Talk:List of most expensive Indian films

Order

Why is the list out of order? 50.138.136.40 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Just wasn't done before. Should be good now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of the most expensive productions

Chandralekha (1948), Mother India (1957) and Mughal-e-Azam (1960) have also been the most expensive Indian films during their time of release, with respective budgets of ₹3 million, ₹3.5 million, and ₹10.5 million.

Can we turn this to a timeline à la Timeline of the most expensive million dollar productions? Also please help me find more sources for the subsequent record-holders. Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But finding sources by me is hard. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I know. But can't we try? Do you know which was the most expensive after Mughal-e-Azam? Thanks in advance:) Josephjames.me (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's take what we have and make that for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky81682! Expecting a reply soon Kailash29792 :) Josephjames.me (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfinished film

I removed the unfinished film 2.0 from the list. There is no sense in listing the production cost of films that has not completed production.--Charles Turing (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, because they may unexpectedly go beyond budget. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Even bahubali 2 is under the list which is also incomplete. Wikipedia editing is based on what the page of the movie says. We include all the movies NITHISH NADARAJAH (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Baahubali 2 at-least started filming, it is not the case for announced films with an estimated budget. But it is preferred to avoid filming productions also, as the final film can go beyond budget or less than estimated.--2405:204:D00D:9DBF:8884:AE20:4888:C7B0 (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see and comment on section "Budget for films that have not begun or completed production" below. Bollyjeff | talk 13:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Seperate lists for different languages

Kailash29792, Ricky81682: Can we add lists for different languages? I'll add for Malayalam here. Thanks! JosephJames 04:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Then what do we do for multilingual films? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Kailash29792: Can't we do it like 'List of highest-grossing Indian films'? JosephJames 06:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing: Any help? JosephJames 15:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support different lists. The same reasoning I think applies as was done for the highest-grossing films at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films/Archive_1#Merge_discussion when the choice was to merge. I don't really see the volume of content that would require splitting the page into separate pages but I think we should cut the full list to a top ten maybe and then have separate list by language to mirror the highest-grossing page. Multilingual films can be debated the same way that Baahubali was fought over there. It should be able to be consist across the entire project how we categorize each film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Ricky81682... How can I be of any help? JosephJames 14:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, Charles Turing, Kailash29792: Hey! I have done some work on the article... See if it is any good. Thanks! JosephJames 10:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Superb! But I think the "Tamil" section can be expanded. Films like Sivaji and Dasavatharam are pretty expensive I believe. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Good job. It's a great effort you have taken. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Kailash29792: Aren't ten films enough? Anyway, there are varying claims on the budget of both. JosephJames 10:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing: Any help on the "Malayalam" section? JosephJames 10:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ya, 10 sounds enough. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The budget of Samrajyam II is dubious. It's my "personal opinion" though as I have seen the film & have thoughts about a possible promotional claim. But when googled I couldn't find any contrary claim. --Charles Turing (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing: Yes. I also believe that it is a promotional tool. JosephJames 06:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed scope?

Anyone have any thoughts on a proposed scope? Seems like the kind of page that could just keep growing forever. List of highest-grossing Indian films keeps the individual languages at a max of 10 examples, with the overview listing the top 15 films. Frankly, I think top 10 is sufficient for the overview as well. The overview on this article has 22 examples, which is just weird.

Changes in most expensive Tamil movies

Dasavathaaram is one of the most expensive Tamil movies. In fact, when it was released in 2008, it was the most expensive Indian movie at the time of release. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/business-of-bollywood/a-rendezevous-with-kamal-haasan/articleshow/4357064.cms?from=mdr

Lingaa's budget is 120 crores. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/lingaa-box-office-rajinis-film-sets-5-new-records-collection-centres-617372#M25kls9GKoOYOoE5.97

Kabali's budget is 170 crores. http://www.forbes.com/sites/dongroves/2016/07/23/record-debuts-for-tamil-superstar-rajinikanths-kabali-as-producer-discusses-piracy-and-a-sequel/#1dba2e4739a9

