Talk:Baahubali: The Beginning/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

Music director: Deva Mahirathan Reddy

Sadhusai (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2015

Baahubali Audio has been released and you can listen to songs online [JUKEBOX] on YouTube.

References

Newsexprezz (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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. Amortias (T)(C) 19:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

• Prabhas as Amarendra Baahubali and Shivudu aka Mahendra Baahubali

Absivaya (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

title

The title of film, as in poster, should be spelt Bābhubali or simply Bahubali, not Baahubali in article. What is your opinion? Nizil (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should use the common spelling. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Baahubali is Ok as its website and other social media pages spelt as Baahubali'. I added stylized version also.-Nizil (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

I have seen the Movie on its First day, Amazing Stuff from Director SS Rajamouli & Team.Once Again he stunned the World by his visual Effects 5/5 Siju.velayudhan (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done That is not a Semi-protected edit request, just your opinionated PoV - Arjayay (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015 a

Put title in Telugu language బాహుబలి 49.139.32.173 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Per community consensus, WP:INDICSCRIPT we dont do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015 b

bro plz update the latest collection details day by day. Hers is the official info Bahubali Total Collections: 196 Cr* (4 Days)

Anondemayan (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done We are not an automated cash register receipt. And you need to verify claims by providing a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight such as a major news paper or boxofficeindia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015 c

1.32.75.251 (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No request was made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015 d

| gross = ₹225 crore (US$27 million)(5 days worldwide) 1.32.75.251 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You will need to provide a reliably published source with a reputation for editorial oversight, such as a national newspaper or boxoffice india that verifies the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015 e

Error in the page needs to be corrected. Panchapakesan.iyer (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You will need to specify what content you wish changed "Please change XXX to YYYY because this reliably published source will verify the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015

Typo - correct Bābhubali to Bāhubali 82.8.131.208 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)  Done Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2015 a

Manu Jagadh designed art for the film 2.50.31.229 (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2015

Srikanthgoli (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC) box office (7 days) 450 crores INR </http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/baahubali-collections-a-whopping-rs-257-crore-at-the-box-office-in-a-week-ss-rajamouli-prabhas-rana-daggubati-tamannaah-bhatia-anushka-shetty-karan-johar/1/451818.html>

Already done The box office totals are now for 8 days. Altamel (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2015

61.16.175.114 (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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. Altamel (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

Please change "Rakesh Varre as Palvaalthevan/Bhallaladeva's friend" to "Rakesh Varre as Palvaalthevan/Bhallaladeva's son" under header 'Cast' because his character calls Palvaalthevan/Bhallaladeva 'Pitaji' which in Hindi means father. Paramita1980 (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Adivi Sesh played Rana Daggubati's son in the film. Rakesh Varre is seen in the war episode as Bhallala Deva's army's chieftain. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2015

Updates to the movie presentations Some mistakes made in the movie for instance: 1> Using the wrong type of trees for a clod climate where it shows snow all over 2> showing ice cubes on green grass, simply not natural 3> multi layered waterfalls, not naturally possible. With the amount of water flowing, its not possible to have a "multi-storied" waterfall.

Hope such graphic updates can be considered in any future movies Briggyboy (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please present your request in the form of of a specific "Please change XXX to YYY" or "Please add ZZZ" and for content changes, also provide a reliably published source that verifies the claims -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015 a

[cut and paste article redacted]

Sat3787 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)  Not done A cut and paste copy of the article will not be substituted. Please state your specific change request in the form of "Please change XXX to YYY" or "Please add ZZZ to the end of the X section" and include the reliably published sources that verify the suggested content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Gross and Net Collection

• Bahubali Total worldwide collection NET OR GROSS?
• IN hindi dubbed version its net 70 crore .When its calcuted in gross its go to almost 100(because tax not less)— Preceding unsigned comment added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.160.68 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

the number of days for collecting 401 crores needs to be updates to 15 (source: www.ibttimes.co.in)

2601:40A:8003:8B99:544C:8DE:6705:E271 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a link to the actual article to support your request - Arjayay (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

117.208.252.98 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

BOX OFFICE COLLECTION 432 CRORES

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bahubali The Beginning Budget

Bahubali the beginning part budget is ₹ 120 Cr. but in Wiki it is given ₹ 250 Cr. Rajamouli already told the budget of ₹ 250 Cr. is for both the parts. not first part. Please try to change the budget figures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.254.92.197 (talk • contribs)

see above Talk:Baahubali:_The_Beginning#Budget_of_Baahubali -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Primarily Telugu Version

The movie is not being two times. The movie is primarily shot in telugu and Additionally the dialogues are being made in Tamil also. Please discuss here if you disagree with my above statement. Marchoctober (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, as the lead states it is a bilingual, with a source. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The film is a trilingual made simultaneously in Telugu, Tamil and Hindi. Rana said the same in a recent interview. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Its a Telugu movie, telugu Director and telugu heros.More importanly telugu producers. How can other languages especially tamils can claim it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.126.153 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Simple. Watch the Tamil version and understand. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the trusted Guardian Site, where it states it is a Telugu film dubbed into Tamil (Actually it is also made in Tamil to evade Tax from Tamil Nadu). People please give due credit to Telugu and stop being cheap and taking the credit for the work that has nothing to do with Tamil http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jul/12/baahubali-the-beginning-review-fantastic-bang-for-your-buck-in-most-expensive-indian-movie-ever-made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeeps369 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As i said before, watch the Tamil version and then you can understand. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

To the person who is asking to watch the Tamil version, who dubbed the voice of telugu hero prabhas in the tamil dubbed version. You will be surprised to know it was Surya who DUBBED the voice for prabhas. Does this not make it a dubbed film. Never thought Tamils will stoop to this level of taking credit for someone else film. A film is decided on which industry produced it. It is Telugu film industry which produced and presented the film.I can quote several references from leading news agencies. Forbes,Guardian,BBC, CNN to name a few here. Admins have to interfere in this matter as wrong information is being spread in wikipedia. Forbes Guardian BBC CNN

To the first point the same person mentioned there was an interview of Rana with Rajdeep Sardesai. Its a video conversation where he explicitly mentions that it is a TELUGU film and all Telugus should be proud of it. Here is the Video .

Request Tamil admins and reviewers to please refrain from this page edits. Aloosamosa (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please go to the Youtube Channel "Baahubali Movie" Which is the official channel page for this movie. If you see the videos, only the telugu trailers & promos are presented under this channel. Eventhough they have other language trailers/ promos on their page, they are presented by their respective distribution companies unlike the Telugu version. isn't it evident that this done by telugu film insustry. Let us just identify the movie only by which film industry that produced it.

One more suggestion, let us add a section called Film Industry and credit it to Telugu film industry Pradeeps369 (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC) pradeep

Seems like a lot of assumption is required to arrive at this conclusion, Pradeeps. We need sources that say stuff explicitly, not sources that inspire us to draw conclusions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok atleast can you add a column called " Industry - Telugu Film Industry" . This is evident right as Arka Media Works is based in Hyderabad, Telangana

Pradeeps369 (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC) pradeep

I don't understand what you're asking to add. A column? Where? And why? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Just below the Language section, can we please add a Section called "Industry" and put the reference as "Telugu Film Industry". Bcoz this film is produced in Telugu film industry although it was shot both Telugu and Tamil Pradeeps369 (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC) pradeep

I assume you're talking about adding content to the infobox, the large vertical box on the right of the screen, as you have tried to do here, here and here. Template:Infobox film has set parameters. We don't add new parameters to the infobox because the WikiProject Film community has already decided what information is important across various articles. We don't credit films to industries, we credit films to studios. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pleas go trough the this article

<http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritharai/2015/07/20/look-whos-reaping-the-bonanza-from-baahubali-indias-most-expensive-film-ever/>

4th paragraph 4th line, it clearly states that the movie was produced by Telugu Cinema

Please give your comments after reading this.. you believe forbes right?

