Jump to content

Talk:List of highest-grossing Kannada films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Garbage table

[edit]

In this edit I deleted the "Biggest opening day" table. It was pure garbage. At least 5 of the ten films on the list were poorly sourced. Five of the references said nothing about each film's opening day grosses, so that leads me to believe the entire list was fabricated. If you bring it back be sure that EACH gross is sourced, and be sure that each entry in each rank is supported by a reliable source that says, "This film was the #2 highest Kannada opening day". The grosses alone are insufficient, since readers would have to previously have access to all of the gross figures in Kannada cinema to verify whether film X was in the #1 spot or not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricated content with references pulled out of thin air

[edit]

In this edit I meticulously went through each reference in the Top grossers by year list to see if the references supported the claim that each film was the highest-grossing Kannada film of that year. Not surprisingly, virtually none of the references said anything of the sort. All of the following can be gleaned by hovering over the various maintenance templates in the article, but here are the issues:

Years, films, problem references, and explanation for why they are problematic.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2016. Article indicates that the film had grossed 30 crore in the past four weeks, but was still being shown.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2015. Article briefly mentions a 40 crore opening weekend, but no lifetime earnings are reported, and article is focused on discussing international releases.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2014. It couldn't since the article was written a few days after the film was released and is focused on the early financial performance. Poor reference anyway, as it appears to be a blog.
Better reference required. This is a blog. Blogs fail WP:UGC.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2012. Reference is focused on noting the completion of 100 days in theatres.
Holy crap, finally a reference says that a film "has been declared as the highest grosser of 2011". Only problem is we don't consider Filmibeat reliable. WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2010. The article vaguely calls it one of the 'biggest blockbusters of 2010'. Reference does not analyse financials, it's focused on announcing a dubbed release of the film.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2009. Reference is a list of cast and crew, not an analysis of revenue.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2008. Reference documents Filmfare Award wins. Filmibeat would not be considered reliable anyway, per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2007. Reference is a film review, not an analysis of revenue.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2006.}}
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2005. Source indicates it was the highest-grossing film of a specific week. Moot point, as Indiaglitz is not considered a reliable source per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2004.
IMDb is not considered a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Content not found at IMDb anyway.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2002. This is a film review, not an analysis of revenue.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2001. It doesn't even resolve to a specific article.
Source says nothing about this film being the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2000.

So thus far, the entirety of this content is at risk of deletion. Interested parties need to fix this ASAP, since otherwise the article will be redirected to List of highest-grossing Indian films. @Hemunarine: You were the one who created the article with these dubious references. I'm not sure what your goal was, but if you care about this content, you should invest some time in fixing it. What we need are specific references that say "Yajmana was the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2000", "Kirik Party was the highest-grossing Kannada film of 2016", etc. Simply including financial figures is insufficient, as readers would be required to have all Kannada film financials at their disposal to verify the claim that X film was the highest-grossing Kannada film of Y year. I brought the same issue up about 10 days ago above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been one week since I brought up the serious issues above about the totally fabricated data in this article. Since there has been no significant attempt to fix these issues, in this edit I redirected the article to List of highest-grossing Indian films. The article has become attractive playground for vandalism, sloppy editing, POV, poorly sourced changes, etc.[18][19][20][21][22][23]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

This article needs to be semi protected because of unsourced content. Uff ki baat (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Increase main list to top 25 films

[edit]

Since the Indian top grossers has been updated to include top 50 films, I think the Kannada top grossers page can be updated to include top 25 films too Bodi123 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Increase the list at least to 20

[edit]

Please increase the top Kannada box office collection list at least to 20. 103.5.133.10 (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter: List of highest grossing Kannada films by adjusted inflation also needs to be updages

[edit]

Chapter: List of highest grossing Kannada films by adjusted inflation also needs to be updages. Kantara needs to move to 2nd place there also now that earnings more than 300 cr 2405:201:D023:70DE:A95E:4F7F:77DD:6A13 (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaatera boxoffice collection

