Talk:Enthiran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Make it semi protected

I see that some users are messing with the movies budget. I have cited a link stating the budget too. so I would suggest making this page semi protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merdocx (talk • contribs) 10:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Considering that AFDs create too much of a fearful mindset that the information will perish forever, I am instead suggesting a merge to the director's article at S. Shankar. First, though, I highly recommend the trimming of junk information, especially the sentences having "Several websites claimed..." or "Several sources reported..." Movie websites, if they are not reporting the words of primary sources, are not reliable. Now, per the notability guidelines for future films, which is set up for the uncertain production of films like this one having lingered since 2001, the content should be merged elsewhere. If some are so sure that production will begin, then the article can easily be revived. If production does not take place as has happened in the past, then the merging will be done. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging shouldn't be considered. The article will stand till it gets called off, confimingly dismissed, etc. With your kind permission, I request to remove the merge tab. Universal Hero (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the notability guidelines for future films and future films department's process, merging is the most appropriate option. This article's layout is misleading -- there is no actual film being produced, so templates like {{Future film}} and {{Infobox Film}} are misapplied here based on its present stage in the production cycle. It would be better off being merged or perhaps as a straightforward prose article with none of the traits of a typical film article. To do that, we could comment out both aforementioned templates and re-word the lead section to reflect that it is only a project in development, not actually a film where resources have been fully invested in its actual production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Give it time. It's a definite film, waiting for the leads to finish their current projects. Will be rolling by June. Universal Hero (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's the problem; it's been on and off again since 2001. So many factors can interfere with production; budget issues, scripting issues, casting issues. It's why the guideline is worded as it is; we've seen so many projects fall by the wayside. If a Wikipedia entry existed for each one, it'd be meaningless, context-free clutter, ultimately lacking in long-term notability. Steve ^{T • C} 23:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support a merge, per above arguments both here and in the AfD. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: After Rajinikanth signed in for this project, all the financial worries has left for Director and the movie will be made at ANY COST. Rajinikanth is one man industry and commands a loyals fans like Jackie chan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. -- Sam Thomas.

NO MERGE: Shooting has started Universal Hero (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Started with photo shoot. -- Sam Thomas.

Tittle Changed/Renamed

Valid Source confirmed the title of the movie have been changed from Robot to Yenthram. Ive renamed the wikipage from Robot to Yenthram. Any disputes please discuss. Announcements Rajini’s next film is titled Yenthram! Killerserv^Talk 09:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The technicians in Endhiran

The technicians in Endiran have been confirmed by Ayngaran in a press release, I have pasted it from their official website, please don't delete them. Relocate them if you want to. C.Arunpandiyan is the 2nd producer and not Kishore Lulla. The release date is 13th April, 2010 according to their website. You can check www.ayngaran.com if you have any disputes/objections. They are the producers. How come Ms.Banu's name is being left out in the Technician's List? She was responsible for the Youthful looks of The Boss in Shivaji and she is now on shoot with the Team at Peru. But no mention of her name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhim12 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-cite your sources

There was a problem with the sources when a few lines had to be relocated. Sources for Sabu Cyril, Manoj as assistant director have been deleted. Whoever posted it, please re-cite the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.190.120 (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvement on "Filming" section.

Why are there no improvement on the "Filming" section. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 11:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.197.210.224, 1 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} telugu title is ROBO not yanthram

117.197.210.224 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Request move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Skier Dude (talk 04:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Endhiran → Enthiran — "Enthiran" is the official title of the movie and not "Endhiran". Arfaz (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, change it to

Enthiran, the official anglicized title of the project. Universal Hero (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update the Soundtrack section

Check here
Apple iTunes store
UK and Australia 1st
US 2nd Place

Edit request from Demon947, 17 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} budget 225 crores prints 2250

Demon947 (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Hein

(Brian Chris Lance (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC))

The Action director of this Endhiran movie is not Yuen Pin or whoever, it is Peter Hein, please have this corrected as i am not sure how to edit the same.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Enthiran → Endhiran — According to the IMDB page, Endhiran is the official title of the movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305797/. Nvarma85 (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, Archive of previous successful move request in the other direction (Endhiran → Enthiran) of 5-16 August 2010. Fæ (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Against - IMDB is not a reliable source on which to base an article move. I note that the studio making the film (see sunnetwork.org) call it "Enthiran" which seems pretty definitive. Fæ (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: From the same 'Sun Pictures' press release for the media (print, web and other), is this latest press release. The 'About us' page of Sun Pictures mentions 'Endhiran (The Robot)' About Sun Pictures. Can we atleast consider the move now? Nvarma85 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The same press release uses Enthiran as well as Endhiran. Obviously the transliteration is interchangeable but the issuing studio uses Enthiran more often. Unless you can find a definitive statement about which is the 'correct' English spelling then moving it seems pointless.

