Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Baahubali 2 is a joint Telugu/Tamil production yet incorrectly it is placed solely under Telugu here

Baahubali 1 is correctly under language Telugu/Tamil due to being a joint production yet Baahubali 2 is under only Telugu which is incorrect. Baahubali 2 is a joint Telugu/Tamil production yet incorrectly it is placed solely under Telugu here even though before it wasn't so it was incorrectly changed and should be reverted back. Dr.jaffari (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald Are you sure about this? The producers credited are Shobu Yarlagadda and Prasad Devineni, and according to Wikipedia, they are Telugu producers. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Anoopspeaks, there are various sources (BBC and similar ones) which says it was a joint venture and produced in two languages simultaneously, each one with different runtimes. Hence, it's justified. Moreover, the state of the producer seldom makes the movie a production of their respective industry. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald I don't have detailed knowledge on this, but as observed, their production house is registered in Telangana. Also the CBFC does not have strict measures to define whether a film is a dub or not, and their guidelines do not address this. Ultimately, it depends on the filmmakers' claim CBFC mystery. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Anoopspeaks, Yes, for dubs, we can surely go with the parent language. But this is not sucha venture. It was shot simultaneously in two languages and is a joint venture per multiple reliable sources. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald I only want to point out that the producers are regarded as Telugu producers, and I did not see a Tamil industry producer listed among them. Additionally, the production house is registered under the Telugu industry, and anyone can obtain a CBFC certificate if the applicant meets the CBFC requirements. In that case, on what basis can it be declared a joint venture? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Anoopspeaks, as I said, it is in the basis of what the sources say. It is shot simultaneously in two languages, hence two productions. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald That only makes it bilingual. To claim it as a joint venture, it must be produced with a 50% partnership between producers from both industries. If you check this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baahubali:_The_Beginning&oldid=1242076934 , you can see a set of sources that validate it as a Telugu production. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Anoopspeaks, Hmm...then I think we need more insight from ICTF regulars on this and a clear consensus. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"To claim it as a joint venture, it must be produced with a 50% partnership between producers from both industries" - I am curious if there is a policy regarding this. I would consider a joint venture anything where two or more parties are involved with the production, regardless of the percentage. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 In that case, all multilingual and multi-dubbed films are technically joint ventures. right? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Not even remotely close to what I said or clarification I requested.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 I'm not sure if such a rule exists, but if we consider a film a joint venture regardless of the percentage of involvement of different parties, then all multilingual and multi-dub films would qualify as joint ventures. These films often include people from various industries, from production to casting. That's why I raised the point—please correct me if I'm wrong. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

My comment was merely about production, not what languages it is released in or dubbed in. Maybe I stated it incorrectly initially. I am looking to see who is credited with production. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 According to records, the production house and producers in this case belong to the Telugu industry. I am not aware of any source that explicitly states it was produced by the Tamil industry, but the page revision I mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baahubali:_The_Beginning&oldid=1242076934 explicitly stated that the film was produced in Telugu industry with eight sources backing it up. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about any records as I only look at reliable sources. The revision shows over 100 references so which eight sources are you pointing to specifically? @The Herald:, which BBC reference says joint venture. I am of the opinion we say what the sources says as everything is WP:OR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 The statement in the lead "Produced by the Telugu film industry," and check the associated reference group. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the thread below sums up in detail what I have been leading to. It matters the source, not our original research. We need to put what the sources say. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Baahubali was jointly shot in Telugu and Tamil - so it should be seen as film belonging to both languages. The location of Production House registration or the natie language of prodcuers has no bearing on what language the film belongs to. For example: Homable films based in Bengaluru made Salaar in Telugu. So will we call Salaar a Kannada film? Tomorrow if Dharma Productions or a Hollywood Prodution House makes a Malayalam film will that be called Hindi (Bollywood) or English (Hollywood) film? LordProsperity (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

