier suggestion of using Mughal-e-Azam's inflation rate for Mother India (since ticket prices in 1957 wouldn't have been lower than 1960), which I don't personally have an issue with. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not just about Mother India. the are other films with lower adjustment rates than Mughal-e-Azam although they released before it. ~Rajan51(talk) 5:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the same could be said for other films released up until 1960. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * But for a film like Aan(1952), the adjustment rate will most likely be higher than Mughal-e-Azam. So we need to find the adjustment rates from the year of release to 1960 for all films that were released before 1960. I don't know where we'll get such adjustment rates. Besides, I think we need to extend the adjustment rates which have been obtained for foreign films too. For example, Jurassic Park(1994 India release) grossed roughly 22 crore in India which when adjusted using the INRConvert template gives 103 crore which means that the adjustment rate is less than 5. But Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!(1994) has an adjustment rate of 9.73 (from BOI) which can also be used for Jurassic Park. Similarly 1998's adjustment rate can be used for Titanic from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. ~Rajan51(talk) 10:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The earliest ticket inflation rate we have is for Mughal-e-Azam. Prior to that, all we have are currency inflation rates given by Template:To USD, which are generally lower than ticket inflation rates. I think it should be okay to apply Mughal-e-Azam's ticket inflation rate for 1950s films, but we shouldn't raise it any higher than that, since we don't know the ticket inflation rates for the era. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradicting Grosses
As per the given references for Dangal and PK, the total grosses in India are ₹587 and ₹489 crore respectively. But the reference for PK and Baahubali: The Beginning show that Dangal's gross in India are roughly ₹542 crore and ₹512 crore, which are clearly lower than the gross already given. Also, as per Baahubali's reference, pk's gross in India is roughly ₹448 crore, which is once again lower than the gross already given for it. There may be more irregularities on this list, but I was able to notice this as these are at the top of the list. So, how do we resolve these kind of problems? ~Rajan51(talk) 6:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hindi films generally rely on BOI, while Telugu films like Baahubali get their information on grosses from reliable newspaper dailies. However, the referencing used in the article is confusing; the entire gross of films is obtained by adding different figures from different websites to arrive at different conclusions not mentioned in either sources. I think we should only consider those figures which are mentioned as final in reliable sources and not add different numerically together. 31.215.112.35 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But sometimes, a single source which includes the grosses in newly released countries may not exist. In such cases, using multiple sources seems to be the only way. ~Rajan51(talk) 11:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * One issue with BOI is that it only gives gross figures for the Hindi versions, and doesn't include gross figures from dubbed versions such as Tamil and Telugu. So BOI doesn't always give a complete figure. In Dangal's case, for example, BOI's 542crore figure only refers to the Hindi version, and doesn't include Tamil/Telugu dubs. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As per BOI's report here, Dangal's gross in India is 511.81 crore and the report mentions that the figures are inclusive of all languages. And as per the same report, PK's gross in India is 448.74 crore(inclusive of all languages). But this report here says that PK and Dangal grossed 489 and 542.34 crore in India respectively. So, what to do now? ~Rajan51(talk) 3:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure what exactly should be done. One suggestion could be do just give an average figure between all sources. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In that case, Dangal's gross would be 547.05 crore and PK's gross would be 468.87 crore. Another solution could be to give a range of values. For example, Dangal's gross can be given as 511.81 - 587 crore. ~Rajan51(talk) 3:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I might suggest giving an average in the table, along with a footnote giving a range of values. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I just noticed, the website Bollywood Movie Review is not considered to be a reliable source by WP:ICTFSOURCES. So if we ignore their data, Dangal's average India gross would be 549.41 crore and for PK, the gross will be 448.74 crore(from BOI) ~Rajan51(talk) 10:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:ICTFSOURCES and WP:ICTFFAQ don't say it's an unreliable source, but at the same time don't say it's a reliable source either. But since it's not on either list, you could ignore it. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. BOI doesn't seem to include box office figures from dubbed versions for Hindi films in both gross and nett revenue. So, we would have to use reliable source other than BOI and Bollywood Movie Review. ~Rajan51(talk) 5:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And according to Bollywood Hungama and Firstpost, Dangal's India gross is roughly ₹ 538.03 crore and ₹542.34 crore. So if we consider these two sources with the ₹587 crore report from Forbes, Dangal's average India gross would be ₹555.79 crore. ~Rajan51(talk) 13:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that should be okay. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