Please make the appopriate changes as they are from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs) 07:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me tell you something, Wadelison: Indian trade and box office analysts are not really as credible as Box Office Mojo, because each analyst has his own account of how much a film earns, contradicting the others (akin to the blind men and an elephant). I therefore believe all these figures are estimates, and there must be a consensus before they can be included. Josephjames.me, what do you think of them? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

But Kabali's budget figure was given by the producer himself in an interview with Forbes, and not by a box office analyst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.198.1 (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wadelison: I have told this earlier also. Different sources throw in different estimates. We can't really say which one is real. Though I believe the producer's word COULD be taken as the correct figure (which is why I believe the figure for Dasavathaaram MIGHT be true), the budget for Kabali given by Forbes seems really exaggerated. IBTimes is not really a reliable source (they take data from Twitter accounts at times), though I use it usually due to lack of more reliable sources. I'd go with the 80 cr. budget for Lingaa given by IANS. Still, you can't say for sure about any of this.

Kailash29792: Thanks for the invite! I am glad that you invite me for all these box office related discussions, though I don't believe I am any kind of an expert in this matter. Numbers fascinate me, I guess! JosephJames 14:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I still think that most of the Indian law, media and police are unaware of the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree, which states that evidence from poor sources cannot be used (but people here do it anyway). Kailash29792 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

188.248.198.1, re: "But Kabali's budget figure was given by the producer himself in an interview with Forbes, and not by a box office analyst", I'm sure if you were to think about this, you would realize the inherent trouble with reprinting financial data given by primary sources (ex: a film's producer, distributor, director, actor, publicity wing, etc.) But in case it's not obvious, we have to be circumspect about statements made by primary sources, because they have a vested financial reason to fudge the numbers. In some cases they could have an interest in inflating the numbers, perhaps to attract more viewers to their project to witness the spectacle, or to make themselves more valuable as a director/producer/actor or to lure investors for future projects. In some cases they could have an interest in deflating the numbers, perhaps to reduce their entertainment tax liability or their liability to investors. Simply regurgitating what a producer says is rarely the right choice, which is why we prefer content to be derived from research performed by reliable secondary sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Budget for films that have not begun or completed production

At some point, participants here are going to have to figure out whether or not it's wise to include in these lists films that haven't even begun production. For instance, Karnan keeps getting added, with a production budget of 300 crore, but it hasn't started production. Why are those figures being included? For all we know, that's just pre-release hype. Same with Randamoozham. Though sources[1][2] say that it's going to cost 600 crore, it hasn't cost a single rupee if production hasn't begun. We're putting the cart before the horse here by including huge budgets for films that haven't been made. What if the 600 crore film comes in at 100 crore? Then the film's producers get all the pre-release hype, using Wikipedia for its marketing. That's now how stuff should work here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

These should absolutely NOT be included. Read: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bollyjeff | talk 02:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Only completed films should be included in the table. But no-one will listen. Please get the page protected indefinitely. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a very good idea. Only films that have completed post-production should be included in this list. I had included Randamoozham because I had seen in the list other films like Sangamitra, Kali (Kannada), KGF (Kannada) etc. which haven't even begun production! Even 2.0 should not be included in the list since it is apparently still in production and a final budget figure is just an estimate or hype-figure. All released films shall stay. Shall remove the others now. Kali and Sangamitra haven't even begun production, while 2.0 and KGF (Kannada) are in production and Baahubali: The Conclusion is just entering post-production. So these 5 films need to be removed from the list. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, yeah. Also, what do you think about the previous proposal to exclude the films under production from the list (everyone who participated was in favour, notifying Kailash29792 who is active now). Looking at List of most expensive films, it does not include any films under production. While I'm okay with the films under post-production/the ones close to release but would support removing them altogether to maintain consistency. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ab207: I'd agree to that as well. Far higher chance of fake financial figures before a film is released. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: That's always there. I guess its time to prune them all. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not include a film's budget if it was still in production as most big budget films tend to overshoot. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I have removed all the unreleased films as per consensus. Ab207 (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MNWiki84556. Please do not add unreleased films as per the above discussion. Thanks --