LordProsperity, it doesn't matter where it was shot or how it was shot. We need a reliable source explicitly stating that it was a joint production in two languages. If you can find such a source that is listed reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES table, please provide one. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I was very confused and I can see what led to all this confusion after spending some time looking at the sources and pages Baahubali: The Beginning and Baahubali 2: The Conclusion. I believe some editors vandalized these pages that went unnoticed. I read BBC sources, source by (in Baahubali 2: The Conclusion page) Independent, source by (in Baahubali 2: The Conclusion page )deadline. No where it says it was a joint venture of Telugu and Tamil production companies. I did not even see where it said that the film was directed in both Telugu and Tamil simultaneously (maybe there are sources but not on these Wikipedia pages). On page Bahubali, The Beginning, this too has no source that says it was joint venture of two production companies or made simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil. This source by Independent and India Today have nothing on joint venture or made simultaneously. The two pages on Bahubali needs to be corrected per Source or just remove the whole line as it is not what the sources says. I see and from some other sources I looked at online, Bahubali films were Telugu films and major production companies of different languages like Hindi, Malayalam, Tamil helped with its distribution of dubbed version to different regions. Like Dharma Productions was responsible for distribution hindi dubbed version to Northern regions. If there is any source that says that it is joint venture where both production companies from Telugu and Tamil film industries jointly contributed to the budget and making of the two Bahubali films, I will need to see it. I am very sure the unnoticed vandalism caused this confusion. I will say both the pages will need to be corrected (unless sources are shown to say otherwise) including List of highest-grossing Indian films to be Telugu film. RangersRus (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @RangersRus I completely agree with that. Also, when I recently searched about the Baahubali 2 lip-sync issue, I was surprised because none of the reliable sources I came across mentioned it being bilingual. I had overlooked that fact, as I was under the impression that the film had been declared bilingual based on reliable sources. So, I didn’t dig further into it. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  RangersRus, Now, retrospectively thinking, I do remember seeing a source which said simultaneously shot. But I'm unable to find that now. I think this is a vandalism that crept in. I think we should remove all instances of Tamil from all the pages then. I might have overlooked it. @Anoopspeaks, can you do it? You can revert my edit too. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  @The Herald I have no issue making the edits, but on the respective film pages, I am unsure how other Wiki editors will react, as many have been misled to believe that having two certificates means the film is bilingual, despite the CBFC rules dating back to the early 1960s. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Requesting an opinion on this from connected editors @Vestrian24Bio and DareshMohan: Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Anoopspeaks, let's wait for a consensus to develop then. Once it's there, we can change accordingly. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  If sources say that it was simultaneously shot in Telugu and Tamil, it still won't be called a joint production or venture. It is still a product of Telugu film industry who reshot scenes in Tamil as well. So sentences will have to be carefully written so that it does not make the reader think that it was a joint venture where two film industries worked together on the film. Lets wait as more sources are shown in discussion but nothing where it says it was a "joint venture". RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.jaffari: can you show me sources that shows that Bahubali films were "joint production"? RangersRus (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald: @Anoopspeaks: Both pages (this box office one and the respective ones) look fine as is. If you want to readd the information that the film is produced in the Telugu film industry in the lead, you can or you can leave in the production section.

Sources that confirm the films were shot in both languages: [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

If you notice the sources, they are all about the first film except for the Forbes one. Proper sources can't be found for second film though. My issue is that Rajamouli "gave up" on properly shooting in Tamil in the second part. See my comments at Talk:Baahubali 2: The Conclusion#Language. I would support rewording simultaneously shot to partly shot although I don't have enough sources (only 1 review and 1 general source). Both sources mention the film's Telugu predominance. So if anything, Tamil cannot be removed from the first film due to sources while the second films wording can be changed while still retaining Tamil. I feel that even if you remove it, some IP will readd it since most Indians who saw the film know it is shot in both languages in some scenes. Remember my argument was that they didnt reshoot in Tamil, they did but just not enough. Plus the line between partially reshot films. The Tamil version is partly reshot and partly dubbed but we just dont want to confuse the readers.

Short summary: Do not remove Tamil from Baahubali 1 page. 30% of the second film was filmed alongside the first film [5]. This source (there are so many sources better than this Times of India one) says that: Bahubali 2 was shot in Telugu and later dubbed in the other languages including Hindi, Tamil

[6]

Here [7], For Baahubali, I didn’t struggle much because we shot only in Tamil and Telugu. It is probably predominately referring to the time when he shot Baahubali 1 more than Baahubali 2.

Best to ask (percentage reshot albeit original research citing the film itself on OTT platforms}}, @Gotitbro: as he did at Talk:Kalki 2898 AD/Archive 1#Language 2#Dubbed but indeed reshot.

I would also like to invite Tamil users @Kailash29792:, @Manick22:, @Srivin: to answer the following question.

Is Baahubali 2 a Tamil film, i.e. was it majorly shot in Tamil? Please add a few sources, preferably less Times of India.