If you check the talk page archive, the article was moved from Endhiran to Enthiran in August. There would have to be a very well sourced rationale to move it back again. Fæ (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since both versions are used in both Sun pictures site and Director Shankar's blog, I guess they are interchangeable. Although a google search ([1]) tries to correct 'Enthiran' to 'Endhiran'. Not a big deal I guess. Nvarma85 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Endhiran is the common romanisation of the movie title as appeared in various websites. Therefore I support Nvarma85's move request. Signed, kotakkasut 11:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Endhiran its appeared on various website eg. see rediff KuwarOnline ^Talk 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no debate that "Endhiran" appears on a number of websites. The point is that "Enthiran" appears more often and is used in more authoritative sources (such as most of the producer's material), this was the reason for the previous move from "Endhiran" to "Enthiran". Please refer to the archive link above. Fæ (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Its ok, I was just reading and I found the name written in Endhiran, I agree with varma that its not big deal. :) KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - moving to "Endhiran" will only result in requests to move back here. It does not matter which spelling the article uses as long as one spelling is a redirect to the other and there is a mention in the lead. Green Giant (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

INR to $ Conversion

Just curious to know why we cannot add INRConvert template, which also shows in US dollar conversion as well as in INR, I tried 2-3 times to add but other editors reverted it. I think it was good idea to add on English wiki as $ is international currency and better to understand than Indian currency(no offence I m Indian too). If we can discuss it will be good to understand why? its not relevant to add in this article. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why include dollars when the producers of the film paid in rupees?. It isn't necessary for readers to know how many US dollars the film would have cost in today's money, for the same reason that articles on Hollywood movies don't need to show how much they would have cost today. Whats important is that we have a source which says R162 crore were spent but doesn't mention any other currencies. If there is a reliable source which gives a dollar value then we can include that but as it stands there is no compelling reason to use the convertor. Also you should have waited a few more days before readding the convertor. Green Giant (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Kuwar on this but not so much so that I'd ever actually bother editing it in. I know absolutely nothing about Indian currency and its economy. Seeing R162 means absolutely nothing to me (and I would suspect to most non-Indian English readers) and so much so that it's hard to see the point in including it in the article. Having the conversion built in actually makes that piece of information meaningful. As for converting old figures to contemporary values I think that's a good idea but less pressing. I think a lot of people have a better feel for how currency values change over time even if it's not a specific conversion in mind. They'll at least know that having a million dollars in 1900 is a much bigger deal than having that same amount today. With Indian currency (sans conversion) there is nothing similar to go on. R162 could be $1,000 or a billion dollars relative to the Indian economy. Also, even if you don't think it's necessary to add the conversion template I'm not sure if I see how adding it would make the article worse. And off the top of my head I don't see how this so different than using temperature conversion templates. SQGibbon (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is not whether anybody knows about the rupee or the Indian economy. It is simply a matter of what the source says and in this instance it says "R162 crore". It would be acceptable to change that to "R1.62 billion" to make it more clearer for readers but beyond that we should only include a dollar value if the source gives a figure. At the time of writing, the dollar:rupee rate has changed from 46.845 rupees per dollar to 44.35 rupees per dollar in just one month, which means that if we had left the INR convertor in place it would have shown roughly $34,582,132 on 1 September 2010 and $36,527,621 on 1 October 2010 - a difference of roughly $1,945,488 (almost two million dollars). What exactly is achieved by showing such huge differences, other than confusing uninformed readers?

As for SQGibbon's last question, conversions between temperature scales don't fluctuate from day to day the way currencies do, so for example 32°F was 0°C yesterday and today, and it will be tomorrow and the day after; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use that conversion template wherever possible. Green Giant (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "R1.62 billion" is any more meaningful or useful than "R162 crore". Anyway, if I'm reading the conversion page correctly then I think the conversion is done only once -- the instance when the template is first called, meaning that the value would not fluctuate. This leads to the question that if an editor did the conversion manually and included that figure with the article is that acceptable? If it is acceptable then using the template just makes things easier.

