Talk:Chennai Express/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit request on 1 October 2012

In the casting and filming section,the 2nd last sentence,please change it to "However, in August it was officially announced that Deepika Padukone has been signed to play the lead opposite Khan". Usman8811 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

Sajalhasan007 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. No actual request made here. NiciVampireHeart 13:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2013

Genre Romantic Comedy Studio Red Chillies Entertainments Starring Shah Rukh Khan, Deepika Padukone Directed by Rohit Shetty Written By Farhan & Sajid Screenplay by Yunus Sajawal Produced by Gauri Khan Afeef27 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack reception

A lot of fanboys of SRK are trying to add music reception with sources like Funrahi, Highonscore etc. So please someone add a reputed source. A new section was created called "Critical reception of Soundtracks".

Regards

---$oH4M ❊  আড্ডা  08:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary editing

Shahrukh Khan has decided that the names of his actresses will appear before him in film credits. Chennai Express is the first such movie. I have added reference but someone keeps interfering with the text unnecessarily. I have added reference but some unknown user with IP address dispayed is unnecessarily interfering with the text of this page, what to do! aish.ego (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The content is in the article now. If it is removed again, restore it with an edit summary urging discussion on the talk page. Do not edit war, repeatedly re-adding it. It seems appropriate content to me, but perhaps other editors disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

ok jim, thanx a lot :)aish.ego (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, the unknown person is again bothering me. It's really making me angry now. What to do? aish.ego (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Must be some fan work.All Film actors , Cricketers and politicains Articles in India tend to have this issue. But I have one question. Th actor has said that it will appear in credits of the film. Not in wikipedia / any online stuffs isnt it. So why to make a fight for this silly stuff? Both from the unknown IP editor and also from you :)aish.ego --- Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversies Section

The controversies section was once deleted without proper reason. When it was restored , again its edited with a lot of changes been made with a lot of mingled description like 'youtube videos are not RS','Chennai Express actually is releasing in pakistan, that was just a rumor.' etc. But changes between revisions Revision as of 22:22, 21 July 2013 and Revision as of 00:33, 22 July 2013 reveals much more changes irrelevant to the change description.

The Source that has been given is the Official YouTube Channel of SUN NEWS. Sun news ( SUN Group) is an Indian public listed company and the given you tube channel is a official channel of the company.

Again a Fan based work to hide Information for benefit ? Proof : The user User:Ashermadan seems to have made contributions to ShahRukhKhan , who ( through his wife) is the producer of the Film . Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not an RS and no video can be used as an RS. Please read the rules. You will be reported next time you do this. Please refer to YouTube guidelines for details. Ashermadan (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that, SUN NEWS is NOT considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia guidelines. Look them up before you make an edit. Ashermadan (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read through Wikipedia guidelines First http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links#References There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources

There is no need to THREATEN to report. Wiki is open and tracked Medium . Advise to read the wiki rules carefully before bragging about the same .

Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but SUN NEWS is not an RS. That's pretty much clear by their unprofessional look. Ashermadan (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you find a link from a trusted source like the Times of India and whatnot that are written in English and are accessible to everyone, then please update it. If not, then wait until the reviews come out that mention the "controversy of the accent". Please maintain the quality of the article instead of included biased regional snippets that are not even in English and unverifiable by many other people. Ashermadan (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The link you posted from SUN NEWS is in some unrecognizable language and looks to be a format of an opinion. It is not a news article. If you have any issue, please contact an administrator. I have been editing for many years and I can assure you that SUN NEWS and their OPINION PROGRAM is not a RS. Ashermadan (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

SUN NEWS is not an RS -- False statement. Its an Indian Media. TOI is just another Indian media. Making TOI reliable and Sun news unreliable is your personal opinion. Wiki is not for personal opinion

their unprofessional look. --- ???? This is a recorded nasty statement ? What do you mean by professional look and non professional look ?

instead of included biased regional snippets that are not even in English --- Multiple meanings ... What is included is just reporting . you cant be judgemental of report .

that are not even in English --- pls read through Non english sources section of wiki rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

I have been editing for many years -- Whats the link between and my edit and bragging of your Longevity in editing ? Unnecessary arguments in talk page Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

SUN NEWS is not an RS and your video of the man getting all riled up in an OPINION based program is not news. It is just his opinion. I have reported you for vandalism because this isn't the first time you have let personal feelings come into play. Ashermadan (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The video you posted is more like a video blog or a random Twitter or Facebook or blog based rant. It is not news nor is it RS. Ashermadan (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read through the following Wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Edit warring over content is not vandalism.