OR

Is Baahubali 2 a victim of clean dubbing i. e. a good amount of scenes weren't shot in Tamil but good dubbing masked the issue?

DareshMohan (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A diff above for Baahubali: The Beginning had this in the lead: "Produced by the Telugu film industry, the film was shot in both Telugu and Tamil languages." (emphasis mine). This should never be done, we do not list film industries in the lead, only countries and languages are noted per MOS and convention respectively. If a film is a multilingual include the language but do not insert industries et. al. into the lead (there appears to be a push to do this as more multilingual films are produced in India).

Coming to the issue at hand, most reliable sources note the Baahubali films to be billinguals including BioScope: South Asian Screen Studies[8]; "Rajamouli, S. S. (2015). Baahubali 1: The Beginning [Motion picture]. India: Telugu, Tamil. Arka Media Works; Rajamouli, S. S. (2017). Baahubali 2: The Conclusion [Motion picture]. India: Telugu, Tamil. Arka Media Works." To disclude this from the leads of these articles would be going against the sources. While the situation with Baahubali 1 is clear, with Baahubali 2 things can get a bit murky as seen with the National Film Awards listing the film as Telugu [9], though this might have been for the sake of convenience. When a film has been reshot in no small measure and is repeatedly noted as such (as seen here in reliable sources), the analysis of how much of it was exactly reshot is best left for the body as I think we should be doing for Baahubali 2. We should also be careful with OR, the issue with Kalki was the lack of sources at the time and the present need to sort a contentious issue and thus a reliance on primary sources was made, but this is not the case here and a good amount of sources are indeed available regarding the language and we should avoid primary source synthesis. That is to say, that the leads of both films with both the langs should stand and a discussion about the dub quality/reshoot (based on secondary sources) is better left for the body. Gotitbro (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Topic of discussion was whether the Bahubali films were joint production venture? And so far from what I am understanding is that it was not. It is a Telugu film, made by Telugu film industry where Bahubali 1 was simulatenously shot in Tamil language (sources shown by DareshMohan). And Bahubali 2 again a Telugu film, made by Telugu film industry but not simultaneously shot in Tamil because I see several sources that talk about dubbing in Tamil. Now whether the film was shot in two different languages, it is still a product of Telugu film industry and so its a Telugu film. In wiki pages for Bahubali 1 it can be said that its a Telugu film that was simulateously shot in Tamil as well (and add sources saying so) and Bahubali 2 page can say that it was a Telugu film and 30% of Tamil was spoken in it (if there are sources saying so). If say Bahubali film was shot simultaneously in Telugu and Hindi, end product is of Telugu as Hindi film industry had no hand in making it but can be said that it was shot simultaneously in both Telugu and Hindi. I believe the pages depict that Bahubali films were something both Telugu and Tamil film industry made together which I think everyone agrees here that it was not. This page List of highest-grossing Indian films, column is industry and correctly shows Telugu for both films. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The categorization by industry appears to be a recent modification based on the judgement of a single editor and I have to disagree based on long-standing precedent and convention. Regardless of disputes whether a film is a multilingual or not, there is a reason categorization by local film industries is never done and the usage has always been language. Disputes for multilingual films can be resolved on their Talk pages and that should not lead to major unilateral overhauls such as this.

On the issue of CBFC certificates, they have always been an indicator of the basic facts about a film never the be-all and end-all for deciding what to include within our articles. If better judgment and sources provide otherwise a pivot to them has always been made. Gotitbro (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This list article focuses on the categorisation of the Indian cinema industry. While the industry is often omitted in the lead of individual film articles to prevent potential confusion for the reader, this rationale shouldn't extend to a list article that specifically deals with industry categorisation. Before the CBFC mystery came to light, no editor had pointed out that having multiple certificates does not automatically mean a film is multilingual. ECinepraman has been available since 2018, yet I only recently discovered its existence. Additionally, many news outlets use that data but never mention that it can be viewed by scanning the QR code embedded in the CBFC certificate. Furthermore, CBFC site data is often treated as unreliable, rather than offering a clear explanation of how to correctly identify the certificate data for a particular film from the site. From all of this, I genuinely feel that certain bad actors have suppressed this information from editors. Their motive seems to be the preferential treatment of certain films, and the availability of this data threatens to disrupt their agenda. So, I attempted to begin the rectification from the root article.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That a CBFC certificate, a primary source, is or isn't reliable should not be the sole criteria where we start overturning long-standing basic MOS:FILM tenets. This article never categorized films by industry, that is simply incorrect. Language and countries is what we have always used as a basis for all film lists and a consensus should have been obtained before attempting such a drastic overhaul.