Pradeeps369 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Pradeep

And here is one more article which reinforces my argument

<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/baahubali-the-beginning-how-the-battle-epic-is-helping-tollywood-challenge-bollywoods-dominance-over-the-indian-film-industry-10402812.html>

Title and the 2nd paragarph (Clearly states its a Telugu film)

All of the above articles are from trusted sites

Pradeeps369 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC) pradeep

What exactly is the information that you want to change? Are you trying to eliminate other languages from the Infobox? That doesn't seem intuitive if the film is simultaneously being produced in other languages. If you're just trying to get a mention of Tollywood in the article you might have more luck proposing an addition to a specific place in the article. I don't see a reasonable place to jam this content into the Infobox. Also, please indent your replies as I have done. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My only point is either it is "simultaneously shot" or "dubbed" doesn't make a difference.it is released in multiple languages at the same time. But it is Primarly a Telugu Language film and let it just be that. Whats wrong in that, No other indian movie is mentioned that way, why just for this movie? is my question Pradeeps369 (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC) pradeep

@Cyphoidbomb The film is a product of Telugu film industry. Actors, directors, producers, technicians, VFX studios are all based our of Hyderabad. Sad to see there is no mention of Telugu film industry in this page. Any additions to include Telugu film industry is being reverted immediately. See the revenues the film earned in each language. The numbers speak for themselves what language the film belongs to. 60% of total revenues came from telugu states. See Taran Adarsh tweets in his twitter handle. . Please change the First line in the main section as Indian Telugu Epic film . That would give due credit to the telugu people who worked for this film for almost 3 years.

Some more references here: ForbesGuardianBBCCNNQUARTZGREATANDHRAHOLLYWOOD REPORTERAloosamosa (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Related RFC

There's an ongoing RFC at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#RfC:_How_should_we_classify_Baahubali about how should we classify this film (namely Tamil and/or Telugu). I ask for people to comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it has to be a Telugu film but it is Bilingual(Tamil and Telugu). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxFLeiFURY At time 1:25 director told that team has to do corrections/edits for Tamil, Hindi and Malayalam(So, Telugu completed first). At 14:24 anchor asked that why he is making movie in Tamil also. Rajamouli replied that he did Eega movie in Tamil also along with Telugu and it became success in Tamil also, so he made it in Tamil also and taxation is also another reason for doing in Tamil also(otherwise he may do in Telugu only and dubs in Tamil). He also told that he wants to do in as many languages as possible, but is infeasible. So, I am sure that primary and for-sure is Telugu only. He had option to do it in Hindi/Tamil. He chosen Tamil for Taxation, Previous market etc., It is good if it is kept under Telugu movie. But from the property of Baahubali that it is a "bilingual" Tamil may also be added.

Pavan, this may interest you. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I'm already done with it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Baahubali: The Beginning → Bāhubali: The Beginning – The film's title is spelled in posters as well as in the title card as Bāhubali and not Baahubali. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - the sources all use Baahubali-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - per The Red Pen of Doom —Vensatry _(ping) 08:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• I second TRPoD and i too oppose. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per all sources. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plz Update The Collections

Bahubali 20 Days - 450 Crores

Source

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-box-office-collection-rajamouli-film-grosses-rs-450-crore-20-days-640947 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Tollywood

In this edit I added content about the involvement of "Tollywood" to address the "Telugu film industry should get credit!" complaints. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Collection Update *Kindly Update*

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-3rd-week-box-office-collection-prabhas-film-grosses-462-crore-21-days-641133

462 Crores In 21 Days

And below link source says Hindi Dubbed Version crossed 90 Crores.. Kindly Update that also  :) Thank u

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-2-bahubali-pre-production-full-swing-ss-rajamouli-rope-bollywood-actors-sequel-641011

08:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)08:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)08:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)08:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)08:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Santhoshlee1 (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015

Please change the line "After Shiva beheads Bhallala Deva" into "After Shiva beheads Bhadra (Bhallala Deva's son)" according to the FILM Vamsikkrishna32 (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Detailed Collection Update *Plz Update **

Hello... Here Is the Link for 3 Weeks(21 Days) Detailed Collection Update of Bahubali.. I don't have proper knowledge about editing Wikipedia Pages properly.. So here posting the link of the source and the detailed numbers here.. Someone Plz Update the Collections Referring to this source

http://www.andhraboxoffice.com/info.aspx?id=802&cid=6&fid=834

Hindi Version Nett Gross : 96 Crores

Full Details are In The Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have any obligation to serve as a minute-by-minute cash register ticker. We do have an obligation to use only reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. I will also point out to the enthusiastic editors that all of these gross values are the product of estimates. That is, it is very unlikely that any of these news outlets are physically counting the money. That means there is likely no one source that is "correct" over the other sources. Just because you may have found a source that presents the gross as more than another source's gross doesn't mean the larger number is more accurate than the lesser number. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sir, This is the only Authentic BOXOFFICE website of Telugu Film Industry.. You can verify the whole site.. 462 Gross Information Posted On Ibtimes website takes their information from this website itself.. Am not saying this is accurate.. All am saying is.. Wikipedia article of Bahubali didn't update the Domestic Nett.. Distributer Share....Entrainment Tax Section.. And Hindi Gross Section.... 462 is up to date but the above sections are not up to date.. They are up to (10 Days) but movie already completed 21 Days.. So am asking you to update the above sections.. Not Gross.. You don't need to change the Gross if u don't want to.. But update the Domestic Sections.. Which are not making sense.. As The Gross we put is of 21 Days.. And the Domestic values are of 10 Days..Taran Adarsh Bollywood Analyst on which BOXOFFICE of Bollywood depends.. He also posted the same thing that Hindi Version crossed 95.6 Crores .. So not so much different from the source I posted which says 96 Crores.. And ib times said 462 Gross.. And this source said 468. 4 Crores After completion of 21 Days.. So it makes sense and not much of a Difference.. U know better sir.. Am just saying :) .. Do what u think is Proper.. Thank u :)

Santhoshlee1 (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Indian cinema task force discussed this back in November 2014 and Andara Box Office as a potential unreliable source. There's little evidence it should be considered reliable. There are articles in various newspapers, in places like Forbes and in many other places about the Telugu film industry. Would you be better served by asking for real legitimate sources rather than every website you find that just posts box office details without questioning them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure sir, Am gonna check Forbes from. Now... And does this works? They have given the total Gross Worldwide and the Tamil Version Gross

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-21-days-box-office-collection-ss-rajamouli-strikes-gold-tamil-nadu-3-weeks-641261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

BOX Office Update

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-23-day-box-office-collection-rajamoulis-film-crosses-rs-485-crore-mark-4th-saturday-641351