Most Expensive Indian Films

2.0 Rs 400 Crore Lyca Productions Baahubali The conclusion Rs 250 Crore Arka Media Works Please add this V99991111 (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@V99991111: -  Not done - Please provide reliable sources. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

List of most expensive indian films

There is no proper research about list of most expensive indian films please do explain at the start does it include film making cost, casting cost and print and advertising cost V99991111 (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Randamoozham - Languages

There is no Kannada version for Randamoozham. The director mentions all the versions here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nsc5LiEgLjw?t=263 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

Allow me to edit the currency data which is falsely converted from rupees to dollars . 175 crore rupees is equal to 27 million dollars , but this article mentioned it as 31 million dollars. RtejanS (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 20:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Enthiran is a Tamil film.

THe Telugu and Hindi versions of the 2010 film Enthiran were DUBBED from its original Tamil version. Please refrain from adding those as official languages of production. The sequel isn't yet released. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please remove 'Most Expensive Franchises'

Please remove 'Most Expensive Franchises' list section as it does not contain any reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs) 08:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of most expensive Indian films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150805003739/http://boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/blue to http://boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/blue

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

2.0

We have got source about 2.0 and it has costed 450cr why not we update it *^🦂😎 Nabeelgm 😎^🦂(Talk)•°Nabeel Gm 17:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Nabeel Gm 17:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please delete 'Most expensive Indian franchises'

Please delete 'Most expensive Indian franchises' as it does not have any sources and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thugs of Hindostan

The budget of Thugs of Hindostan as sourced from this is Rs. 220 cr excluding Print & Publicity costs of Rs. 20 cr. However, on this page, the higher budget of 300 cr from non-trade sources is used. On the other hand, TOH's wiki page gives Rs. 220 cr as the budget. What is the accurate budget for this film? --Reo kwon (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

220 crore budget seems legit since it is excluding print and marketing. Different agencies have different sources, but 300 cr seems absurd - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

2.0's budget

Following up this edit, director Shankar quotes 2.0's budget lower than the current 570 crore:

As far as I know, the budget stands between Rs 400 to Rs 450 crore for the film alone. In addition, the producers have spent a huge chunk for the publicity and other production costs

Then there are other sources: this source which says the budget is 400 crore (anonymous to India Today) while Rajnikanth at trailer launch said its as high as 600 crore. Perhaps we should go for a range with footnote explaining the discrepancies. @Fylindfotberserk and Anandsharma607: -- Ab207 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ab207: I'd agree for a range. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Added range for 2.0 and a few other films. There is still so much inconsistency between this list and the film articles, different sources etc which I reckon would take a lot of effort to address. Ab207 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

Please add Vikram film in this list. Madhesh Elumalai (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Highlights for most expensive at the time?

In many lists like List of tallest buildings, we highlight those that were the tallest at time of completion. Could we do the same here? Eg. Enthiran is more significant for being #1 in 2010 than for being #13 today. Jpatokal (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

We should limit the table

The table is getting too gib should we limit the table to 30 movies or at max 35 movies only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repto79456 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Admins update the table, there are many high budget movies missing

Missing movies in the table

1. Kanguva
2. Bade Miyan Chote Miyan (2024 film)
3. Devara: Part 1
4. Pushpa 2: The Rule
5. Guntur Kaaram
6. Game Changer (film)
7. OG (upcoming film)

Jaggu5239 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Devara

300 cricket budget update pls 2405:201:C027:6866:6191:A2EF:9E5C:656B (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Summary of changes made

1. Clarification of Sources: Ensured that only reliable ("green") sources were used to maintain fair ranking practices.

2. Industry-Based Categorisation: Switched to categorisation by film industry for a more accurate representation of achievements within individual industries. Given that a large portion of films today are released in multiple dubbed versions, a significant production cost is now associated with these releases, much like for multilingual films.