I am tired of pointing to wiki rules Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is not vandalism but including non-RS sources and random opinion videos from youtube is vandalism. I know the accent of the heroine is making you angry but Wikipedia is not the place to express those frustrations. Adding opinion videos from random channels that aren't even published is wrong and does not make them RS. Ashermadan (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It is clear that an edit war is going on. Generally speaking, youtube is not a reliable source so great care should be taken before re-introducing it as a source when tis has been disputed. If you can't achieve consensus here, then take the source to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Please be aware of WP:3RR and avoid edit warring. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I know the accent of the heroine is making you angry --- You are living with me to know this  :) ??? Its advisable to argue on contents than getting personal

Adding opinion videos from random channels that aren't even published is wrong and does not make them RS. -- this is the bone of contention ...

Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

FLAT OUT just said YouTube videos aren't RS. Especially when they are of some random man getting all angry over an accent. This is not news, this is not a "controversy", this is nothing. It is not RS and cannot be included. Ashermadan (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, you CANNOT add disputed content in until a consensus has been reached. Take it to the Noticeboard and only after that, if it is accepted as an RS, will the item be put into the article. Ashermadan (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been opened in Noticeboard for second opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

But Flat Out : what to do about the following inappropriate code of conduct used by talk

1) Misquoting Edit war as Vandalism 2) Getting personal on comments with fellow editors 3) Fan based work to hide Information for benefit ? Proof : The user User:Ashermadan seems to have made contributions to ShahRukhKhan , who ( through his wife) is the producer of the Film . 4) Being Judgmental on One news channel as Reliable source and other as Non reliable 5) Commenting on looks of the persons in the concerned video Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, I didn't say the source was unreliable I said to be careful when using youtube as a source. Secondly, don't use this talk page to keep arguments going. The source has rightly gone to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for discussion so let that take its course. If you want to follow-up do it at my talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Consensus has been achieved for Reliable resource in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#YouTube_Video_of_News_Channel_as_Reliable_resource. Any more Reversal will be reported as Fan Based vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthikeyan.pandian (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached on this source with a suggestion that the original news program be cited instead of the youtube replay. It is not good policy to preempt a reversion with a threat of a report. Let's just focus on improving the encyclopedia. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

original program is stored only in youtube. The link to the youtube channel is provided in the News channel's website. have added the linking page as reference too. Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2013

Budget is 55 Crore Confirm by BOX office INDIA 5 crore Promotion Charge 202.160.160.254 (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: You may be right, but where is the source?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

Yatindra Kumar of Bigkhan.com gave 4.5 out of 5 stars to the film "chennai express" and said that story of the film is interesting and song by yo yo honey singh “lungi dance” is awesome. "India" section currently contains 13 reviews. I can't see any rave review, but only one "clean" positive review which comes from Taran Adarsh. If we take average, it would make 2.84 out of 5 stars which could be called "mixed" (or even hardly "mixed to positive"). Besides that, the "Overseas" section is totally "mixed" (or even "poor"). Rachel's review is "rotten": http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chennai_express_2013/reviews/ (also http://www.metacritic.com/movie/chennai-express/critic-reviews) and Sneha received the film very poorly.

There are even very reliable sources from Times of India which say the critical verdict for the film is "mixed":

• Shahrukh Khan’s Chennai Express getting mixed reviews

Fideliosr (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 august 2013

Deepika Padukone's charecter is Meenalochni Azhagusundaram

In Cast section please change Deepika Padukone as Meena lochni
to
Deepika Padukone as Meenalochni Azhagusundaram/Meenamma

I can't cite sources but I have seen the movie also "Meenalochni" is tamil name and "Meena lochni" is not correct.

Are you sure that it is Meenalochni Azhagusundaram and not Meena Lochni mentioned on the credits? ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 13:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

was it mentioned as Meena Lochni in credits? "Meenalochni" is a proper tamil name also Tamil names usually have father's name as surname In the movie also a drunk Shahrukh call Deepika "Mennalochini Aluuuuuuuuuuuu" since he can't pronounce "Azhagusundaram" Sivakumar1605 (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not the question. My question is: is Meenalochni Azhagsundaram mentioned in the end credits?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure,I didn't read the credits. Is it mentioned as " Meena Lochini" or "Meenanamma Lochni" in the credits?
why was the name changed to "Meenanamma Lochni' from "Meena Lochni" in wikipedia? Sivakumar1605 (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

SUMITKRISHNAGUPTA

This guy SUMITKRISHNAGUPTA is making a joke of the credibility of Wikipedia. He has removed all the negative reviews with proper sources and added whatever fanboyish garbage he thinks is right. He always does that without ever engaging in a talk page discussion. Fideliosr (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rating box and use of sources other than BoxOfficeIndia.com