Sir Update,

Domestic Nett - 370

Distributive share - 268

Worldwide Gross - 485 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Update Box Office Plz

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-hindi-version-crosses-rs-100-crore-mark-box-office-24-days-641396

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2015/08/02/indias-baahubali-blasts-past-500-crore-78-million-worldwide/

Worldwide Gross - 500 Crores Hindi Version - 100 Crores

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 

Exact meaning of Baahubali

Literal meaning is mentioned as Exceedingly powerful. Another source claimed as "One with strong arms". --Aero Slicer 04:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you list the sources? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

These three sources ibtimes, hollywood reporter, the guardian. All mention "The one with strong arms". --Aero Slicer 04:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense also, I think in Indian Sanskrit or Hindi language, Baahu means "hands", and Bali means "strong one", so the meaning. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually the antagonist is known as "Mahabali" which means "exceedingly powerful".--Aero Slicer 04:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:INRconvert

Is there a reason why we are converting all the Indian rupee values to $US? (ex: [1]) This is not the US encyclopedia, this is a global encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Only to provide an exchange rate, perhaps! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As Indian movies are having international release. --Aero Slicer 04:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The MOS:CURRENCY depends on whether this is a country-specific article or not. I think we should remove it and keep it only rupees as it's largely and still is ultimately an Indian film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Update 520 Crores

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-5th-week-box-office-collection-will-srimanthudu-halt-rocking-run-rajamoulis-film-641865

Santhoshlee1 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Usage of table in the Box office section

Conradjagan has been continuously adding a huge table in the box office section of the article, like this, stating that "The table in Baahubali is according the pattern on other Indian films. Every column has been provided with third-party reliable source". That does not in any way serve the purpose of MOS:TABLE, which clearly states that tables "can be useful for a variety of content presentations on Wikipedia, but should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list". We are already representing the box office score in prose, why will we need another table to reprsent the same content? And if we represent it, there must be a better way to do it than a WP:ACCESS failing table with forced width parameters. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

IndianBio, Tables are used in article of Indian films for quick view, so that viewers can have a quick look and better understanding at overall buisness without going into each line to find gross of each day,each week . thats a tedious process. Also the table in Indian films reflect the film collection details clearly.

In India, We have Entertainment tax charged by states on films. It varies from state to state. Some states like Rajasthan dont have Entertainment tax, while Tamil nadu doesnt take Entertainment tax on any film having Tamil name.

Gross in India= Nett. Gross+ Entertainment tax
What we see in the film collection reports is Nett. Gross after deducting the Entertainment tax . But the most important for a film is Distributor share of the film.

Distributor share= Nett. Gross - Theatre rentals
Distributor share varies with each week and region in India. it will be more in first week,then lesser in second week etc --Conradjagan (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously don't post this drivel if you cannot back it up with source about tax deduction. Cyphoidbomb already explained to you two sections up that this is WP:OR especially for India where box office grosses are vastly critiqued due to inflation. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone should bring this up at the Indian film cinema task force. My view is that the Indian film articles would be better served if they followed the main WP:FILMS guidelines and got themselves into GA and FA status than just letting editors write whatever tax nonsense they want (that no one really cares about); it's hindering the articles overall. We don't get into tax or rebates or whatever happens with American, European or other films based on their shooting locations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct Ricky. This is utter garbage and that's why the Indian film articles lack importance sometimes. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a problem that the WikiProject Film community doesn't seem too interested in Bollywood films, because we would likely wind up with better articles that aren't as full of fluff. Bollywood films should absolutely be expected to adhere to MOS:FILM and normal community standards. The table we're discussing in this section is completely unnecessary and only creates another place for data to be corrupted. Contrary to what many editors think, we're not here to present every single piece of information about a subject (like tax information). We're here to present an overview of the subject and to focus on the most important aspects. And if I see another "blockbuster status", so help me god...! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And not only that, this fancrufty table is a problem in many other Indian film articles, with bloated box office collection and WP:OR like Conradjagan's personal thesis of tax deduction and blah blah. I'm so tempted to do a wP:BOLD edit and remove them. Its beyond nonsense now. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Baahubali is a Telugu movie

To the person who is saying it is bilingual, who dubbed the voice of telugu hero prabhas in the tamil dubbed version. You will be surprised to know it was Tamil actor Surya who DUBBED the voice for prabhas. Does this not make it a dubbed film. Never thought Tamils will stoop to this level of taking credit for someone else film. A film is decided on which industry produced it. It is Telugu film industry which produced and presented the film.I can quote several references from leading news agencies. Forbes,Guardian,BBC, CNN to name a few here. Admins have to interfere in this matter as wrong information is being spread in wikipedia.

Here is the trusted Guardian Site, where it states it is a Telugu film dubbed into Tamil (Actually it is also made in Tamil to evade Tax from Tamil Nadu). People please give due credit to Telugu and stop being cheap and taking the credit for the work that has nothing to do with Tamil http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jul/12/baahubali-the-beginning-review-fantastic-bang-for-your-buck-in-most-expensive-indian-movie-ever-made

Also they are including Telugu version collections in Tamil version which didn't even gross 50 crores from entire India and rest of the world in Tamil version and mentioning it is bilingual. I never thought Tamil will stoop to this level of taking credit for someone else film.

First time i'm seeing a movie which even didn't gross one-third Rs 50 crore(15%) of total collections in its original Tamil version is included in the list of Rs 401 crores gross that too by cheating and fooling people by including Rs 350 crores gross of Telugu version in Tamil version. -Padukati Raju

Your personal analysis to the contrary, we follow the multiple reliable sources Forbes to the Guardian to the Times of India to IBN to NDTV to The National which identify the film as bilingual Tamil / Telugu. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

After hearing multiple incarnations of this same general complaint, I still don't understand what Padukati Raju's (or the other editors') point is. Give credit to whom? A language? An ethnicity? We don't give film credits to languages or ethnicities. If it makes sense to say that the film was produced in "Tollywood" or whatever the correct nomenclature is, then maybe that should be mentioned, but this weird attempt at trying to change the facts is super-odd. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Some people take inordinate personal pride in whether or not their group within India is better than others. Note how in all of the posturing about numbers there isn't a single link to a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Abecedare :Struck speaking in bad taste ethnic slur Marchoctober (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC) @User:NeilN

Don't strike other user's comments. This is not an ethnic slur, this is an observation about behavior at this article and in the discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2015

Baahubali The Beginning grossed over ₹540 crores or ₹5.4 billion

Source : http://www.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-30th-day-box-office-collection-rajamouli-film-crosses-rs-540-crore-642241 Pkarthik0123 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Kailash29792 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Industry

Baahubali is Telugu only not Tamil. Please do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.216 (talk • contribs)

Not done: "The needful" has already been done. The film is considered both Telugu and Tamil because it was produced in two languages at once. See elsewhere on the talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

Baahubali grossed over 5.5 billion rupees and is the third highest grossing Indian film.

source: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-5th-weekend-box-office-collection-prabhas-film-turns-3rd-all-time-highest-642326 Pkarthik0123 (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This was already done. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

BOXOFFICE update - 577 crores

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-6th-weekend-box-office-collection-rajamouli-film-grosses-rs-577-crore-38-days-643208 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Budget For Baahubali Beginning Is 120cr

Baahubali Beginning Is made in 120 Crores.. Since there is already a Wikipedia page called Baahubali conclusion.. Where it's budget can be mentioned.. I request you to change the Baahubali Beginning budget to 120 but but 250 They mentioned it in this below article

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-6th-weekend-box-office-collection-rajamouli-film-grosses-rs-577-crore-38-days-643208 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The dancer in grey dress of manohari song name is incorrect.