And then on second thought, given how often the budget and gross values get vandalized this would mean the conversion would continue to fluctuate all the time anyway which would undermine whatever usefulness it might have had. Oh well. SQGibbon (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I added just for International viewer who doesn't understand ₹, why we need to add? let me explain, this wiki is written in internationally known language called "English" and if we add something that doesn't understand by rest of world, what point in adding it?, just for India?, I don't think so its just Indian wiki(again don't get me wrong I m proud Indian too). If this is Hindi/or any native language I never thought of adding it in first place because the viewer are mostly Indian. But in this case its viewer are international not just Indian, so adding $ conversion makes more sense here. Specially for this article as this(movie) will be released at large scale in rest of the world which means more international viewers. No offence, thanks KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, first of all, why do you keep supposing that people won't understand what the Indian rupee is? If they don't know what it is then isn't it obvious that they would easily find out what it is using Wikipedia itself? Also, what does the fact that this article is in English have to do with the currency?? Doesn't make ANY sense. Just because the viewers of this article are "international" there is no compulsion on Wikipedia to convert currencies to US Dollars. Only measurements (such as weight, length, volume) should be converted. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, well my point was if we use international language than our own language then why not international currency? I m not saying that we should remove ₹ I m saying just add converter or add $ in braces. So the rest of the world will know that this is also costliest film or Indian too developed costliest movies not just cheap ones. Yes there is no compulsion about it, but again if we think deeply why we written this article? or what Wikipedia is? then answer probably would be same i.e. providing information/knowledge to the world. I was just trying to make it simple to read. Again no offence :) KuwarOnline ^Talk 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets clear up some misunderstandings:

• When editing Wikipedia, you should assume that the readers will be completely uninformed, and that goes as equally for US dollars as Indian rupees. You should not assume that readers will necessarily have a grasp of what the dollar is, because not all English-speakers are Americans; in the UK a dollar value won't mean anything until it is converted into pound sterling.
• The US dollar is not the international currency, it is the largest reserve currency (forming about two-thirds of reserves), but the Euro is a significant challenger, forming about a quarter of reserves; so if we must have a conversion to dollars, why should we not also have a conversion to euros?
• English is not the definitive international language; it is just one of several widely-used languages which could be regarded as international; thats why the United Nations uses six official languages (Arabic, Chinese Mandarin, English, French, Russian, and Spanish)

If the output of the template will not change, which conversion rate would you suggest? The current rate in {{INRConvert/CurrentRate}} is relevant only if the film was paid for during the last month. The relevant rate would have been the rate when the film was paid for. We can avoid this by simply sticking to what the source says. If you can find a reliable source which gives both a rupee value and a dollar value, then that can be included in the infobox. Green Giant (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Still don't agree with adding US dollar figure to the infobox. A conversion can exist in the body paragraphs of articles, but it seems a bit too detailed when it is added to the infobox. By the way, I still don't understand the real reason to keep the US dollar figure, other than the attempt to keep the article "international", which doesn't seem to justify the need for it. An Indian film deserves its budget indicated in Indian currency, while a French film requires its budget in French currency, UK film in pounds, and so on. Adding the USD value of Enthiran's budget would require all non-American film articles to have their budget values listed in USD. It's better we stick to a similar format of infoboxes in articles and just keep the budget value in the currency of its native country. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on adding native currency, I never said we should just add $(see my above comments), the only one reason behind this was to keep this article as much as readable to everyone, as I said $ is internationally more known than any other currency in world. I know that English is not officially recognized international language same like Hindi is not official national language(ref1 ref2), but still we treat Hindi as national language and widely spoken than any other language in India. Again if this article is part of Hindi Wikipedia then I never thought of adding it. Anyways don't wanna fight over it, Lets keep it as it is. KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is no fight of course, we are building consensus which is good. But adding USD value would sort of defy Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule, which is important. I think we can agree with USD conversion in the body paragraph, but just not in the Infobox. It is taking up space and extra lines and making it larger. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lot of bias in the artilcle

this article doesnt look like a wikipedia article, rather it looks like a movie review by a critic.. kindly update this article according to wikipedia norms and rules.. please.. let it be neutral.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobystones (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran was released in the UK on 30th September...