According to a general consensus, reviews must only be kept in the article body and no rating boxes should be added. Also, it's decided to only use BoxOfficeIndia.com for revenue updates. Fideliosr (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No reviews have been left out in this revision, sir. Feel free to make whatever formatting changes on this version. Fideliosr (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I think Box Office India is currently unavailable. So we can use reliable sources like The Times of India, CNN-IBN and Hindustan Times for now until BOI is back in form. Regards, ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That would be fine. Hope Box Office India is up soon. Fideliosr (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

First day nett collection of BOI and other reliable Wikipedia sources vary by 4 crore!!its a huge difference

First day nett collection of BOI and other reliable Wikipedia sources vary by 4 crore!!its a huge difference.Reliable trade websites like Bollywood Hungama,KoimoiTimes of India,CNN-IBN,IBNLive,India Today ,Indian Express and trade experts like Taran adarsh gave chennai Express first day nett. gross at Rs 33.12 crore,more than what Box Office India is propagating at Rs 29 crore. Below are URLs: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/228
http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/229
http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/230
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/box-office/Chennai-Express-beats-Ek-Tha-Tiger-on-day-one-earns-Rs-33-crore/articleshow/21741131.cms?
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/chennai-express-mints-rs.33.12-crore-on-opening-day/1/298931.html
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/shah-rukh-khans-chennai-express-collects-rs-39-cr-creates-history/1153658/
http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/chennai-express-sets-thundering-pace-113081000045_1.html

This is high time that Wikipedia should reconsider its basis of including gross figures for Bollywood films We should discard BOI now,which is now and then unavailable,Bollywood Hungama is much better which gives detailed gross of overseas also ,apart from domestic record in table.--Tarandhoni (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Don't you DARE think about that.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 12:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not again, Tarandhoni. We have had enough of BOI-related discussions. Every film-related article should mention BOI and that's the consensus. Fideliosr (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

These IPs and new registered users could well be sockpuppets. Fideliosr (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be stopped now. There's always difference between figures of Box Office India and other trade publications. The reported revenue by Box Office India for every Hindi film is lesser than what others publish. Same is the case with Chennai Express; no exception. Fideliosr (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Numbers may rose or decrease but still it has broke the record of Ek tha tiger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.161.63 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013

the information related to cheenai express collection is incorrect.it collected 33.12 cr on its first day beating ett record but there is difference of 4 crores.if you follow BOI then atleast mention figures of other sites too.the utv production house itself has confirmed 33.12 cr figure.please mention that too </ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Chennai-Express-registers-record-opening-earns-Rs-33-crore/Article1-1106072.aspx</ref> </ref>http://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/bollywood/chennai-express-collection-rs-33-12-cr-on-friday-9149.html</ref>

please mention other sites data too Anubhav1792 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We're already been through this. Only Box Office India should be used.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 13:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013

chennai express collected 33.12cr first day at boxoffice 117.197.10.127 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: No source for it.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013

Please , Taran adarsh (Verified trade analyst) and many reliable sources have claimed and gave collection of Chennai Express's 1st day to be 33.12cr. Its Kind request to udpate it as sson as possible. BOI and Komal Nahta are not to be believed. Thanks ! Iamritz26 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

ENOUGH! Only Box Office India will be used!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013

1st day is 33.12cr . Source ??? --> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=566273190102615&set=a.462020980527837.108862.449517261778209&type=1&theater

OFFICIAL CHENNAI EXPRESS PAGE ! Enough of shitty relies ! Go and update it with 33.12cr Iamritz26 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Enough of this crap! As I said before, only Box Office India will be used!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 16:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013

the film has collected 33.12 crore on the first day leaving behind Ek the tiger which had collected 31.25 crore. 182.18.177.142 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Seriously, this needs to get stopped.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 16:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013

i want to edit the chennai express movie wikepidia please give me the permission Md Juyel Haque (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Please specify what exactly needs to be changed.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 16:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013