Dear Wiki,

The dancer name in grey dress name is mentioned wrongly.

Pls check and confirm back.

MBS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharath Sathya (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What is her real name Mr. "I know everything"? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear kailash,

Thanks for your nickname.

But i dont know the dancer name it. Pls find the real name of the third dancer.

I am sure it is not gabriel.

MBS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharath Sathya (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey wiki,

I found out the name of the third dancer it is Madhu sneha.

Pls change it accordingly..

Thank you,

MBS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharath Sathya (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Bharath Sathya, please provide a reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

We ignored the one of the producer(K. Raghavendra Rao) in their list. Siftqa (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Inomyabcs (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Baahubali cast image

Uploaded File:Baahubali cast.jpg but I can't edit article yet. I think image is appropriate for 'cast' section. Ikshvaaku (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is that image properly licensed? I guess not, so it can't be used. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Its from Bollywood Hungama and is pending license verification at commons. It can be used. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Need to add table on patterns of other Hindi films

There is a need to add table on patterns of other Hindi films in Baahubali page as Box officeIndia has not given al the collections for Baahubali.
http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/whatarethefinalnumbersofbaahubaliandisitthebiggestgrossereverinindiaandworldwide#.VefuPiWqqkp
₹112 crore (US$13 million) for Baahubali in Hindi version
http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/canheroopenwellduetosalmankhanfactorandbeasbigasthe1984jackieshrofffilm#.VfAGxNKqqko

Baahubali: The Beginning worldwide Collections breakdown

Territory	Territory wise Collections break-up
India	All versions Nett. Gross: ₹361 crore (US$43 million)
	Hindi version Nett. Gross: ₹112 crore (US$13 million)
	Distributor share: ₹100 crore (US$12 million)
	Entertainment tax: ₹80 crore (US$9.6 million)
International (Outside India)	US$11.5 million (Rs 76 crore)
	US$6,738,000 (United States-Canada)
Worldwide	₹517 crore (US$62 million)

--Conradjagan (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

No this is pure fancruft. Just because it is present in other article does not make them notable here with the fluff. And there is discussion already regarding this. Don't go on repeating the same thing. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Opposed to inclusion These tables are based on estimates. None of this data should be presented in such a way as to suggest they are factual. They also contain information that is only of interest to a small group of people. We're here to provide a general overview, not log tax incentives, distrubutor share, and other trivia. This stuff belongs in the trades, not here. WikiProject Film only cares about the budget and the gross. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Gross dropped?

In these edits Conradjagan made significant changes to the article which brought the estimated gross down from ₹600 crore to 517 crore. How did you arrive at the conclusion, Conradjagan, that the existing sources like The Hindu that supported 600 crore were insufficient? Granted, I know they're all estimates, but I notice that you didn't explain the discrepancy in any sufficient way, or err on the side of uncertainty by removing the gross value from the infobox, or anything. I'm also unclear why you again removed the {{Estimation}} template and other embedded notes which are in the article to communicate to other editors and readers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Gross is updates as per Box Office India, as it is most frequently used on Wikipedia for Indian films gross.

http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/whatarethefinalnumbersofbaahubaliandisitthebiggestgrossereverinindiaandworldwide#.VefuPiWqqkp

Q. What are the final numbers of Baahubali and is it the biggest grosser ever in India and Worldwide?

Ans. In terms of nett gross it is the biggest grosser ever at 361 crore nett (all versions). But as regional film the entertainment tax is less in its main regions as compared a Hindi film which releases in mainly higher entertainment tax zones. The gross box office is 441 crore which is a little less than PK making it second biggest ever in India. Worldwide gross is 517 crore which is fourth best ever after PK, Bajrangi Bhaijaan and Dhoom 3.
--Conradjagan (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Coradjagan, please point me in the direction of the discussion where it was decided that BOI was the only reference to be used for box office values. Because it seems to me that if box office values are estimates, then nobody's estimate is more correct than the other, which means that BOI's estimate is no more valid than any other reliable source's estimate, and shouldn't be displayed as though it were unassailable fact. And you still haven't addressed why you keep removing the {{Estimation}} template against consensus, and the embedded notes, which are in the article to prevent disruption. If you don't want to talk about that, that's fine, but then you are expected to stop removing them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That website is not an official website of India movies collections... India has no such official site.... Its only a Hindi Box official Collection site which is not even official.. How could u Take a Hindi Movies collection website as am Authentic Trusted Source for a Telugu movie like Baahubali? And the link u quoted clearly says In the end

NOTE - The nett gross to gross ratio of some films is being sent as an error

Kindly remove the wrong estimation.. Even using common sense Baahubali Crossed 500 within 24 days.. Now it's already crossed 60 days.. So in 36 days it only Grossed 17 crores?. Kindly don't Degrade the collections.. I Request Santhoshlee1 (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

nett gross?

Re this "The Hindi version grossed over ₹40 crore (US$4.8 million) nett in the Mumbai circuit.", "Baahubali became the first non-Hindi film to nett. gross over ₹100 crore (US$12 million)" Conradjagan, (or anyone else) how does a film gross ₹X nett? What is a nett gross? From what I remember from that time I read the dust jacket of an accounting book, gross = total take, net = what you have left after you subtract your expenses. Can someone explain this peculiar phrasing, and can we clarify it so that it's understood by the rest of the English-speaking world? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb , here is the Formula for the film collections and how it shows a way to boxoffice of the film.

In India, We have Entertainment tax charged by states on films. It varies from state to state. Some states like Rajasthan dont have Entertainment tax, while Tamil nadu doesnt take Entertainment tax on any film having Tamil name.

Gross in India= Nett. Gross+ Entertainment tax
What we see in the film collection reports is Nett. Gross after deducting the Entertainment tax .
But the most important for a film is Distributor share of the film.

Distributor share= Nett. Gross - Theatre rentals
Distributor share varies with each week and region in India. it will be more in first week,then lesser in second week etc.--Conradjagan (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am fairly certain the rest of the world doesn't understand this atypical system. We have a Manual of Style for film and we should adhere to it. Budget is of interest, gross is of interest. Let's keep in mind that Bollywood financial figures are notoriously unreliable and subject to corruption from all ends. Making bold statements about how much was spent in taxes, how much the distributors got, how much was spent for publicity, etc. should be taken with a grain of salt and not presented as irrefutable fact. Even with Western films where there is better tracking of budget and gross values, it's still difficult to tell whether a film has made a profit or not, since marketing figures and back end deals are not widely publicized. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb BOA is an unreliable source and taking figures from a Q&A section is not justified in any means. There a lot of official sources like The Hindu, IBT, Forbes which state the film has collected a gross of above 600crores. Bringing the estimation template and deliberatley reducing the collection is nothing but vandalism. There are many websites which state the figures above 650crores and below 500crores gross. Taking only the figures which suit you and posting messages is not acceptable by any means. Don't behave like a single authority here as if you are running the whole show. Wikipedia is for everyone to make edits. Better to stick to figures from reliable newspapers and websites.Aloosamosa (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Aloosamosa I assume you mean BOI, not BOA. You are replying to an unrelated discussion from a month ago. Why don't you participate in the new discussion at the bottom of the page that deals directly with the BOI vs. other sources issue so that all interested parties can discuss. And while you're at it, be sure to provide links to previous discussions and/or Wikipedia guidelines that have determined BOI is not a reliable source. Your personal assertion that "BOI is an unreliable source" isn't sufficient, in part because you have, what, 40 edits under your belt, and you couldn't possibly be an expert on what constitutes reliable sources. Thankfully, we don't develop consensus by voting, we develop consensus on the strength of arguments that are closely tied into existing guidelines and policies. Again, please reply below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