Although on the net it says 1st October, I personally saw it in the UK on the 30th September at 7:40PM. And the first show was at 5:45PM. I still have the ticket from the cinema. Does that count as advanced screening? Or is it an official release? ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chbabbu, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} look at this link, and add data to it. http://www.dailypioneer.com/287164/Robot-raises-filmdom-cine-goers%E2%80%99-euphoria-to-new-heights.html

Chbabbu (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Added Plot section

Have added a plot section to the page. Have a look and feel free to modify if it appears too long.

V.siddhesh 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.siddhesh (talk • contribs)

I think the plot section is quite weak. There is too much detail in some parts and you can't finish off the section by saying 'the rest of the film explains it', that defies the point of a plot section. Also Chitti does not start to fall in love with Sana after she kisses him, he has to be programmed with emotions and human feelings first, which Vaseegaran only does after Chitti obeys a command to attack him and thus Bohra proves the robot is not ready to be used in the army. You should also explain things like what the DRDO stands for. The bit about the girl who Chitti saves from the fire when she is naked is strange as well, she doesn't commit suicide, she runs out into the road and gets hit by a truck! I'm not sure how that qualifies as suicide. Would you like me to suggest a re-write? I can't edit the page myself. Mymindsmine (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, i got busy and never saw the wiki page till today. I guess its been re-written already. Siddhesh (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gopschennai, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10677952 budget 225 crores ONE DAY AMOUNT= PRINTS 2250 X 4 SHOWS X 500 SHEETS X 150 RS=67.5 Cr Per Day Gopschennai (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You simply provided a link. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to assume that the film received 100 per cent attendance in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi versions. The film reportedly received only 10 per cent attendance in Hindi version due to bandh in north India.

You seem to assume that all screens have minimum of 500 seats. It is incorrect. Most of the multiplexes have maximum of 200 seats.

You seem to assume that all classes of tickets were priced at Rs.150. It is incorrect. The maximum ceiling on ticket price is Rs.120. Anwar (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.242.238.238, 6 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} This movie if not an exact remake, it is inspired to a very high degree and is based on the main plot of the moive called Hollywood, made by Upendra in Kannada. This is an important note to mention, and necessary to credit the original story writer. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_%28Kannada_film%29

115.242.238.238 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You would need to provide a source that states this movie is copied from another. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aarudhnatraj, 8 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change DRDO to AIRD (Artificial Intelligence Research and Development). Only, the AIRD is depicted in the film, not the DRDO. Aarudhnatraj (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome. I've removed the reference to DRDO, but adding AIRD requires some reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vedaj89, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "His senior and head of the DRDO, Mr. Bohra" to "His senior and head of the AIRD (Artificial Inteligence Research Directorate), Mr. Bohra" because DRDO is a real organisation which is not mentioned in the film; it is AIRD (a fictitous organisation) which is repeatedly mentioned in the film. The following changes are to be made under the Plot section vedaj 12:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Done Welcome. I've removed the reference to DRDO, but adding AIRD requires some reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Endhiran first weekend and first week collection record surpassing all indian box office record creating new history

It is very very sad on you Anwar (talk) and I have no idea how you will allow good edits in future by anyone, even after giving sources. You are not ready to accept the facts. Its very very unfortunate to be reviewed in this bad manner. Never in wiki I went through like this. Please if you beleive you are a true wikipedian try to go for a consensus before adding what you feel is right ,which is against the whole world and sources. very bad and feel sorry !!! In your references 5 6 7 8 no where it is saying 62 crores. But the link I gave New Delhi Chronicles.com clearly says 950 million Indian rupees = 95 crores. Why you are not taking it. Then what beleive I have on those sites you added, especially when you are not ready to accept India's prime Times of India. In the first week the film netted 117 crores which is higher than Dabangg 82 crores - TOI explains it clearly. So mention that fact also along with, it equalled to sivaji life time collection. You are very much eager in adding all negative aspects of the movie, saying not doing well in delhi/punjabi etc., instead of positive reviews and collections. Note that Despite being a tamil movie it created history in Indian cinema which no bollywood movie will do in India as a whole.

You are so one sided and playing with your admins power. Too bad and soon other editors will raise question for sure.!!!