please change the box office india collections of chennai express to 33.12 and it has beaten ek tha tigers record according to http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/1872682/report-chennai-express-mints-rs33-12-crore-on-opening-day http://www.indianexpress.com/news/shah-rukh-khans-chennai-express-collects-rs-39-cr-creates-history/1153658/ http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Shah-Rukh-Khan-starrer-Chennai-Express-mints-Rs-33-crore-on-opening-day/Article1-1106072.aspx Tukur123 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done: I think this is the only solution to stop this.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 17:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PP. Don't think we can leave it to certain individuals who can break general consensus and do whatever pleases them. Fideliosr (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarandhoni, Pleasant1623, and myself agree about the clause. That's the best way to end the legitimate concerns people like Tukur123 have. We added the clause just like in JTHJ. So please stop vandalizing the page Fidliosr. Ashermadan (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, if the clause should be added, add it to every single Hindi film. Box office figures in other trade publications are always bigger than Box Office India. Stop being a fanboy. Why only Shahrukh Khan films? Fideliosr (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, it is highly possible that you are either sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting as your history implicates. It is for everyone to see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Ashermadan Fideliosr (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You add it to every Hindi film. It's not my job. You clearly have so much time on your hands that you keep on reverting edits at 3 AM in the morning in India. I agree it should be added. The precedent has been started on JTHJ and there was excensive discussion then. So please stop vandalizing this page. Ashermadan (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in order to maintain uniformity, it was decided that only Box Office India must be used on all Hindi films. No exceptions could be made to this general consensus. Fideliosr (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand English. We aren't removing Box Office India figures. We're adding a separate clause talking about the controversy of the figures and how there's confusion. 4 editors here are for the clause and you're against it. So please stop vandalizing. Ashermadan (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't make further personal attacks. You're the one who's making embarrassing typos. Secondly, as I've mentioned, no clause must be used for sake of uniformity. Only, repeat only, Box Office India must be used for revenue details of Hindi films. Every experienced editor who's been working on Hindi film related articles knows that. Fideliosr (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the discussion of the 'JTHJ' talk page archives. This has already been decided by the majority of editors here. Can you count? 4 outweighs 1. Ashermadan (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

But what about all the films that released before and after JTHJ? Factual Proof (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You can add clauses to them too. I don't mind. I don't have enough time to do so. I'm sure you two do. It doesn't matter. You two will lose interest in trolling this article in a few days or weeks. I'll make changes then. Ashermadan (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your argument about JTHJ is based on WP:OSE. Moreover, read WP:PNSD. It's established, and rather famous, consensus to use Box Office India only. Other established editors will agree. Fideliosr (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to Ashermadan's claims, there is no discussion in JTHJ's talk that allowed such a clause, and nor is there any such clause in the actual article for JTHJ. Factual Proof (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, that's my point. I don't mean any disrespect for User:Ashermadan but he gets rather emotional when it comes to SRK related articles and starts hurling abuses, using sockpuppetry to push his agenda. His terrible history states so. This behavior must be stopped now. Fideliosr (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Text to be added to the page

There have been a lot of edit requests made about this, but editors still haven't seemed to realise the reason why the requests aren't being accepted. There has been no discussion about the proposed text to go in the article, and there needs to be discussion so that we can be sure that there is a consensus to add text to the article. Edit requests that haven't been discussed are going to be turned down. So, to fix this, I thought I would lead by example and propose some text to go in the article.

Now, from the requests above, it seems that many sources have used the 33.12 crore figure (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]), and that only one source, Boxoffice India, has used the 29.25 figure. There are two ways that we can deal with this. The first is to assume that the 29.25 crore figure is either a mistake or that adding it to the article would be giving it undue weight. The second is to treat it as a valid source, and to present both the 33.12 and 29.25 crore figures. Here is what the two versions would (roughly) look like in the "Box office" section:

1. The film's Hindi version went on to collect INR33.12 crore (US$5.5 million) on its first day, making it the highest Hindi opening day of all time and beating the previous record held by the film Ek Tha Tiger.
2. The film's Hindi version also made record takings on its first day. Sources including the Hindustan Times, the Times of India, DNA India and the International Business Times reported that the film took 33.12 crore (US$5.5 million), which would make it the highest Hindi opening day of all time. Boxoffice India reported a figure of 29.25 crore (US$4.9 million), which would put the film in second place behind Ek Tha Tiger.

References

So, which version would people prefer to use? Would you like to change the text in any way? Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I take the second one.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 08:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a read through the discussion at WP:DRN#Chennai Station, and I noticed that Fideliosr found this source. This means that the claim for 29.25 crore isn't just limited to one site - does anyone have any suggestions on how we can change the wording to reflect this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually Komal nahta and BOI posted 29 , all other trade analyst and websites posted 33 cr..So 33 cr is official figure. still second one is best (mention both) Ernavneet89 (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (talk)

Even I agree to go with the second one. Pmnikhil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.194.39 (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion, CE's official figures (by UTV) were 33cr as well. I feel you should add that to the mkodification you are making. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.133.8 (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, why dont you put something like this? The movie, according to trade analyst Taran Adarsh, collected around 33.12cr on its opening day, making it the highest opening day collection overtaking the previous best Ek Tha Tiger. The collections was later confirmed by leading newspapers (put the names) and the movie's official producers, UTV Motion Pictures. Box Office India however quoted contrasting figures,stating how the movie with a collection of 29.5cr remained second on the all-tome opening day records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.133.8 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite true. As I've already mentioned on dispute resolution thread, two leading trade analysts (Komal Nahta and Amod Mehra) and a cinema exective have supported the 29 crore figure in addition to Box Office India:

"Absolutely wrong. Leading trade analyst Komal Nahta also reported 29 crore figure: http://www.emirates247.com/entertainment/shah-rukh-s-chennai-express-edges-past-salman-s-ek-tha-tiger-2013-08-11-1.517189 .... Another noted trade analyst Amod Mehra and Amul Mohan of Super Cinema have also suggested the 29.5 crore figure: Trade pundits differ on 'Chennai Express' beating 'Ek Tha Tiger'

Fideliosr (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

33 crore figure is primarily based on the production company's data which they could inflate for promotional purposes. It's interesting here to note that there have been many controversies regarding high box office numbers put up with the help of PR agencies. Here at Wikipedia, we prefer independent and third-party data and that, in addition to uniformity, is the reason why we have traditionally used Box Office India in the first place. Fideliosr (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Many editors, for instance User:Ashermadan, have tried to take unfair advantage of this practice and push thier POV and fanboyism. See how enthusiastically he'd "advocated" the "box office india only" policy here to which he is the most vocal "vetoer" right now. This kind of behavior sometimes gets so hilarious. Fideliosr (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fideliosr Do you have any personal problem with srk/CE .. All user agreed with second option to mention both. Box Office India is not official Site.. Komal nahta dnt even have verified account to post collection.. Taran Adarsh is famous critic . All news website posted 33.12 as first day collection.. still we r agree with posting both collection... For your information taran adarsh provide independent data.. he has nothing to do with production company.. `Ernavneet89 (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am supporting Box Office India. It is more reliable and trustable than Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahata. But due to the difference, I think the second option is the best.--Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 11:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You may already know this, Ernavneet89, but just a friendly reminder. Taran Adarsh is humorously known in the media as a "5 star" critic. He's a very controversial guy (just google) and most of the time his reported data is very similar or directly influenced by the box office numbers put up by the production company. I don't have a problem with anybody including SRK or Salman or Aaamir, but nobody has the right to abuse the system and encourage fanboyism. Fideliosr (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I would go with 2nd option. Let readers have all the facts & let them decide. Afterall we are into crowdsourcing & as such we should not make judgment at our level & pass it crowd. Let people have both the figures for BO collection and let them decide (instead of forcing our own data on them) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movierdb (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet another account (read: possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet) created on 16:00, 10 August 2013 :S Fideliosr (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi fideliosr: i am unable to get your reasoning. what i am asking is to present all the fact to people & let them decide. So it makes no sense from you to comment on this things.

Movierdb (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Fideliosr , Yes i know he is a very controversial guy but same is true for komal nahta(less popular) . thats why second option is the best option (as pleasant said).. All news channels/newspapers use his (taran's) collection as official because Boi is unofficial website... Many popular websites like boxofficecapsule ,bollywoodhungama, bussiness of cinema provided 33 cr first day collection... Ernavneet89 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

29cr: Komal Nahta, Box Office India, Amod Mehra, Girish Johar (ex-Balaji official, hence possibly favouring them). 33cr: Taran Adarash, Joginder Tuneja, Indicine, UTV Motion Pictures (official), koimoi.com, indiafm.com, glamsham.com, The Times of India, HT, The Indian Express, Filmfare, Business of Cinema, Box Office Capsule, Box Office Detail, Manish Dubey, Aajtak, NDTV, ABP News, ETC channel, naachgaana.com.

I think its clear where the more weightage is. Komal Nahta in the past too (read Special 26) came into controversy for posting incorrect figures only because Akshay Kumar rejected to give him an interview. He also had a break out with Taran Adarsh recently, threating him OPENLY on a public platform (link: http://www.naachgaana.com/2013/05/14/komal-nahata-declares-war-against-taran-adarsh-komal-nahata/comment-page-1/). So there is no question of certainly considering him genuine. Maybe that is the reason why both koimoi.com(removed him from the critic/trade analyst position) and ETC (in contrast to their analyst, they are giving the official figures of 33.12cr) are moving away from him.