3. Removed INR Conversion: Removed INR currency conversions to align with WP:ICTFMOS guidelines.

4. Updated Headings and Subsections: Changed headings to more relevant ones and clarified each subsection for consistency with the lead and relevant definitions. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Websites not listed in ICTF simply means they are "yet to be discussed", not unreliable. You also removed reliable sources such as scroll.in, HT, Bollywood Hungama, The Hindu, Google Books, CIA Fact Book etc. Printed newspapers in regional languages (Marathi, Bhojpuri etc) are generally presumed notable, unless a consensus exists otherwise. Industry-based ranking is vague. How is an industry defined? Is it by state? language? company's registration? director's ethnicity? or what? The so-called "Tamil cinema" industry can also make an English-language film without any Tamil dialogue. They cannot? So it is based on language then? Tamil films are also made in Malaysia and it is called Malaysian cinema.--117.230.88.209 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@117.230.88.209 @117.230.89.49 Most of my edits include descriptions, and if I remove a green source, it's either because it’s a filmmaker's claim or is outdated, WP:FRUIT. Could you list the links that you believe I removed unfairly? For an advanced user like you (mostly an admin from the Kerala region), that shouldn't be a problem. Also, accusing me of sockpuppetry while hiding behind an IP isn’t fair. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@user:117.230.88.209 @user:117.230.89.49 It seems that, aside from performing a sock puppet revert, you have no interest in contributing to the article or continuing the conversation further? If that is the case the revert will be undone. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@117.230.88.209 Since there has been no expert opinion on this matter and no response from your side, I am partially restoring my edits with the following changes. If you have any objections, please respond from your account rather than remaining anonymous behind an IP address. Also WP:IBTIMES is not the only unreliable sources identified by Wikipedia. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1. Ensured that only reliable ("green") sources were used to maintain fair ranking practices. Where reliable sources are unavailable, some undetermined sources have been included, with the hope that other users will assess their reliability.
  2. Films are classified by their primary language, with clarifications in footnotes and subsections indicating that the list includes films produced by the respective film industries. Given that many films are now released in multiple dubbed versions, a portion of production costs is allocated to these releases, similar to multilingual films, which are appropriately credited via footnotes.
  3. INR currency conversions were removed to align with WP:ICTFMOS guidelines.
  4. Headings have been updated to more relevant titles, and each subsection has been clarified for consistency with the lead, with terms defined where necessary. Sections were reordered to improve presentation.
  5. Milestone films are attributed to their corresponding film industry rather than language, providing a more accurate representation of each industry’s achievements.
  6. While the sorting mechanism remains unchanged, it has been clarified in a footnote and is now consistently applied across the main and subsequent tables for uniformity. Additionally, instead of leaving ranks blank for films with the same budget or range, each film is assigned a ranking according to the sorting mechanism.
  7. Each subsection has been limited to 10 entries to avoid WP:FAN.
  Also notifing established editors who participated in editing after previous revert @Fylindfotberserk and Charliehdb:Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Jayanthkumar123: Regarding your edits, I agree with most, except for the milestone table. Using an industry-based classification at the milestone table may better represent industry achievements. Since early films were either in Hindustani or Urdu, and the transition to Hindi was gradual, it might be best to categorise all these films under Hindi cinema, as they all belong to that cinematic tradition. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:39, 12 November 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) 09:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

---

List of most expensive Indian films → List of most expensive 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) 14:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Here too, what language do you think the reader could think the title implies? Any of the languages of India? ("Cinema film" is rather used when you want to contrast it with TV film). Mushy Yank (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank I didn’t realise "cinema film" could imply a contrast with TV film. My intent was to avoid ambiguity between language and industry, not to introduce another one. What do you think about List of most expensive films in Indian cinema instead? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you really think the reader cannot understand the current wording? What language could Indian indicate? @Kailash29792 seems to think it is pretty clear and I would tend to think so too. Mushy Yank (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank My intent was to emphasise that the list covers films produced by Indian film industries, with sub-industries categorised to fairly represent each one. I wanted to clarify in the title that the classification is based on industry, not language. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify?@Anoopspeaks

"films made in India in general" as opposed to "films made in a specific region of India"? "films made in India" as opposed to "films made in other countries"?