Anwar (talk) is neglecting all proper sources and doing edits without consideration of others.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

Anwar IS NOT ADMINISTRATOR. TO CHECK IF SOMEONE IS ADMINISTRATOR, GO TO THIS OFFICIAL LINK [2]. Search there to verify if one is a admin or not. Surely Anwar isnt in the list. If you suspect that [[User:Anwar saadat|Anwar] has multiple accounts, you may complain about this! More than one accounts is not allowed by wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varanwal (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Janagarraja, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} the gross revenue is 117 crore in one week

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bala1985ji, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Request to change the Box office Collection Information: Endhiran has collected 117 Crore within 7 days. It's a first Indian film to cross this mark within in a week. The recent hit Dabangg has collected 82 Crore. So, this the biggest hit of Indian film in terms of net collection. The film has got a net collection of Rs 60 crore in TN, Rs 30 crore in AP, Rs 8 crore in Karnataka, Rs 4 crore in Kerala and Hindi version Robot Rs 15 crore. Looking at the trend the film has crossed Dabangg's two weeks net collection in its first week itself.

The film had definitely grossed Rs 260 crore which was more than the entire collection of Aamir Khan starrer 'Ghajini'. Bohra said, The film has easily made a gross collection of Rs 200 crore plus which is nearly double of Dabangg." Link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News-News-By-Industry-Media/Entertainment-Entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms Bala1985ji (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done:The article seems well-cited. It is clearly mentioned that Endhiran has collected Rs. 117 crore indeed. For non-Hindi films, nett is the same as gross. That seems to be the source of your confusion. Thanks.CuteRobin (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Request to add information to Box Office Collection Information: The dubbed Hindi version of the film Robot too has done a business of nearly Rs 30 crore in the first week. Robot has broken all the norms of a dubbed film. No dubbed film crossed even the one crore mark. Link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News-News-By-Industry-Media/Entertainment-Entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms

Not done: The official web site of Bollywood's largest trade network - boxofficeindia.com - is giving a different picture. The Hindi version of the film is not quite doing brisk business. CuteRobin (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

well Cute Robin; nowhere in the boxofficeindia.com site, it says that its official or like that! you are making up your own story! at the link http://boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=about ; it says that . The numbers on this site are all indicative as actual numbers are rarely given out by producers and distributors. The site also says in its disclaimer, "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 AND OTHER USER AND MEMBER GENERATED PAGES AND THAT ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE, STATEMENTS, SERVICES, OFFERS OR OTHER INFORMATION OR CONTENT PRESENTED OR DISSEMINATED ON THE WEB SITE OR ON ANY OTHER USER OR MEMBER GENERATED PAGES ARE <THOSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AUTHORS WHO ARE SOLELY LIABLE FOR THEIR CONTENT.> " which clearly shows that its no official data whatsoever! So you guys don't go on discrediting the correct links given by us! Varanwal (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am tending to side with other people who have raised their concerns about CuteRobin. In fact I question CuteRobin's neutrality when he/she is defending the edits. The following link also talks about collections. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms Also BoxOfficeIndia is not an authorized or official site for India box office collections. So point being if you guys think economic times is not a site that can be trusted then BoxOfficeIndia should not either. Either remove references to Endhiran collection or update it with the information from Economic Times. MRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.245.9 (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 114.148.174.116, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please edit the first weekend collection details as it was mistakenly mentioned in the article that only 62 crore rupees were collected instead actual amount, 95 crore the highest amount collected by any Indian movie till date during first weekend of the release. There are few References given below. http://www.abcnews.in/entertainment-news/rajnikants-endhiran-surpasses-dabanggs-collections-7805/ http://mytamilchannel.com/index/endhiran-surpasses-all-records-of-box-office-collections-in-the-opening-weekend/ http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/9679.html 114.148.174.116 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CuteRobin (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.26.32.240, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

After reading this article, For me, It seems this article is not neutral especially about the box office collection information.there are so many articles in the web and various Indian newspapers have already published an article in their website about endhiran movie box office collection that has set a new record in the Indian cinema box office collection but i cannot see those information in this article and the box office collection collection information mentioned in this article is incorrect. There are many website publsihed information about the first weekend collection that Endhiran has crossed 95 crore rs just in the first 3 days of the release. Few References http://www.abcnews.in/entertainment-news/rajnikants-endhiran-surpasses-dabanggs-collections-7805/ http://mytamilchannel.com/index/endhiran-surpasses-all-records-of-box-office-collections-in-the-opening-weekend/ http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/9679.html

please.. let it be neutral and do not damage wikipedia's reputation .