[edit]

As per two reliable sources, the reported gross is ₹200 crore.[1][2] Ottplay has no precedence over these sources. Moreover, the article does not provide any actual figures.[3] Unless another reliable source publishes a report contradicting these figures, there is no reason to remove them. Additionally, the Pinkvilla report only contains another producer's claim due to an ongoing dispute, and Pinkvilla itself does not make any claims about the figures. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kataariveera: Anoop Bhatia (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bollywood Humgama says 67 crores
https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/box-office-special-features/record-2022-kannada-cinema-saw-steep-decline-box-office-numbers-2023-not-single-film-crossed-even-rs-70-cr-mark-footfalls-8-1-cr-3-2-cr/
Why not consider this and give a range? Kataariveera (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera They are saying it's domestic, if they said it as worldwide could be considered for range. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how is a movie with domestic collection of 67 crores is reaching 200 crores worldwide when it is not even dubbed? Kataariveera (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera The report is about the Kannada box office; it can't be interpreted otherwise. If it were about the overall box office, why would KGF only break ₹200 crore? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera Also, the report doesn't specify that it's the Indian box office; from the wording, it can be assumed to refer to the Kannada box office. Additionally, the report states, "KGF - Chapter 2 even breached the Rs. 200 crore mark.?? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.. My question is unlike KGF which was dubbed in multiple language as well as released in other states - Kaatera was released in Karnataka only (and did not release outside State). It did release overseas in Kannada alone. So, if Karnataka collection is 67 crores, then it means non-Karnataka + overseas will be 133 crores which is impossible considering it had very low key release outside Karnataka(if at all you find details of its release outside Karnataka) and overseas in single language Kataariveera (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera As far as other reliable sources state, it's ₹200 crore. Box Office Hungama doesn't provide worldwide collections and offers no evidence, nor does any other reliable source, to prove that the film didn't earn money from other states in India. Therefore, the figures from reliable sources take precedence. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But question is why a range cant be considered when there is a wide gap by almost 300%? Kataariveera (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the full report in Deccan Herald - it says 200 crores according to the makers. So , how is that even reliable? Its just a claim by makers according to the article Kataariveera (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera Thanks for pointing that out, which only makes that source not credible as per WP:FRUIT. However, the other source reported the figure twice as part of their own research (atleast the report look so).[4] Do you think only multi-dubbed films earn outside Kannada? A distant case but, the lifetime Kannada box office collection of Kantara, as reported by Bollywood Hungama, is approximately ₹80 crore. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are details of Kantara releasing outside Karnataka. But are there any details or any articles of Kaatera releasing outside Karnataka? Kataariveera (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera As far as a reliable source says it has collected that amount, how can I say otherwise? Kantara was mentioned to point out that the Bollywood Hungama figures are low. It may be true, but they are not reporting the worldwide gross. Either they have a strong opinion that the data outside Karnataka is unreliable, or it's their policy. However, as long as they don't have the complete figure, their claim can't be used as a range or to challenge the other reliable source. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok.. But please check whether any range can be given instead of a blanket figure... Kataariveera (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera Could you try to find any other reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES, even local language versions will suffice? Also, you should note that the India domestic collection of KGF 2, according to Bollywood Hungama, is only ₹434 crore.[5] Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the Hindi version details Only. Kataariveera (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera I doubt that "TERRITORY-WISE BOX OFFICE COLLECTION" section lists all Indian territories.🙄 Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No.. its territory wise but only for Hindi version. no confusion on that Kataariveera (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera Am I not looking correctly? I haven't found anywhere that it says "Hindi version only." Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also they played Hindi dubbed Kannada film in TN&Kerala and earned 2.46 cr on day1?? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea right... Mostly from the premier shows of Hindi version in Chennai... Total TN Tamil version is 125 crores and Malayali version is 70 crores Kataariveera (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah... BH gives only details of Bollywood movie (so its Hindi version in case of dubbed movies). Kataariveera (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera Maybe, but they may have felt it was not important to mention. I really doubt Hindi-dubbed Kannada films would collect that much in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. They also don't seem to be in the mood to publish the full gross of Kannada films. I insist on using Indian Express because they publish the film's gross as their own data. As observed in most cases, they stop publishing the data after a week if the film hasn't earned much. This is true for most reliable sources, and incomplete data from Bollywood Hungama cannot override it. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources saying ₹200 crore.[6][7] Additionally, the published poster quoted the amount as ₹206.19 crore, which none of these sources have used. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KGF 2 BOXOFFICE