KGF: chapter 1 Indian box office collections please update
KGF: chapter 1 Indian box office collections more than 200 crore https://www.timesnownews.com/amp/entertainment/box-office/article/kgf-all-set-to-beat-baahubali-2-at-the-karnataka-box-office-here-are-some-milestones-achieved-by-yash-starrer/348198

you are updating all the language movies, you have updated 2.0, rangasthalam, mersal, URI. but you are neglecting Kannada industry movies, KGF is in news for a month now but you still won't update the collections. I don't know wheather it is discrimination or neglegence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GARUDA BHARGHAVA (talk • contribs) 06:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

hello sir, can anyone give me the reason for not considering my request. atleast have some courtesy to give a response. KGF has collected 135 crores in karnataka alone, and all India collection is more than 200 crores. i have given you the link too. Wikipedia is a public platform where everybody comes and checks about the collections, so please be polite enough to give the reason about why you are not considering my request.

if you cant consider this link, i can send some more links as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by GARUDA BHARGHAVA (talk • contribs) 07:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to relax a little. We're volunteers; we don't work according to your schedule, and there's no guarantee that anybody's going to respond in an arbitrary time frame you've established in your head. I've added KGF to the domestic gross list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019
Spiderman 3 has grossed more than age of ultron in India with 108 crore.kindly include it in the list of highest grossing Foreign films in india 139.167.5.109 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Uri and Simmba gross
In the page we are talking about the gross collections of various films but for uri and simmba nett collections are given...plz make required edits Dhruv1703 (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Captain Marvel
According to this article of Indian Express https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/captain-marvel-box-office-collection-brie-larson-superhero-movie-5632323/ in its first 10 days of release, Captain Marvel has already earned ₹84.22 crore which Makes it 10th highest grossing foreign language  film in India. Shouldn't it replace captain America on the list ਬੱਬੂ ਬਰਾੜ (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The lion king
The lion king (which is not listed on highest grossing foreign films in India), according to this link https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=lionkingliveaction.htm Had grossed $19,444,577 which equals to ₹135.3 crore. Then shouldn't it be added to above mentioned list. ਬੱਬੂ ਬਰਾੜ (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Mersal India box office
This list has Mersal's India collections as Rs. 260 crore while the Wikipedia page for Mersal lists 260 crores as the "worldwide" collections. So obviously the India gross would be lower. Please find a source and update the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reo kwon (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2019
Change KGF Chapter 1 from 200 crores to 243 crores as officially confirmed on it"s Wikipedia page Naveen Kinnal (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. A search for "KGF" came up empty; not sure what you're referring to. Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Saaho Movie domestic collection
KIndly add and update 'Saaho' movie domestic collection. meowmeow \S-) (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To what? And with what source? Vague requests with no helpful references don't typically result in quick changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hum Aapke Hain Koun gross
In these edits I restored the Hum Aapke Hain Koun gross figure to ₹175 crore, but the figure seems a bit out there. The source being used to justify that figure, India Today, is making a prediction about the film's potential, which does not equal a confirmation that the film grossed that amount. So that alone is problematic. It also doesn't indicate if this is a domestic total or a worldwide total, which we would have to know for certain to include in a list of film grosses earned in India alone. So I have flagged the content as disputed, and welcome contrary opinions as to what to do here. Note that Box Office India indicates a gross of 117 crore, but these are the same clowns who include print and advertising in their budget figures. SMH. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

KGF to be removed from Timeline of highest grossers
KGF (₹250 cr.) was never the highest grossing film in India, however timeline incorrectly includes KGF in the year 2018. Last highest grooser was Baahubali 2: The Conclusion (₹1,429 cr.) which is yet to be beaten. Hence, KGF to be removed from the list immediately to avoid confusion. Abhijithn207 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Baahubali 2 footfalls more than 10 crores
The sourced relied for footfalls, Box Office India only tracks Hindi film Industry putting Baahubali 2 Hindi Version's footfalls at 5.25 grote, but all languages included it footfalls are well over 10 crore.