IBTimes-India Edition Baahubali 598

This Source Clearly Says

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/box-office-collection-srimanthudu-has-edge-over-kick-2-baahubali-bahubali-645448

That Baahubali Grossed 598 At the time they posted this.. Forbes Latest Article itself said Baahubali Grossed 590 at the time they posted the article..on what basis you guys underestimated the movie minimum to 517?? The source u mentioned said... Nearly 600.. So it should be 598-600 Santhoshlee1 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's not clear to me who decided that this source was the most reliable for gross totals? If a source that is generally considered reliable says that the gross total is as low as 517 crore, then why wouldn't we incorporate that into the article? Because it doesn't conform with your personal worldview? Why is Forbes a better estimator of Indian cinema gross than any other source that endeavors to guess? Because it's a western publication and therefore must be immune to the Indian PR? Why is IBT suddenly a more accurate source than BOI? User Conradjagan seems to think that BOI's summary is the final word in box office gross! I don't particularly care because I think most of the scramble to assert the higher box value is promotional bullshit, (except when editors are frantically trying to dethrone a movie with negative data, which I guess is DE-promotional bullshit) but if we know that Bollywood gross totals are all proprietary estimates based on each source's specific methodology (along with whatever corruption they're engaged in on the sly), you've got a real uphill battle to convince any rational editor that your version of the gross is incontrovertible fact, and all the others are not. Best of luck to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me make it clear

1.Box Office India is not an Official website of Box Office records.. 2. That site only deals with Bollywood movies.. But Baahubali is a Tollywood movie.... 3.The Editor seems to deliberately Degrade it's collection as his profile show he is From Hindi Belt

4 . Except BOi website all other websites said Baahubali crores 590... And Almost Grossed 600..i can provide bunch of Indian and foreign media links.... 5 . Even when it comes to common sense how on earth one can estimate such a wide range 517-600???Makes no sense.... All these days they updated box-office according to bunch of sources and all of a sudden box office India website turned into Authentic and final Judgements? A website which only showcases about Hindi Movies.. Would be the judge of a Telugu movie? And who ia that editor to decide which is Authentic? According to Wikipedia rules... When i cleared provided links.. He again reverted the editing into his own personal source BOI?? It's clear that he s Manipulating the Box Office For His own personal Feelings.. Santhoshlee1 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The BOI source you guys mentioned left a note in the end.. Check the source.. When they themselves in said there is error... What is the reason behind incorporating a Hindi website estimation on a Telugu film? No one would accept a regional film beating their Hindi film

NOTE - The nett gross to gross ratio of some films is being sent as an error Santhoshlee1 (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Even using simple Maths.. Baahubali Grossed 500 within 24 days... And Now it's still running completing 60 days.. So it Grossed only 17 Crores in 36 days? Sounds logical? I am requesting i have so much faith in Wikipedia.. Dont let such U manipulative Editors with Random links to turn Wikipedia articles into Garbage.. Quoting Hindi Movies website as a source for a Telugu Movie... Santhoshlee1 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, please point me to the specific discussion or to the specific guideline that allows us to disregard certain reliable sources simply because we feel they are not as familiar with the subject matter as other references. That sounds to me like original research through exclusion. You cited Forbes as being reliable for information about a Telugu/Tamil language film. What makes Forbes, an American business magazine, a sufficient reference for Telugu/Tamil films, where BOI is not? Surely if your argument is "BOI doesn't know anything about films produced in Tollywood" you would have to say the same about Forbes. And the bottom line is that none of these sites are "official websites of box office records". They're all making guesses. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me walk on the same line.. If none of the sites are official and are making guesses.. Then take ibto consideration what majority of sites are estimating.. Rather than using only one source?? Why? Isn't it Partial? U can't get even one single source other Than BOI... Which say 517... But i can provide bunch of links to show it crossed 590... Why u not taking them into consideration? Talking about BOI... Search whole site u can't find any other non Hindi Movie... The site is completely about Hindi Movies why would they boast about Baahubali? So they underestimated... Forbes and Ib times.. Check their entertainment section. They posts about every Telugu Tamil Hindi Movies... So who has more idea about Telugu the movies? Kindly don't Degrade Baahubali s Collections... It seems they are deliberately pulling regional film down ..... Santhoshlee1 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You lost me. I genuinely do not understand what you are saying. The content in the article right now presents a range of opinion from 517 crore to 600 crore. I do not dispute that some reliable sources have guessed that the movie reached 600 crore. What we are discussing here is that you are unilaterally removing the lesser value because you personally do not find the source reliable for Tollywood films. That's not sufficient. If you want to exclude BOI as a reliable source for Tollywood films, you need to seek consensus via discussion at the Indian cinema task force, or you can take it up with the reliable sources noticeboard. But unless you can cite an established Wikipedia guideline or an Indian cinema task force discussion that indicates we are at liberty to cherrypick reliable sources based on our personal preferences, any attempt to remove differing opinions is disruptive. Now keep in mind, I'm in the middle here. I don't think it's right for you to remove the lower value, and I don't think it's right for Conradjagan to remove the 600 crore figure. My solution was to present the range of opinion, which seems neutral to me. These values are all guesses. They are not facts. It is our duty to balance these opinions properly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you telling me that estimations can't be wrong??? Here is the link

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Collections/world_total#.VfQmbV2t-o8