Now, even if you are blaming Taran Adarsh, you cant blame all the above sources being wrong. As a matter of fact, 33.12 should be on wiki as the collection figure. However, respecting that you have always maintained BOI as a source, you should now atleast put option 2 from above as the official text. Otherwise, Wikipedia may not only end up losing a lot of credibility but also a lot of frequent users, including me. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.185.37 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh and the above message was by me, just in case am attempted to be placed as a fake user. --182.68.185.37 (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've added my second suggestion to the article for now, as everyone seems to be in agreement that we should mention both figures. This wording can of course be refined through further discussion. I suggest that you include the exact wording that you would like to see added to the article, and start a new subsection so that it will be easier for other editors to comment on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good sir, thank you so much! Just 2 points: a) Except BOI, all websites/experts quoted it to collect 6.75 on the first day. In both cases (6 or 6.75) it over took the previous highest of 3I. b) Could you further add that the 33.12cr fig was officially confirmed by UTV? Adds weightage to the fact. :) Thanks a lot again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.185.37 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. So, what is your proposed wording? You need to provide a wording for editors to discuss before we can come to a consensus on what to do. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Still very weak consensus due to so many shady newly registered users and random IPs. I don't favor the use of a range at all. Nonetheless here is my suggestion:

The film's Hindi version made record takings on its first day. Sources including the film's production company, UTV Motion Pictures, and publications such as Hindustan Times, the Times of India, DNA India and the International Business Times reported that the film collected INR33.12 crore (US$5.6 million), which would make it the highest Hindi opening day of all time. Box Office India and a few prominent trade analysts including Komal Nahta and Amod Mehra, however, reported a figure of INR29.25 crore (US$4.9 million), which would put the film in second place behind Ek Tha Tiger.

Trade pundits differ on 'Chennai Express' beating 'Ek Tha Tiger' and Shah Rukh's 'Chennai Express' edges past Salman's 'Ek Tha Tiger'?

Fideliosr (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Making in an exception in this caseonly is completely unacceptable for the sake of uniformity on Wikipedia. Please note that the arguments are by newly registered users who have perhaps only registered to break the Box Office India trend that has lasted for several years. Would the same users care to alter other Hindi film articles to acknowledge sources other than BOI? I doubt it. Factual Proof (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree here. These so-called new "editors" and IPs (possible sockpuppets or meatpuppets) are only here to promote fanboyism and general disruption. If it goes on like this, no experienced editor or sane person will continue working on this "collaborative" project. Fideliosr (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

See how this fella, for instance, who even threatened us of self-immolation, enthusiastically opposed the use of sources other than Box Office India on this film. This kind of behavior (and users) contribute nothing to this project but only abuses the system. Fideliosr (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Update Boxoffice

Just came here to tell that the film has crossed 100cr mark and I don't think its the right time as I could see the number of requests for just 33 cr here. Well, if we can only take reports from BOI please update collection to 92 cr. And it is a Top All Time Top Opening Weekend collection.

Thank you. rahul (talk2me) 09:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: please include the exact wording that you would like to see in the article, and leave a little time for others to comment on it. If everyone reaches a consensus to include your proposed wording, then please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template so that an admin can add the text to the article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 August 2013

Chennai Express opened on its 1st Friday spectacularly at the Domestic Box Office. The film on its opening day alone has earned whooping 33.12 crores, smashing all previous highest opening day record of any film. With that the film’s total income already rests at 39.85 crores, adding the film’s collections from its preview shows and its weekend collection reached 100.43 crores 110.226.60.246 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Add info: film's aka name in peru

In peru, the movie is known as: Una travesía de amor. Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2112124/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt
I think this info should go to Release section. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on 13 August 2013

Producers Disney UTV reported a weekend gross of Rs. 100.42 crores including earnings of Rs. 6.75 crores from Thursday paid previews, making it the fastest film to cross the Rs.100 crore mark.[8] The film also set opening weekend records in foreign territories taking in a total of Rs.50 crores approx, including record collections from key markets USA ($2.47 million), UAE (AED 7.73 million) and UK (£934,118).[9][10] --Anoopkn (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This also makes it the biggest opening weekend for any Bollywood movie. Moreover, it is the film with biggest opening weekend worldwide with whooping 163 crores in 3 days. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/498637/20130813/chennai-express-box-office-collection-records-shahrukh.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.144.82 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the figure should be edited to Rs. 100 Crores now. OwnDealers (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Box Office sources