https://m.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/baahubali-2-is-the-first-indian-film-with-over-10-crore-footfalls/story-EdFN8PUyaTeaWW5I8PuwiJ.html Ab207 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Number of films in Domestic Gross figures
Hello All The article previously listed Top 57 films which is unusual to say the least. I have limited the list to Top 50 films in my edit, you can review it here. New films can be added provided they make to Top 50. Also let me know, if editors are willing to expand the list to say Top 75 or Top 100. - Ab207 (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Issues with inflation-adjusted gross
As per reliable sources, both Mughal-e-Azam and Baahubali: The Conclusion have registered around 10 crore footfalls each. But the difference in Inflation-adjusted gross deviates by a wide margin (around 570 crore, or 40% higher). This rises questions about methodology adapted. The issues are as follows: 1. Its not clear whether its inflation-adjusted gross or ticket-price adjusted gross. If its the former, then the article provides no info about average year-to-year inflation in India between 1960 and 2017 and where the data is obtained from. This unlike Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation where the inflation data is derived from CPI index of advanced economies published by IMF. 2. If its the ticket price-adjusted gross, then its not understandable why Mughal-e-Azam has a higher-adjusted gross than Baahubali: The Conclusion, considering the fact that the latter film released after the advent of multiplexes, with superior technology and higher ticket prices. As far as I can see, the entire thing is based on adjusted figures given by Box office India. We have no clue about methodology adopted or if the figures are given by any economist etc, consequently, there is no reason why these figures should be taken as gospel truth. Therefore I propose to rework on the entire section based on Official data, such as this, or using Inflation calculator as used earlier by an editor and applying it to various films. A note can be adding conveying the same (as it was done is the Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation, a featured article).--Ab207 (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Inviting the editors involved for the discussion,, , , . All other editors are welcome to express their opinion.--Ab207 (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, the inflation data at the Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation article is derived from ticket price data up until 2011 (as listed by Guinness World Records), and then it's further adjusted up to 2019 using the CPI index. So that list is using a mixture of ticket price data up to 2011 and then the CPI index from 2011 to 2019. This is due to that article being a worldwide list, with different countries having different ticket inflation rates. For a more directly relevant comparison, see the List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. The inflation-adjusted figures there are derived entirely from ticket price data given by Box Office Mojo, as listed here. Similarly, Box Office India also derives its inflation-adjusted figures based on ticket price data going back to 1993. For ticket price data before 1993, there's this source which covers ticket prices between 1960 and 1986. As for Mughal-e-Azam more specifically, it's based on the 200x ticket inflation rate given in this article here. In terms of footfalls, we don't know exactly how many tickets were sold by Baahubali, Mughal-e-Azam, Sholay or Mother India, but just that they're estimated to have sold over 100 million tickets. There are some estimates for Sholay that go as high as 250 million tickets, though this likely includes worldwide ticket sales (like the Soviet Union where it sold 60 million tickets). My suggestion is to use Indian ticket price inflation data wherever possible, and then further adjust using currency inflation wherever ticket price inflation data is not available. Maestro2016 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point that ticket price-adjusted gross is more relevant for domestic figures. But, before that we have establish the reliability of the citation, as Box Office India is certainly not the Indian equivalent of Box Office Mojo. Can we find any source which indicates the methodology adopted by Box Office India. Regarding the live mint article, it simply says the film "earned" 6 crores, without mentioning whether it's gross, nett or share, or even how the inflated figure is obtained. Hence, it cannot be taken at face value. We also cannot rule out the possibility that the article itself may have taken these figures from Box Office India adjusted figures, whose credibility is yet to be determined. --Ab207 (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Box Office India is listed as a reliable source at WP:ICTFFAQ. So there shouldn't be any issue with using it for films released since 1993, which is about as far back as the BOI database currently goes. Any inflation-adjusted figures before 1993 has some uncertainty, but the figures from 1993 onwards should be fairly reliable. An alternative suggestion from what I said above would be to limit the inflation-adjusted list to just films released from 1993 onwards (since the BOI database currently doesn't go back any earlier than this), and remove films released before 1993. Since we already have a separate Footfalls table listing ticket sales, that's more-or-less equivalent to having an inflation-adjusted gross list anyway. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My only reservation was on the opaque methodology used by BOI for adjusted figures, not about the site in general. BOI itself is confused about best possible way to compare films which are decades apart. Here, they even talk about taking gold prices as an equalizing measure!The alternative suggestion of limiting to post-1993 films seems reasonable. However, it would still leave an outstanding issue about extrapolating net figures into gross figures which could be problematic considering that new data is generated. Therefore, I think we should probably write a lede to the inflation section about the issues relating to inflation-adjustment, paucity of reliable data and the net-gross extrapolation to make things clearer.--Ab207 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a different Box Office India. As noted by WP:ICTFFAQ, boxofficeindia.com is a reliable source but boxofficeindia.co.in is an unreliable source. Boxofficeindia.com gives adjusted nett figures based on ticket prices, not gold prices. It's pretty easy to convert between nett and gross since BOI gives gives us the ratio between nett and gross for each film. Alternatively, we could give only the inflation-adjusted nett figures listed at BOI, but that creates problems when comparing Bollywood and South Indian films, due to lower entertainment tax rates in the South. So I think it would be more consistent if the adjusted nett figures from BOI were converted to gross, as this list currently does for post-1993 films. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for pointing out the copy cat website. Now it makes sense. All we need is a source which confirms that Boxofficeindia.com  adjusts nett figures based on ticket prices, and we are good to go.--Ab207 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since I've been asked, here is my opinion--I hate double-checking figures that aren't expressly printed in reliable sources. It's a real pain in the arse, it's a time-suck, and it brings me zero joy. Wikipedia is not supposed to be generating its own data, it's supposed to be printing what reliable sources say. Anyone who attempts this should probably get some input from some of the long-time editors at WikiProject Film, like and  and  and  and, et al. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sir, This article has already generated its own data. Adjusted-figures of Net collections given by Box Office India are simply extrapolated to find gross collections (which is not scientific at all because pre-GST ie 2017, each Indian state had its own entertainment tax regime). Indian media has also starting quoting the exact data given the here in articles such as this. When you say that wikipedia has to present the data that's already expressed in reliable sources, do you recommend to switch the table from Gross to Net Collections?--Ab207 (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Net collections are probably going to be problematic for other reasons. Some regions have entertainment taxes that might not be present in other regions (or film industries). Or a film might circumvent these taxes by having a bilingual release. So it's not clear to me what academic purpose will be served if we're comparing apples to oranges. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here in our case, we simply do not have any reliable source adjusting gross figures. Closest we have is Net adjusted figures given by BoI (which itself may not be reliable). In that case, should we not go for adjusting nominal gross figures for inflation, instead of extrapolating net figures for gross (because unlike Entertainment tax or even ticket prices, CPI Inflation is somewhat uniform across India).--Ab207 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Adjusted gross for pre-1993 films 2. Adjusted gross for Non Hindi-language films Editors are welcomed to express their opinion, feedback and suggestions to tackle the problem.--Ab207 (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Based on the alternate suggestion by Maestro2016 which I seconded, The Adjusted gross table is limited to films released from the year 1993. You can review my edit here. However, this still leaves us with two outstanding issues


 * New suggestion: I've recently found the 2017 average ticket price listed by Box Office India here (₹134.38). Using this data, it is possible to determine the adjusted gross by multiplying the footfalls (given in the Footfalls table) with the 2017 average ticket price (₹134.38). Using this methodology, it would be possible to adjust films from before 1993 in terms of ticket price inflation with consistency. It might also be a good idea to merge the "Footfalls" and "Adjusted gross" tables into a single table, since the adjusted gross is largely derived from the footfalls. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022
35 Mrinmaya Shrivastava (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022
The Kashmir Files domestic collection gross is 271.64Cr. It should be at #28. Mrinmaya Shrivastava (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kashmir Files net collection is 331 Crores, as per the link https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb651_nMS2w/.