They listed only about Hindi Movies not about Any other indian movies.. But their website name ia Indian box office..... And you guys took their piece of interview all above the sources like Forbes.. Who took interview with tje director of Baahubali and paste box-office records time to time... I have been following this films updates this movie crossed 500 within its 24 days of release... And Wikipedia also was updated according to multi sources and all of a sudden a Hindi Movie fan comes and post random interview of a Hindi distributer from a Hindi site.. And u take the source over Forbes IBTimes-India... Who continuously post About Baahubali updates... And u come with argument that all are estimations.. So its fine.. Then i ll Post a link where they said 750. Crores.. Can u include that too 517-750.... 517-600 is funny enough.. Makes no sense.. It seems some editors here Willingly deliberately degrading the records of a three-year three-year old hard work..That guy didn't eben follow Baahubali updates.. Randomly edited... And u guys supporting....When someo user edited Bajrangi Bhaijaan Movies page using box-office india website as a source.. The Admin clearly said.. It's not a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules.... And asked for sources Like Ib Times and Forbes.. And u guys put up such source as an Estimation...Kindly change estimation to 598-600 according to good sources.. Or else tell me Kindly where can I compliant about this Deliberate degrading Using Inauthentic Hind site as a source for a Telugu movie Santhoshlee1 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Santhoshlee1 . I second santhosh here. This is nothing but a deliberate attempt to bring the collection figures down. I don't understand how BOI Q&A section can be considered for reference. There is not even mentioned in any article posted in the website. Taking random figures from random people and putting an estimate template is nothing but conscious effort to lower the collections. There are several reliable official websites and newspaper articles which clearly says the film grossed over 600 crores. I don't understand why Cyphoidbomb is being so adamant to accept the truth. Request you kindly show at least one wikipedia article which took BOI as an official source for reference. Aloosamosa (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your lack of ability to understand likely comes from your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia community standards. We're not here to sculpt articles to our points of view, we're here to present what the reliable sources say. We don't cherrypick references to suit our points of view. BOI is often cited by other reliable publications as the source of their box office data. Both of you seem to keep getting hung up on official source. There is no official source. There isn't even a single, widely accept source like BoxOfficeMojo.com. That's why we have to rely on these flimsy estimates. Forbes is not an official source for Tollywood box office figures. The Hindu is not an official source for Tollywood box office figures. Remove "official" from your mind; it's meaningless here. If you have a problem with the BOI reference's accuracy, have you thought about notifying them? They have an errors/omissions link at the top right of the page. For the record, I consider this edit to be a deliberate attempt to degrade the gross, because he ridiculously removes another reliable source in favor of the lower number. That doesn't, however, mean that presenting the range of opinion is a deliberate attempt to degrade the gross. That's called "presenting a neutral perspective". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Even Box Office India is not an official source.. It's not even reliable source.. Its not even a site for Tollywood news.. It's completely A Hindi Box Office Website....

Here is the link for their FAQ Section.. They clearly said... They Report Fake Collections Sometimes.. It clearly says they are not reliable

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Details/pages/faq#.VbvWKrNVjkh

Here is the Talk Section where Admin said this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bajrangi_Bhaijaan

When it was last discussed, boxofficeindia.com was not considered a reliable source on this website. Regardless of is extensive misuse here, I don't see any indication that we've solve the concerns that were express all those years ago. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the link for the Discussion for Reliable source

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com

They Clearly said

disclaimer in their website which says: "You acknowledge that BOXOFFICEINDIA.COM and its affiliates do not control, represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any of the information available on the web site". With such a disclaimer saying that the website cannot vouch for the accuracy of the contents

Check all you own Wikipedia links..And what Admin said According to RS.. That BOI isn't Reliable.. Still u have any excuse to degrade the records ? Can u kindly remove the wrong estimation from unreliable sources At least now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A few points: 1) A reliable source doesn't have to be an expert in Tollywood cinema to still be considered a reliable source. 2) The disclaimer at the bottom of BOI is meaningless, as other reliable sources say the same thing. If anything, it's an indication that the site is honest, as opposed to the ones who pretend that they're dispensing facts. 3) Ricky being an admin doesn't make the argument stronger. 4) The only argument that is relevant, is that you provided information that indicated community consensus deemed it an unreliable source, and on that basis, I will gladly remove the lower number. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank U So Much for Understanding... I Have no Problem with Box-office India being used as a source for Hindi Movies.. At least Not To Telugu Movies.. Not When range Is so degrading From 600 to 517.. Too much Difference . And there is another wrong info on this page. He edited "After the end if Theatrical Run.... When its still Running 500+ Cinema theatres.. 2 Theatres in my own City.. Thia shows the Accuracy of BOI Santhoshlee1 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

IBtimes or The Hindu never gave any detailed break-up of the gross of films in India and overseas. Whenever, Box Office India is giving any gross for non-Hindi film, it has to be used. as the Entertainment tax is never quoted by other sites(except Box Office India]]. those sites used to inflate the figures to a massive margin.--Conradjagan (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I repeat

Even Box Office India is not an official source.. It's not even reliable source.. Its not even a site for Tollywood news.. It's completely A Hindi Box Office Website.... Here is the link for their FAQ Section.. They clearly said... They Report Fake Collections Sometimes.. It clearly says they are not reliable http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Details/pages/faq#.VbvWKrNVjkh Here is the Talk Section where Admin said this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bajrangi_Bhaijaan When it was last discussed, boxofficeindia.com was not considered a reliable source on this website. Regardless of is extensive misuse here, I don't see any indication that we've solve the concerns that were express all those years ago. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Here is the link for the Discussion for Reliable source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com They Clearly said disclaimer in their website which says: "You acknowledge that BOXOFFICEINDIA.COM and its affiliates do not control, represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any of the information available on the web site". With such a disclaimer saying that the website cannot vouch for the accuracy of the contents

YOU CANT DECIDE WHAT IS RELIABLE IT IS DECIDED BY THEM ALREADY SO ACCORDING TO RULES YOU CANT USE BOXOFFICE INDIA AS A SOURCE FOR PERSONAL SELF SATISFACTORY REASONS AND DELIBERATELY DEGRADE THE COLLECTIONS .I HAVE TO COMPLAIN IF ANY FURTHER MANIPULATIVE EDITS ARE DONE FOR PERSONAL REASONS USING UNRELIABLE SOURCES END OF DISCUSSION .

Santhoshlee1 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Can You Remove Estimation Tag?

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-success-makes-prabhas-tough-contender-mahesh-babu-surya-ad-industry-646894

With this... There are total 3 link Sources which said Baahubali Grossed 600... I dont think there is any need for "Est" Tag.. If you come up With "All sources are Estimations as there is no official record for Indian movies.. Then you should add Tag to every Indian Movie.. But other movies don't have any Tag.. So why Only Baahubali? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The {{Estimation}} template is in this article and other articles for a reason: to communicate to anyone who reads this article that the values are estimates. Since there is no generally recognized source for accurate box information like BoxOfficeMojo, we need to make it clear that the amounts are opinions, not facts. Particularly so long as these articles are polluted by disruptive paid editors who use the articles to promote some films and demote others. The inclusion of the template in Indian cinema articles was arrived at through consensus at WP:ICTF. Baahubali is not the only article with the template. Feel free to go back through the thousands of Indian film articles and add the template if you are dissatisfied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo.. Another Hindi Website.... Just saying... Forbes is considered as reliable by Wikipedia.. Admins said the same the day Forbes Publish About Baahubali Collections... I will post here and Estimation should be removed.. I can't go chang every Indian Movie page.. Major Indian movies don't have any Estimation Tag.. So Baahubali Shouldn't have too.. We should be Neutral and apply same rule to movie.. If Most of then don't have any Tag.. Why to apply to few films.. U said India has no official website for records if that's the case u can't say Baahubali is estimation and other movie pages are facts.. Simple as that..i ll wait for Forbes link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshlee1 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are not rooted in any sort of logic that I am familiar with. Where should I even begin?