Websites like Koimoi,Bollywood Hungama etc are associated with people which have link with bollywood.For example,person's like Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahta are popular among Bollywood celebrity,s especially with directors.They often host them for their shows.It is possible that they could be biased with their figures.So we cant trust them unless we have no option.But reliable newspapers and websites like boxofficeindia,boxofficemojo are independent.As a reliable source,we can use any well known newspaper and news agency websites.Nothing is pondered as legitimate tracker for box office figures but we have to choose something to add here.So,the main point of concern is Boxofficeindia.com.I think it's not offensive to say that some users have ego against it because the amount of money it has been updating is lesser then some masala websites.It looks irrational to them.Boxofficeindia is one of the websites mentioned in some reliable newspapers.See here.Anyhow,all reliable source have same priority but i consider personal bollywood websites untrustable.All views and replies are welcome.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why there is a confusion. In the edit request above by me, the source is The Hindu Business Line (I don't think anybody would doubt credibility of that) and they in turn has referred to inputs from Disney UTV, the distributors. Even in the US, sites like boxofficemojo quotes figures supplied by the distributors and not figures supplied by any so called trade pundits (what's their source anyway?). As far as boxoffice India is concerned, the figures they report as nett collections ( gross collections after tax). In their list here, you can see it clearly; they are reporting opening weekend collections of Ek Tha Tiger as just Rs. 56.5 crores while the same for Chennai Express 86 crores.--Anoopkn (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For now, everyone is reporting that the movie has reached above 100 crore mark. OwnDealers (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 august 2013

Hi, I want to include the latest info about the box office collection, Can I? Benison {Talk with me} 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey,and its 285 million and 325 million on saturday and sunday respectively............Not 28.5 and 32.5....... Please change... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.90.245 (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Seeing recent editing trend, I have some doubt either paid editing or bad type of CoI editing is going on in this article. --Tito☸Dutta 12:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But what's COI editing?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Conflict of Interest editing. --Tito☸Dutta 06:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference in Nett. domestic collections of Chennai Express is getting big with Rs 11 crore gap as of Wednesday

The difference in Nett. domestic collections of Chennai Express is getting big with Rs 11 crore gap as of Wednesday. See this Rs 126 cr: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5963&nCat=
Rs 137.10 cr by wedneday,August 14,2013: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/special-features/id/200
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/499242/20130815/chennai-express-box-office-collection-shahrukh-ouatimd.htm
http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/chennai-express-picks-up-1st-wednesday-box-office-collections/

Please do some reality check on BoxofficeIndia,which now says Rs 92 cr told by BOI for opening weekend(incl.paid previews) is also not 100% correct. http://www.boxofficeindia.com/youdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5955&nCat=
This website keeps on deleting its previous pages.BOI gave Ek tha tiger Rs 31.32 crore for first day ,but it deleted those pages and now it gave it Rs 30.52 crore --Tarandhoni (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What information BOI is providing are actuals and actuals are 100% correct, while Bollywood Hungama and Koimoi are providing are studio estimates, which are 100% incorrect. Stop bossing around and don't tell us what sources we should use and what not. And plus, do you really think that you will say anything (like "Box Office India is a biased website, don't use it", "We should discard BOI now as it is showing huge difference", "BOI is an anti-SRK site" etc.) and we will listen to you? If yes, then sorry bro, you're seriously wrong.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 10:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Box-office India is 100% correct and unbiased. It might lack the sheen and colourful appearance but then again not all good things are beautiful. Tarandhoni what are you? get back into your senses, 6th included if you please. No offence meant and none should be taken. Chennai Express's collections cannot be boosted any further even if it was posted on Wikipedia that it collected 100 crores on Wednesday. Koimoi, Bollywood Hungama get paid boat-loads of money to post whatever stupid figure the producer and the star wishes. $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 12:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The user tarandhoni is actually sock of sanjeetbond who have been blocked many times with multiple accounts.That is real problem for articles.He has Permanent ego against boxofficeindia.A good user learn from mistakes but he has been always come out with the same agenda.If we use reliable newspapers,it would be ok but cant agree with masala websites unless we have no option.It is better if we open another sockpuppetry case against him.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 13:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express box office

This thurday CE got 19.6cr as on the confirmation link. CE has grossed more than 150 crore in domestic box office here is the link. It was confirm by Taran Adarsh http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office/top5-hindi-movies/id/991/date/2013-08-16

here is another confirmation link https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh

Scroll down abit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.6.17 (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express box office 16 th August

CE box office as of today Is around 167.10 crore Here is the link. http://m.koimoi.com/box-office/chennai-express-2nd-friday-box-office-collections/?maneref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.67.102.95 (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai express oversea box office

72 crore in 9 days confirmed by Taran Adarsh on his twitter

U need to scroll down it'll be written Here is the link https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.67.102.95 (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Tarandhoni

Tarandhoni has made the box office section very complicated with his recent edits. Some of his information even goes against the sources provided. I've reverted his edits for this reason. Could be added back only if consensus is gained in its favor. Please discuss here. Also, it has been confirmed that there are many socks working on this article (check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mastung). Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• These new accounts are continuously making disruptive edits. See #Concerns section above and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sameer Arpitaqwe. We need to find out all the socks and have them blocked. --Tito☸Dutta 16:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