[edit]

Kgf 2 box office range ₹1,187–1,300 crore is determined by reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES. No sources specified have any precedence over other. Any removal of any sources from this range amounts to figure manipulation. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kataariveera:You are repeatedly removing Pinkvilla, claiming there is a very low difference between it and other sources. That is not the correct way to use sources. Your actions amount to figure manipulation, and you should stop doing this. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why use a report from Mar 2023 when subsequently all reports have used 1200? Kataariveera (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera The film was released in 2022, and a report after one year fully covers all its collections. I also repeat that all reliable sources (green sources) hold equal preference, so we cannot omit one based on any arbitrary reason. On a personal note, as observed, Pinkvilla does not include the convenience fee of tickets in their calculations; they report box office figures excluding those. This was explained in their clarification regarding why Dangal's box office figures appeared lower compared to others. Additionally, their track record is on par with Box Office India and Bollywood Hungama. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then Pinkvilla says 1198 crores. Why not consider this?
https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/kgf-chapter-2-final-worldwide-box-office-collections-1144719
Based on this why not consider 1200 when other sources are saying 1250 Kataariveera (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera The current document date supersedes this. Even though they quoted that figure at the top, the rest of the document followed ₹1187 crore, indicating they were doubtful of the data they received at that time. In such cases, they correct the figure in subsequent documents. This is not unique to Pinkvilla; other reliable sources do the same. Therefore, editors always use the latest document from the publisher. Additionally, we cannot blame them for occasionally falling prey to fake box office figures published by overseas agencies. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case why not consider other reliable sources which are Later than Pinkvilla (Mar 23)? why Just relay on one website When majority of them are quoting 1200 and above? Kataariveera (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera Because they are not the same organisation and no reliable source has precedence over another, the only things we can check are whether the report is final, whether it comes from a reliable source, and whether the reliable source reports the figure consistently. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling about precedence rather when you have multiple sources, why go with what one source is saying instead of going with what majority aee saying? Kataariveera (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera This is not a voting system, and we are not entitled to choose one source over others. Per Wikipedia's standards of transparency and reliability, as outlined in WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and WP:RS (Reliable Sources), we should list all reliable sources along with their reported figures, ensuring that all verifiable information is presented for transparency and neutrality. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says "propertionately" too.. As against 7 sources, we have only one saying below 1200 croees that too by a difference of 1% Kataariveera (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera: All reports from different reliable news media are considered and not just what majority says. This is why a range comes in place with figures reported from all sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera For your information, all other sources are dated 2022, except Pinkvilla. By your logic, should I remove all other sources? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah... What I meant - We have Econmic Times, WION, India Today, New India Express, DNA, Hindustan Times, News 18, VijayKarnataka(Kannada) TV9 (Kannada), Asianet - all saying 1200 so why fix for only one (Pinkvilla) when all other reliable sources are saying one figure? Kataariveera (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera WION, Vijay Karnataka (Kannada), TV9 (Kannada), and Asianet have not been determined as reliable sources and do not take precedence over other reliable sources. However, when multiple reliable sources are available, per WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View), editors should list all available figures; otherwise, it would constitute preferential treatment. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still have 5 sources and Indulge Express making it 6 sources as against 1. NPOV also mentions to take care of views "proportionately & fairly". So how is it not fair to consider 1200 as base when the source relayed is quoting a figure which is just 1% less (13 crores on 1200) less than the figure quoted by proportionately higher (86%) no. of the sources Kataariveera (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera You are misinterpreting 'fair.' It's about transparency, letting readers know what the reliable sources reported. It doesn't matter how many reliable sources are present; what matters is presenting all opinions. That’s the fair practice according to Wikipedia standards. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why not consider "proportionate" also while giving fair view - we are not talking about majority rather an overwhelming majority favours 1200 and if you consider others (like Vijay Karnataka and others -which are not included in reliable but also not included under irreliable source and have no complaints against them), then literally you have a large no. of souces favouring 1200. Even the other source (Pinkvilla) considers a figure which is just 1% less. so how is that using 1200 tarnish nuetral point? Kataariveera (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera As an editor, how am I entitled to exclude a source that has been declared reliable through the rigorous WP:RSP process? There is no rule in Wikipedia that permits the exclusion of a reliable source. What you are attempting to do amounts to figure manipulation and falsely conveys that the film crossed a milestone figure, which is incorrect.
Also, which of these figures is irrelevant/disproportionate: 1187, 1200, 1216, 1240, 1250, or 1300? (per your sources) You want to exclude the highest and lowest figures, claiming they are insignificant. This is clearly an attempt to pivot the numbers toward your preferred figure. Is this some kind of numerology?
Additionally, in every Indian cinema film article, editors include a note to strictly use sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Yet, some people still struggle to follow it. I am not the one who created these rules—they were established by editors to address excessive box office manipulation. Now, editors attempting to manipulate figures are making baseless excuses to adjust box office numbers to fit their intentions. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source might have been reliable but the very purpose of using "proportionately and fair" is to make sure we not rely on a single source (even if reliable) rather take into consideration what most of the reliable sources are pointing out. So, if all sources are reliable, you need to disregard if its the only one pointing out a different figure (especially when difference is 1%). When more than 85% of reliable sources are pointing out at a figure, why should the article be based on a single reliable source? It has got nothing do with a movie achieving any figure rather its about not making an article dependant on one source when lot of other sources are pointing out otherwise. Kataariveera (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera Does fairness involve hiding evidence from the reader? If an editor chooses to exclude a reliable source from view, does that align with WP:NPOV principles? While a 1% difference might seem minor, it can hold significant importance in certain contexts, such as record-breaking figures or contractual benchmarks. Overlooking such differences compromises the thoroughness of reporting. Rather than dismissing minority figures outright, including them alongside the majority consensus ensures a more transparent and balanced approach. This allows readers to assess the differences themselves. Editors should not dictate which reliable sources are made available to readers. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But When overwhelming majority of reliable sources point out to a particular figure, how it is fair to rely upon a single source to fix the range? I guess we need to add some more editor - until then I will revert it to the range Which was used for more than 1.5 years until you changed last week Kataariveera (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kataariveera Now correcting vandalism is a crime? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is changing a range which was discussed and decided upon amount to vandalism? Kataariveera (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You had arbitrarily changed - that was vandalism Kataariveera (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Darshan's 'Kaatera' gets digital release date". The New Indian Express. 5 February 2024. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  2. ^ S, Pranati A (10 August 2024). "What explains this dry spell for Kannada cinema?". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  3. ^ Joy, Prathibha (20 February 2024). "Kaatera producer Rockline Venkatesh on fake collection reports: Have directed IT and ED to those who made claims". OTTPlay. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  4. ^ "Darshan's Kaatera joins the Rs 200-crore club". The New Indian Express. 20 January 2024. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  5. ^ Hungama, Bollywood (6 December 2023). "K.G.F – Chapter 2 Box Office Collection". Bollywood Hungama. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  6. ^ "This Kaatera Soundtrack Has Inspired More Than 1 Lakh Reels; Have You Made One Yet?". News18. 24 January 2024. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  7. ^ Features, CE (5 February 2024). "Darshan's Kaatera gets digital release date". Cinema Express. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Kannada_films&oldid=1258932857"