• Major Indian movies don't have any Estimation Tag.. So Baahubali Shouldn't have too. Ridiculous suggestion. The decision to include the {{Estimation}} template is a recent one. At some point we have to start adding the template. It's not like when a decision is made angels fall out of the sky and magically change thousands of articles. So where would you recommend we start? Somewhere other than Baahubali? Why?
• I can't go chang every Indian Movie page. Neither can I. the Indian cinema task force doesn't have the labor base to make thousands of retroactive edits right now. If you want to help, feel free. I won't interfere if you start slapping Estimation templates appropriately in the |gross= parameter of Indian cinema articles. But please do not hinder, which is what the removal of the template would constitute.
• We should be Neutral and apply same rule to movie.. Neutral and consistent have no relationship here. Thousands of articles do not have an {{Estimation}} template. This is an inconsistency, not a bias. What bias, exactly, are you suggesting that there is? An anti-Baahubali bias? What on earth does that even mean? And as I've said, if you want consistency, help out by adding the estimation template to other Indian cinema articles. And as I've also said, Baahubali is not the only article to bear the template. Welcome Back (film) has it, for instance. I also added it here and here. Rome wasn't built in a day.
• U said India has no official website for records if that's the case u can't say Baahubali is estimation and other movie pages are facts. I never said other movie pages are facts. I have said consistently all over this project that I believe none of the box office data in Indian films are indisputable facts. They are all estimates. That's why we need the {{Estimation}} template everywhere. Please don't falsely attribute your problematic logic to me.
• Forbes is considered as reliable by Wikipedia. Yes. We also consider IBTimes reliable. And Times of India. And The Hindu, I believe. That does not mean that any of the box office gross values that come from Forbes, IBTimes, Times of India, or The Hindu, are incontrovertible fact. They're still estimates. Opinions. And they should be presented as such, through proper labeling. Forbes isn't special. What, you think that Forbes somehow has special access to tally up the box office receipts from all across India, where nobody else does? Please show me the evidence of that. Until you can prove that, their estimates are no more or less accurate than any other reliable source's estimates. (Note that I didn't say "facts")
• Box Office Mojo.. Another Hindi Website.... Just saying... How do you figure BoxOfficeMojo, a division of IMDb, owned by the American company Amazon.com, is a "Hindi" website? And what relevance does that have to this discussion? Red herring.

Hopefully some of this will start to resonate with you. I'm going to cross my fingers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2015

Please remove the caste Name "Nadar" from this "Karikal Katappa Nadar alias Katappa" in the cast section. Neither this caste name nor any other caste name was mentioned in the film anywhere. Arjunpandiyan (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Kailash29792 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015

While Sabu Cyril is the Production Designer and Manu Jagadh is the Art Director 2.50.179.33 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Budget of Baahubali

All the reliable sources stated that the budget for both the parts collectively is ₹2.5 billion. I think it shall be mentioned only in Production of Baahubali and neither in the beginning nor in the conclusion as it would amount to factual errors despite being reliable. Please comment. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's better your way. It also keeps the infobox clean. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kailash. I assume this as a support. However, i think we have to seek much more opinions on such sensitive issues. @Ssven2, TheRedPenOfDoom, Krimuk90, Vensatry, and Dr. Blofeld: I require your feedback before i can go forward with. Hope you all shall respond within a reasonable time. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• its something that should be in the lead in the Production article and therefore in the summary of the production section of both parts I and II. Whether or not it is in the infobox for Parts I and II as well, I dont care. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And yes, it is such a basic relevant point of a business venture that it should also be in the lead of both Part I and II. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That means, can i assume it a support? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It means I support the inclusion of the budget in the lead and body of all three articles and am agnostic about whether budget figures are included in the infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem with me. I agree with TRPOD and I too support. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Now both of you users, please clean up the article. User:Arichuvadi is editing it in the most inappropriate ways, that involves reverting other users' edits. But since you both use Twinkle, you can get it right. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We can. Now that the user is at WP:AN3, let the events unfold. Till then, the article can be cleansed to an extent only. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I Support putting information on all three pages There is enough evidence and supporting sources to include the information of the budget in the lead and infobox. Marchoctober (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering how does one verify the budget claims? Does the movie production company submit tax sheets to prove it? It looks like the budget claims are just word of mouth. The director might have said approximately a number and all articles are quoting it. There is no point in citing so many articles, they are basically useless. It is also same with those box office claims, they always cite a very high number, but never produce actual tax returns to prove it. Unfortunately, wiki has become a place where fans can come and claim whatever the figure and cite some source. I think wiki should ban writing the box office and budget claims, unless the movie production team provides tax returns. Rajkancherla (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rajamouli during his interaction with associates at AMD here in California have stated the budget $40Million was mostly for Part1 although few shots of Part2 were picturised. "You may consider it as budget for Part1" claimed the director. Can admin User:Cyphoidbomb have a look at this video and decide how this should be taken forward. I know some media outlets have broken the budget conveniently into 2 halves and the same is quoted here in wiki article. See the Question at 13:35mins and rajamoulis answer- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf7lwAQr7V0 Wikieditor2787 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved based on discussion below, no additional support for the move itself.(non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Baahubali: The Beginning → Bāhubali: The Beginning – why double a? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because nearly all sources in the article use "aa", so why the request? Materialscientist (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please check the poster. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The a has a line over it. Per your proposal, we should move the article to Bāhubali: The Beginning. I am assuming the ā represents aa. I don't believe we're required to adhere to stylization in our article titles anyway, lest Toys "R" Us be changed to ToysЯus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not mere "stylization" like the backwards R in Toys R Us; a and ā are transcriptions of different vowels (பா the first syllable vs. ப the third syllable). Plenty of article titles use diacritics where that use meets WP:UCN. This one might not; I get 4.4k GNews hits for "Baahubali: The Beginning"; 9.8k for "Bahubali: The Beginning"; and just four for "Bāhubali: The Beginning". 58.176.246.42 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - English language sources use the Baahubali spelling. WP:NCF. Film Fan 12:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Materialscientist & Film Fan. Also ā ≠ a. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agreed with those above that the current title is the English-language common name. Jenks24 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2016

Prasanth K C (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |National Film Awards (India) |Best Film |Arka Media Works |Won Telugu Version ||

References

Not done for now: Prasanth KC - It looks to me that the content is already in the article at the top of the Awards and Nominations table. Can you be more specific about what you are requesting be changed? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

117.200.12.94 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baahubali: The Beginning. 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/20150720201256/http://www.boxofficeindia.com:80/Details/art_detail/baahubalihinditrendslike100crfilmonweekdays to http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/baahubalihinditrendslike100crfilmonweekdays
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/baahubalifirstweekallindiaterritorybreakdown
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717205142/http://baahubali.com/ to https://www.baahubali.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"South Indian Film"

Baahubali is a Telugu film. South Indian film does not even exist as an entity. Each of the industries in southern region of India exist separately with little overlap and with completely different type of film making. This allusion seems to have been made by someone with little to no knowledge of Indian film industry at all. Can someone please correct this mistake to reflect that Baahubali is a Telugu film (with parts being simultaneously shot in Tamil?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c4:4001:4748:f8eb:1582:7a53:eb11 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Kilikili Language

Should there be a mention of the Kilikili language that was created for the Kalakeyas tribe in the movie? Maybe somewhere under the production section? Here is the Wikipedia article on the language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilikili — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamtav (talk • contribs) 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Azamtav: In this edit I merged the content from Kilikili into this article. There really should not have been an independent article on this language since there was no indication that the language has standalone notability. There was also insufficient content to justify a unique article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not an Epic, its just high fantasy

To be classified as an Epic/Epic fantasy, it must have an elaborate universe and character back-stories (like Lord of the Rings, Ramayana ...). This movie can be categorized as High Fantasy at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwintom (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Alwintom, it is an epic with elaborate universe and character back-stories. See this Baahubali (franchise). Sreeking (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." What majority of sources are verifiably describing it either as "high fantasy" or "epic fantasy"? Seems like if we're getting caught up in labeling based on our own interpretations, it would be wiser to go broad, call the film a "drama", and move on with our lives. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

Change Magizhmati to Mahishmati Change Palvaaldeva's to BhallalaDeva's Neeraj wp (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@DRAGON BOOSTER: If this is an issue with Telugu vs. Tamil versions, does it make sense to create a table for the cast?