Hi Team,

TKF collection is only at 275Cr, as per the article, which is 56Crores less than the actual. Please fix it asap.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrinmaya Shrivastava (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've updated per cited source — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Kgf chapter 2
Total collection in India 2402:8100:2626:1C14:478:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Update Kantara collection
Kantara collections are not updated. 103.232.241.147 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022
Unknown0981 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Add Kantara in the top list as it has crossed KGF Chapter 1 to become Karnataka's 2nd highest gross film.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Add pathaan coloring
Pathan is added in the list but currently not colored light screen.. it is still running in the boxoffice and thus should be filled with light green as Avatar! Nshahvasai (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023
I request an edit as the movie recently released is not added in the list, even though I think It should have been 49.15.187.155 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Footfalls vs Adjusted Gross
How come no reputed magazine is cited for declaring Mughal-e-Azam to be the highest grossing film of all time? Instead we have some made up theory and calculation of inflation to use push Mughal-e-Azam as the highest grossing film of all time. On the other hand, some Wikipedia users want a reputed source for declaring Sholay's footfalls to be the highest. What's with this double standard? CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023 (2)
1. Add the date (3 February 2023) in source number 23

2. In "and total gross of ₹461 crore." change the amount to ₹484 crore. Don't know how much the other amount will be in that sentence. 1.39.250.103 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1.done

2. Please provide source for that. Lemonaka (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023
Please update the gross of Avatar: The Way of Water as 484.36 crores (in this list as well as description), and move it to number 7. This is the source 1.39.240.67 (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A09 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Default sorting is weird for weekends
The Default sorting is is not ranked in opening weekends 2402:3A80:645:557A:F4AF:4A8A:7431:9C5C (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023
exhange = exchange 2603:8000:D300:D0F:F4A0:CBD1:437D:9A69 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Adjusted grosses table
I had removed the Adjusted grosses table from the article a few days ago, and since there seems to be some confusion about it, I will clarify it here. First, I will explain how the adjusted grosses were calculated. There were two simple steps:
 * 1. The unadjusted gross of the films in the table was first obtained.
 * 2. The adjusted grosses in the table were calculated using the ratio from the adjusted nett figures of the films from Box Office India.

So, for example, if a movie had netted 50 crore in 1995, and it's adjusted nett in 2023 is 200 crore, that means the inflation multiplier is 200/50 = 4. Let's say this movie had a gross of 80 crore in 1995, that number was multiplied with the inflation multiplier of 4 to get 4 x 80 = 320 crore adjusted gross. This seems simple, but there is a problem. Nett box office is different from box office. Gross box office is the product of ticket price and number of tickets sold. Nett box office is calculated by subtracting the consumption taxes (sales tax/VAT/GST) from the gross box office. So, with that out of the way, these are the problems:
 * 1. Different Indian states can have different consumption tax levels, so if a film makes the same gross in two states, they could still have different nett box office.