Films made in Inida, regardless of the language used in the film? If you don't specify, then, it means just that, and the title seems clear.

I don't understand, I confess; could you give an example of what you want to avoid the reader to possibly think the title refers to? I personally think the title is clear and if you read the lead section, no doubt remains on what the topic covered is. But maybe I missed something. Best, Mushy Yank (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank It seems I may have been overthinking it—thanks for helping clarify! I just wanted to ensure users wouldn’t assume, for example, that in the Telugu subcategory, it only represents Telugu-language films produced exclusively within that industry, or that “Indian films” might imply something broader. Thanks again for the feedback and guidance! Anoop Bhatia (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

guys, I do have the same doubt. What is difference between "Film" and "Cinema Film"?, and what specific change it would bring? Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Herodyswaroop It was intended to be interpreted as Indian cinema films, not Indian cinema films. I also didn’t know that cinema films could mean television films. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

( Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

1) No, cinema films cannot mean television films; never; quite the opposite; you might add cinema (in general you would rather add feature or "theatrical") if you want to contrast one with the other; ie make sure you exclude tv productions; but in general, it goes the other way around, you add TV to films when you talk about TV productions only; indeed, the primary meaning of film in that context is a cinema work (and more specifically a feature film)

2) the following link you made is a very misleading piped link!!! .... cinema films (don't do that, please) (it's like piping black to white)

3) "cinema film", with no context, for me, evokes photographic film

4) Indian films/Indian cinema productions/Indian feature films/Indian film productions etc are more or less the same thing; and I think "Indian films" is clear.

5) I don't think that anyone reading "Indian film" thinks "Oh, by that, they surely mean "films that use some indeterminate language of India""; there is no risk that this happens, so rest assured and let's keep it simple. Even other lists where the adjective could possibly be about a language (Spanish/French/Portuguese etc) and not a country do not specify. Examples: Lists of French films; if you want lists made with actors speaking French but in Cameroon, Algeria, Switzerland or Quebec, you add French-language (List of French-language films) and the name of the country; with the word Indian, that ambiguity does not exist because Indian is not a language (whereas French is). I understand that India/n includes subcategories/regions etc, but a) if you don't specify, "Indian films" means just that (Films made in India regardless of the region and language) and b) Adding "cinema" would not help (if that was a problem, but, again, it is not a problem).

So, in short: nothing to worry about, don't change anything please! ;D

Best, Mushy Yank (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank Thanks 😊 Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:07, 6 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.

Unjustifiable content revert by ip user

My edits followed the standard practice of using WP:RSP, WP:ICTFSOURCES to make the article ranking credible. I have nothing more to say on this matter requesting administration intervention.@Fylindfotberserk: Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

These two versions [3] [4] do not look much different as far as the article body (read mode) is concerned. Difference being the lead section , removal of INR-USD conversion and extra sources in the latter version. Also the IP most likely has/had an ID here in Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk My guess is that this user is an admin from the Kerala region. However, their methods are very harsh. With that level of expertise, they could easily restore any links they feel were unfairly removed. Now I have to start from scratch? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Lets' ping a few people @Ab207, The Herald, and Krimuk2.0:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Besides pushing their point of view, the IP user seems uninterested in further discussion. Also, the title says it’s India’s most costly films; if the budgets of these films didn’t make news in reliable Indian media outlets, how can they be deemed costly based solely on sources with no reliability standards and potential paid promotion? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)