::Fideliosr ,which information goes against the sources provided by me in chennai express. Many are BOI data and the other sources are acording to the consensus that both the data will be included for gross figuress of chennai Express.First talk on talk page of chennai Express. dont undo it directly.You can't do like that,--Tarandhoni (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite section

I have added a "rewrite section" template. The whole section is written is this format A has given N stars and then a quote which makes it WP:QUOTEFARM and too some extent unencyclopedic. There are more issues in the article. --Tito☸Dutta 17:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus against BOI web site

Ibosnetwork.com & Boxofficeindia.com data are not cited by most of the Indian media anymore as its star analyst Mr Taran Adarsh left the team to join bollywoodhungama.com (which is now widely cited) & syndicated by Boxofficecapsule.com, koimoi.com, boxofficeindia.co.in, businessofcinema.com, etc.

Stick to reality.

Stick to reality? Are you threatning us? And as matter of fact, Box Office Capsule, Koimoi, Ibosnetwork.com and Box Office India.co.in are NOT considered reliable sources as they promote bias and stupidity (and they also overestimate the data). We will stick to Box Office India.com, no matter which idiot tells us not to use it. Learn to assume good faith before making a request. Regards, ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 17:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ibosnetwork.com & Boxofficeindia.com data are not cited by most of the Indian media anymore as its star analyst Mr Taran Adarsh left the team to join bollywoodhungama.com (which is now widely cited) & syndicated by Boxofficecapsule.com, koimoi.com, boxofficeindia.co.in, businessofcinema.com, etc.

Stick to reality.

Stick to reality? Are you threatning us? And as matter of fact, Box Office Capsule, Koimoi, Ibosnetwork.com and Box Office India.co.in are NOT considered reliable sources as they promote bias and stupidity(and they also overestimate the data). We will stick to Box Office India.com, no matter which idiot tells us not to use it. Learn to assume good faith before making a request. Regards, ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 17:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, sir, I am not threatening. Bollywoodhungama.com, timesofindia.com, hindustantimes.com are genuine portals. Stick to reality. Please remove references to narrowly cited sources like BOI. Many of their pages are being deleted after publication. For instance, articles No.5966 & No.5956 have been removed after publication. They are not consistent & hence unreliable. (http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5966, http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5956).

NO, THEY ARE RELIABLE. STOP GIVING US STUPID ADVICES.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 17:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

there is no question in requesting them, do they own wikipedia?? world knows which site is good or which is bad.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.87.22 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

:: User talk:Pleasant1623,according to you Koimoi, Ibosnetwork.com and Box Office India.co.in are NOT considered reliable sources as they promote bias and stupidity(and they also overestimate the data),then in that case BoxOfficeIndia.com used to underestimate the data.Can you tell me why BOI gave 31.23 cr for ek tha tiger 1st day business with territorial breakdown and then after 8-9 months deleted those pages and gave Rs 30.25 as first day business for ek tha tiger. the site keeps deleting as the site is operated by handful of people who dont have much link to all the 11 circuits in India. they will assume first and then they delete the data.BOI never give detailed overseas collection details(like per country,per screen details).Bollywoodhungama.com is much better .--Tarandhoni (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is getting plain silly due to disruptive editors like Tarandhoni. It's beyond logic to compare Box Office India figures (which are obviously lesser) of films like Ek Tha Tiger, 3 Idiots to other inflated gross figures from mainstream media (which is much higher and, nevertheless, most likely paid journalism). Fideliosr (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get your information from? The "star" Taran Adarsh left whose team? And Koimoi syndicates Bollywoodhungama? You kidding or what? They're fierce competitors. Do you even know what "syndication" means? Fideliosr (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

NONE of the Indian box office figures are absolute truth. The are many sources, and many of them count things differently, given that situation, we had earlier discussion on what to cite. It was found the BoI was cited in some peer reviewed journals, and we followed suit. That being said, there is no harm in mentioning figures from newspapers such as ToI or HT, with source attribution in the text.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's now confirmed. User:Tarandhoni, User:Satyamcompany and User:Satyashiva have been identified as socks here. Fideliosr (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I knew it. Also this Tehmimanator can be a possible sock.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already requested twice to add possible sockpuppets with diffs as evidence. Now this time if I add Tehmimanator again in the same investigation, the checkuser would get really annoyed :) Regards. Fideliosr (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As i expected,he has been blocked many times but come frequently to disrupt articles.Nice to see him block.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 10:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)