 * 2. Consumption taxes change over time. (Like the implementation of GST in 2017) So even if two films released in different years have the same gross, they could still have different nett box office. A look at the nett and gross box office of films in the 1990s shows that the nett box office was a smaller share of the gross box office than films in the 2020s. We do not know Box Office India's method used for calculating adjusting nett box office. There could be two possibilities: the first is adjusting the gross box office using average ticket price and applying the new tax rate, which seems less likely, but is still a possibility. The second method would be adjusting the nett box office itself, which would be fine if not for the next problem.
 * 3. Box Office India only tracks Bollywood films, so their inflation adjustment may not be applicable for non-Bollywood films like Baahubali 2 or 2.0, because ticket prices increase at different rates across different states. So using the ticket price increase in some states across all states would be inaccurate.

Not to mention, all of this is original research, so it is best to avoid it. And most importantly, adjusting for inflation is done to compare movies across different time periods due to the difference in ticket prices. We already have the Footfalls table to do this, so having two tables for essentially the same purpose would be redundant. - Rajan51 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Why was the table "Highest-grossing films by year" removed? SatyamevJayate (wd) (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe could answer that for you since it was removed by him/her. -Rajan51 (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I already have Cinephile4ever 07:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You said that since there is no single source, then this is considered original research, inadmissible on Wikipedia.
 * It turns out that then, in general, all the tables in the "List of highest-grossing films in India" section are original studies banned in Wikipedia.
 * Please show, for example, the source according to which the data is reflected in the "Nominal gross" table. https://www.boxofficeindia.com/all_format_worldwide_gross.php - this source doesn't fit because there are not some movies in it (Pathaan. Avatar: The Way of Water, Avengers: Endgame, Kantara, Adipurush, Tanhaji, etc.) and the films are arranged in it in a different order (according to WORLDWIDE GROSS).
 * https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/all-time-top-grossers/ - this source is not suitable because it lists nett figures.
 * So, this table is also original research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia. But you didn't delete it.
 * The same can be said about the table"Highest-grossing opening weekend in India" - this is also original research, banned in Wikipedia, since there is no link to a single source.
 * Either you should have deleted these tables too, or found the source and filled them according to the source, or you should not have deleted the tables "Timeline of gross records", "Highest-grossing films by year", since the principle of filling them in, the same as in the rest of the tables in the "List of highest-grossing films in India" section. SatyamevJayate (wd) (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NOR, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.". We don't have a single source that tracks all films released in India, like Box Office Mojo for North America. So, we need to use multiple sources, and it is not original research as long as the sources are reliable, and we just present the data from the sources. As for the deletion of the sections you had mentioned, I believe that has provided an explanation for it. - Rajan51 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think he is right in saying it is original research, because as you have given in your comment, "Original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." We are reaching a conclusion by giving ranks to films and ranking them in a different order, whereas other reliable sources like Bollywood Hungama have their own ranking of highest grossing films: https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office-collections/worldwide/
 * See this Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films
 * Mostly I myself had given ranges of box office figures for almost all films in the worldwide gross collection section and ranked the films. Now there is difference between Wikipedia ranking and reliable source Bollywood Hungama ranking. So it amounts to original research in my view too. Cinephile4ever 13:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Our problem here is that we do not have one single source that maintains a list of all highest-grossing films in India. Box Office India does not feature foreign films and does not include grosses from non-Hindi versions of Indian films (maybe it includes for Bollywood films alone, but I don't know about that). Because of this, a ranked list would be misleading and wrong if we only use one source. So, it is possible to have the list only if we use more than one source.
 * As far as whether it should be allowed based on whether it is original research or not, it is not clear if using the gross figures from reliable sources and assigning a rank alone constitutes original research. You could make the argument it is, but it is subjective, and not everyone may agree. However, even if it is original research, WP:NOR is not absolute. If we establish a consensus among editors as per WP:CALC, then that should take precedence whatever WP:NOR says. And since many lists of this sort (at least the ones with Indian films) use multiple sources, I believe it would be easy to establish such a consensus, and you could start a discussion about it first at WP:ICTF. For the time being, I would suggest not deleting the lists currently on the page based on the claim that multiple sources are used until a consensus is reached. - Rajan51 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there should be a single source for nominal gross and highest opening weekend gross.