If CBFC certificates are deemed unreliable, that is limited to that; that should not extend the "root" problem to listing/categorization by language. Broader consensus at WP:ICTF, WP:WikiProject Film and MOS:FILM will have to be taken if industry categorization is sought, if a core article like this is to be affected. Gotitbro (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Apart from the concern that I didn’t go for a broader consciousness in making this change, do you think categorising films based on industry is wrong, since the line between multilingual and dubbed films is blurring, as it solely depends on the filmmakers' claims? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

kalki 2898 ad BO is 1100cr not 1047

General Phoenix (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Put kalki in 5th highest-grossing Indian films

the Ott release is done lifetime collection is 1,200core Aptharital (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aptharital The list is organised by sorting according to the lowest box office gross reported, with a range provided due to the use of reliable green sources as identified by ICTF. It's important to recognise that all box office figures published in India are estimates, and many include projected estimates. These projections often fall short of actual earnings during a film’s theatrical run, leading to reports from other sources that may reflect lower figures. Additionally, some sources do not incorporate projected results, further contributing to discrepancies in reported figures. Therefore, presenting box office figures as a range is the most transparent approach, allowing users to make informed decisions based on the variety of sources, all of which are classified as green by ICTF. Moreover, it is impractical to assign a preferential order to these green sources. The Indian media faces substantial pressure from filmmakers to report more favourable box office figures, with the intensity of this pressure varying by project. While ICTF designates sources as green if they are less susceptible to such industry pressures, it is important to acknowledge that no source is entirely free from influence. Thus, using a range provides a more balanced and accurate representation of box office performance. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The collection depicted by Indian express which is 1041 is outdated as the same website Indian Express have published Kalki collection as 1100 after theatrical run. Then why the old collection depicting 1041 is still shown under the website The Indian Express. Change it and make it 5th Highest Grossing Indian Movie. Sayanoffi (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

actual collection is rs 1100-1150cr General Phoenix (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Kalki BO update request per latest articles

Few of the references cited currently have different figures in their recent articles and some have quoted figures from unreliable sources.

1. Bussiness standard recent article mentions 1100cr which contradicts the article used in reference currently

2. Livemint article which is used in reference currently, mentions 1041 cr a figure taken from Sacnilk which is an unreliable source. The same author has used Sacnilk as reference here

3. Similarly indian express also cited sacnilk in their articles here and carried the same figure across other articles.

Please remove Indian express and live mint references and update collection range as 1100cr to 1200 as per below latest and reliable articles:

> Deccan herald 1100cr > Variety 1179cr, Collider 1179cr > 1200cr pinkvilla > Hindustan times 1200 cr

Kindly update across all reference or notes lists, thanks. Meowedits (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed IE and Livemint sources which are based on sacnilk. Updated to 1100 cr as per Business Standard Ab207 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Meowedits (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Put Kalki as 6th or 5th highest grossing indian film

bo collection- rs 1100-1179cr General Phoenix (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Lowest figure is 1041.65 and the highest figure is 1200 per sources. So due to this range, the placement is fine where it is now. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

please refer to above post General Phoenix (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

To remove film franchise movies who's collection is less than 500 cr

please remove from drishyam till the files which get helps to other which are more than 500 crore franchise collection then they get space for other franchise to grow up in the box office collection. Jokerrockonmoon (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus to move currently. The similar requests from the same user have been processed similarly, owing to misunderstandings on the specific terms. (non-admin closure) Benison (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

---

List of highest-grossing Indian films → List of highest-grossing Indian cinema films – The revised name will clarify that the ranking is specifically for films produced by Indian film industries, with classification based on industry rather than language, as outlined in the article. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Lists, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Film, and WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force have been notified of this discussion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What language do you think the reader could think the title implies? Any of the languages of India? Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank All Indian languages, I think. My intent was to ensure the title clarifies that the list provides fair representation of individual film industries through the industry-based classification outlined in the article. However, based on the discussions that occurred on the other two concurrent move requests I made, it seems I was overthinking it, and that “Indian films” is likely sufficient to represent the document. Thank you for the clarification! Anoop Bhatia (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.