User talk:Merwadoin

Giant financial tables
Hi there, though I know you meant well with your additions here and here, you should seek consensus for the inclusion of these massive financial tables, perhaps at WP:ICTF. The Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia doesn't seem terribly interested in these tables, based on previous discussions at different articles. The inherent unreliability of Indian cinema financials is no doubt a chief concern--with no centralised authority or independent auditing, all figures are basically either manufactured or estimated. Presenting a large table of questionable data may not be in the community's interests. The table was quite the accomplishment for someone's first few edits though! Also, as a general note, 13 references for a single piece of data is generally considered obnoxious, especially when, for instance with the Dangal table, you have references that say different things.
 * Hindi version:
 * ₹374.50 crore

The first three references listed are: The first reference indicates 374.50 Hindi nett, (why do we care about nett when every other film article at Wikipedia focuses on gross?) The second indicates 495 Hindi gross, so it's unclear why this reference is even here if the data you're supporting is 374.50. The third reference says "Dangal (Hindi) has grossed 374.50 crore nett". Well, "gross" and "nett" are two disparate accounting concepts, so it's unclear what this source is even trying to say. Anyhow, I haven't checked all of the references, but that's a moot point since you'd first need consensus to include such an overwhelming table. But on the issue of references, I'd probably aim to keep it in the 3-4 references range, depending on severity of the claim and/or difference of opinion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Raees (film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Diffs: Your claim that Raees grossed 271 crore by the end of its run is not clearly supported by either of the references you submitted as far as I can tell. Neither source mentions 271. Also, copying prose from any source is a bad idea because it both creates plagiarism and copyright violation issues, but in the case of your copy/pasting from this source, you erroneously claim that Raees was "the highest-grossing film in January ever", but that's clearly nonsense, as this list will attest. Don't copy content in the future again, please. It's academically dishonest and lazy, and you sometimes wind up saying ridiculous things thanks to crappy journalism.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Meaningless hyperbolic "declarations"
Hi there, re: this, please don't add meaningless, hyperbolic "declarations" about a film's commercial or critical response. Or for anything, really. "Blockbuster" is of no use to a neutral encyclopedia. We're not here to drool over films or to promote them or to drag films through the mud. We report sourced data, we do not present opinions as facts and we endeavor to do everything neutrally. "Blockbuster", "super hit", "flop", "failure", "disaster" and similar hyperbole are inappropriate for inclusion. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)