 * I said the table "nominal gross" should not be used for the table "highest grossing films by year." Similarly, the table "highest grossing films by year" should not be used for the table "timeline of gross records." Because it amounts to using Wikipedia as a source, which is not allowed since Wikipedia is not a reliable source as per guidelines: RSPSOURCES. That is why I said there should be a single source for table "timeline of gross records" and a single source for table "highest grossing films by year."
 * And regarding the tables "nominal gross" and "highest opening weekend gross," there are different sources for every film's box office figure. But I think you are right in saying these are original research too, because we are ranking based on the box office figures of all films, which is again not allowed: No original research. I think this would definitely require a discussion on the talk page of Indian cinema task force: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. If other users agree that these tables are original research too, then we will have to give a single source for these tables too. Cinephile4ever 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the tables "Timeline of gross records", "Highest-grossing films by year" there were links to sources boxofficeindia and bollywoodhungama, which have all this information.
 * I restored the "Timeline of gross records" table, in each line, by specifying a link to boxofficeindia, you, Cinephile4ever, deleted this table again.
 * It turns out that the tables "Timeline of gross records", "Highest grossing films by years", can be restored? SatyamevJayate (wd) (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can restore if you want. But I think there should be one single source for every table which ranks films in any list on Wikipedia. We should not rank based on ranges of box office figures from different sources for every film, because it is definitely original research which is not allowed. Cinephile4ever 13:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please show, for example, the one single source source according to which the data is reflected in the "Nominal gross" table. SatyamevJayate (wd) (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no one single source, that is the problem here. Cinephile4ever 13:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no single source for the "Nominal gross" table, however you left it.
 * For the tables "Timeline of gross records", "Highest-grossing films by year" there is also no single source, but there are sources for each row, you deleted these tables. Although they were made a long time ago and they suited everyone.
 * When I have time, I will restore the tables "Timeline of gross records", "Highest-grossing films by year". And I ask you not to delete them, since they have the right to be here as well as the "Nominal gross" table, because the situation with their sources is similar. SatyamevJayate (wd) (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can use this single source from Bollywood Hungama for this article, because there are Indian films from all languages, and their opening day, opening weekend, opening week and total lifetime collections in India. The only thing is all these amounts are net, and not gross. But as you said, it is nowhere said that we should not use net figures, so we can give a note that all amounts are net box office collections in India. Also, gross amounts always differ in various sources, so we have to give ranges and rank which amounts to original research, but net amounts are almost always the same for all films in all sources, so I think this will be better: https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/all-time-top-grossers/ Cinephile4ever 04:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, box office has always been about gross, both outside Wikipedia and on Wikipedia, except the Bollywood industry. Even non-Bollywood Indian films primarily report gross. But even if you wanted to use only nett figures that list is wrong because it doesn't include nett figures from non-Hindi versions of the film. For example, Baahubali 2's India nett collection is over 1,000 crore, but Bollywood Hungama has listed it at only around 500 crore, which is only the collection from the Hindi dub of the film. Look at my previous reply in this section from last night further up. I had explained how we can keep the system with multiple sources if there is a consensus among editors. - Rajan51 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Jailer collection is missing
could you please check jailer collection and update it. 106.196.19.63 (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023
Update the domestic gross of Gadar 2. 117.205.20.9 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's done. 103.180.171.212 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023
Please update the revenue of Jawan as per this source 103.180.170.192 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2023
Avatar: The Way of Water is the tenth highest-grossing film in India. Please update that in the "overview". 117.214.187.59 (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023
Jawan box office collection - 1132.13Cr 103.86.3.167 (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kind regards αvírαm  | (tαlk) 06:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023
Please update box office of Jawan according to this source 103.180.170.79 (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)