Actor	Telugu	Tamil
Rana Daggubati	Bhallaldeva	Pallvalthevan

Just a thought. Normally tables aren't preferred for cast lists, but this might be an intuitive exception. The names in prose should probably be the Telugu versions, though, for simplicity's sake. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be a viable option. Sreeking (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb and Sreeking: The table for cast won`t be necessary as only three or four characters have a different names in Tamil. Rest all the characters would have the same Telugu and Tamil columns in the table. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC).

"Till date"

In this edit I changed the phrasing of the claims that the series was the most expensive "till date". "Till date" implies "until today" (i.e. May 2017), which is not something this 2015 source referenced in the article could possibly know. I changed the prose to "As of July 2015, the film series was considered the most expensive in India." But "At the time of release, the film series was considered the most expensive in India" would also be suitable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baahubali: The Beginning. 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/20151117185634/http://program.hiff.org/films/detail/baahubali_the_beginning_2015 to http://program.hiff.org/films/detail/baahubali_the_beginning_2015

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) 08:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

Feminist version of Indian history

change "an injured lady" to "sivagami" because it is more accurate 103.14.199.82 (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Avanthika

One of the main characters, Avanthika, appears in this article, as well as in Baahubali: The Beginning and in List of Baahubali characters#Avantika, as Avantika. The correct spelling, with a th, can be seen in, e.g., an article in FIRSTPOST of May, 02 2017 16:20:49 IST, accessed 2017-08-24, quoted in the article: http://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/bahubali-2-the-conclusion-all-you-need-to-know-about-its-story-box-office-pre-release-business-3407772.html.

Is this change of spelling intentional (a tradition of "simplifying" the spelling ?) or is it a typo that has been repeated over and over again?

From what I know, the spelling difference between th and t should not be overlooked, because it may reflect a difference in pronunciation (in many languages of India there is a phonemic contrast between the sound as at the beginning of English "thin" and the sound as at the beginning of English "tin".
Fon (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
(PS I am a linguist, a phonologist. :) )

@Fon: The official website says Avantika, so we say Avantika. IAST Transliteration comverts त into t, see Shakuntala, Dushyanta, Tarakasura, Trimurti, etc. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@King Prithviraj II: Thank you. This is why I did not try changing the text of the article itself. I am just wondering - I did not see the original in the Devanagari script, but if it is spellt with त rather than थ then why does it appear in the press with a "th" at all? Why does not everybody write "t"? But of course I do not want to ask you to spend your time educating me :) Thanks a lot! :) Fon (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fon: No worries, its not actually a big thing. The press can be very misleading, one of the main reasons being that this film was dubbed into many languages including Hindi, Malayalam, Japanese etc. and was more successful commercially in Hindi when compared to the original in Telugu. For example, look at Firstpost spelling Amarendra Baahubali as Amrinder Baahubali ! King Prithviraj II (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

{{edit open|Baahubali: The Beginning|answered=no}}

121.200.55.37 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticize

Bahubali facts is taken from Mahabharat, so this film belong ancient history and before BC . Then islam is not coming in world so how did come in film. So film is imagine as Mahabharat. Sk Yasin ali (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Kilikili language

An edit on December 23, 2017 removed the description of the Kilikili language. If you search Wikipedia for that term, it redirects to this page and the section is missing. I think the section should be restored or it should be put somewhere and the search updated. I can't edit the article because it is locked... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamtav (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Azamtav: I've restored the section on Kilikili based on King Prithviraj II's invitation in his edit summary. I think it's reasonable for the content to exist in multiple places, including the first film article, the overall franchise article, and I actually don't think it's unreasonable for it to exist in some form at the sequel article in case someone just happens to be researching that film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks looks great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamtav (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Difficult Aplhabets used while making artificial & rude Kilkili language (in Hindi): कठोर वर्ण = ख छ ठ थ फ घ झ ढ ध भ etc used.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

124.123.69.166 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Baahubali was shot only in Telugu and later dubbed to other languages, it was not shot in tamil. Please correct the error.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Content CE

Hiya Wikipedians,

I just did a CE run through this article. Here are some of the general things I did:

• Splitting the snake: Simplifying run-on sententences by breaking them up into more readable chunks.
• Removal of some unsourced content, and content sourced to dead links
• Grammatical fixes to make sentences more readable, including rewriting sentences to preserve content and enhance clarity
• Reference checking and flagging for additional citations or better sources where needed
• other assorted CE tasks as needed while reviewing (removing extra spaces, adding spaces, fixing or removing incomplete sentences, etc.

Curdigirl (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Spoiler in the lead?

Is it just me or does the lead summarize the whole movie and spoil the end? If so, this should be removed. Cepiolot (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cepiolot, Hiya! Due to historical activity in Wikipedia surrounding spoiler alerts, much discussion was had leading to a consensus that spoiler alerts would no longer be used.

These links provide additional info about Wiki's perspective on spoilers:

• No disclaimers
• Spoilers
• Content disclaimer

Hopefully these help clear things up. Curdigirl (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Curdigirl, it's not that I think there should be a spoiler alert, I just don't think the lead of an article is the place for a spoiler. On other pages for films on Wikipedia there is usually a line discussing the premise but not a major spoiler in the lead. Those are usually in the plot section. Cepiolot (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

It was written as Indian epic language film not as Telugu language epic action film as it was taken by Tollywood (Telugu). Manoj.Arika (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Manoj, we're not here to promote ethnic film industries. Baahubali was shot in two languages, so calling it a "Telugu language epic" would only be providing half of the information, and there would be no valid reason to remove the nation of origin, which is a standard piece of information to include, a fundamental part of the Five Ws. Since this has now been explained to you on at least three talk pages, please stop making this request. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Un-bulleted lists

I edited the info box to correct the use of the template {{ubl}} which split list items with a <br /> instead of seperating them into parameters for the template. This has been rolled back. The person who has edited it does not have a user page. Roll Back edit I have no wish to start an edit war, but I cannot understand this. BoonDock (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio in plot

EvergreenFir Where was the copyvio from? Could you revdel please? The user reinstated their edit — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 20:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer done. Partial copyvio from https://vocal.media/fyi/baahubali-the-beginning-79ahfs0z60 EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

{{subst:trim|1=

hey!! kindly remove the Tamil language from Bahubali 

it should be in Telugu. as it was first directed in that language and later on dubbed into other languages like Tamil, Hindi, Malayalam etc... it wasn't simultaneously directed in both Tamil and Telugu AT FIRST, IT WAS ONLY DIRECTED IN TELUGU

I REQUEST KINDLY CHANGE IT

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is a controversial change which has been discussed before. Jamedeus (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)