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-117cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6716660.cms

The above link is from a reliable and one of the most trusted news channel in India . It clearly says , Endhiran movie has set a new record in terms of first week collection , but the way the article is written is not to give credit to Endhiran move but it suppose to .

The article goes and saying the following : Endhiran falls short of Dabangg opening]</ref> In the first week, the film grossed Rs. 117 crore from all versions thus matching the lifetime business of Sivaji.

I think, The above sentence not reflecting the new record made by endhiran instead it says dabangg still own the record and endhiran has just passed Sivaji movie collection.

I repeat it once again that , as per the above mentioned times of india's article 9http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-117cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6716660.cms), Endhiran movie has set a new record in terms of first week collection for any indian movie including debangg movie ,therefore please modify the article accordingly to give credit to endhiran movie for making new record as it deserve for that.

in terms of first weekend collection, there are so many news channel and web sites mentioned that endhiran collected 95 crores in just 3 days and this is also a new record in indian cinema history(please refer the above links provided) but if you don't agree with the reference links (then how can i agree with the link which the article provided for dabangg movie collection) then please consider to remove the first weekend collection information as the current first weekend collection information in the article about endhiran is conflicting with other websites and news channel's information.Moreover, the first weekend collection information is not required at all since Endhiran movie has already set a new record in terms of first week collection for any indian movie including debangg movie and endhiran is expected to make a new record in gross collection as well.

122.26.32.240 (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My thought about Wiki was that anyone can trust the wiki content. After reading this enthiran content, it's proved that I am wrong. Now I believe that wiki can be edited by anyone to show their personal view instead of the actual fact. Shame on Wiki because of some editors.

Not done: Your request spends more time accusing others of bad faith than it would have taken to simply make a specific request in a 'please change X to Y' manner. Please use less unhelpful rhetoric and just state your request and the sources which back it up. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bonqwert, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The last dialog "it started to think" - should be "i started to think"

Bonqwert (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Anwar (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot is a copyvio

• [Blog]

This movies plot in Wikipedia is an exact copy of this blog, Need to rewrite...--Kalarickan | My Interactions 10:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC) The critical reception section is mostly about the Hindi version. Given that the article is mainly about Enthiran, the critical responses could be from Tamil and Telugu sources as well.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Enthiran → Endhiran — According to the IMDB page, Endhiran is the official title of the movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305797/. Nvarma85 (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, Archive of previous successful move request in the other direction (Endhiran → Enthiran) of 5-16 August 2010. Fæ (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Against - IMDB is not a reliable source on which to base an article move. I note that the studio making the film (see sunnetwork.org) call it "Enthiran" which seems pretty definitive. Fæ (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: From the same 'Sun Pictures' press release for the media (print, web and other), is this latest press release. The 'About us' page of Sun Pictures mentions 'Endhiran (The Robot)' About Sun Pictures. Can we atleast consider the move now? Nvarma85 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The same press release uses Enthiran as well as Endhiran. Obviously the transliteration is interchangeable but the issuing studio uses Enthiran more often. Unless you can find a definitive statement about which is the 'correct' English spelling then moving it seems pointless.

If you check the talk page archive, the article was moved from Endhiran to Enthiran in August. There would have to be a very well sourced rationale to move it back again. Fæ (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since both versions are used in both Sun pictures site and Director Shankar's blog, I guess they are interchangeable. Although a google search ([3]) tries to correct 'Enthiran' to 'Endhiran'. Not a big deal I guess. Nvarma85 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Endhiran is the common romanisation of the movie title as appeared in various websites. Therefore I support Nvarma85's move request. Signed, kotakkasut 11:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Endhiran its appeared on various website eg. see rediff KuwarOnline ^Talk 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no debate that "Endhiran" appears on a number of websites. The point is that "Enthiran" appears more often and is used in more authoritative sources (such as most of the producer's material), this was the reason for the previous move from "Endhiran" to "Enthiran". Please refer to the archive link above. Fæ (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Its ok, I was just reading and I found the name written in Endhiran, I agree with varma that its not big deal. :) KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - moving to "Endhiran" will only result in requests to move back here. It does not matter which spelling the article uses as long as one spelling is a redirect to the other and there is a mention in the lead. Green Giant (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lot of bias in the artilcle

this article doesnt look like a wikipedia article, rather it looks like a movie review by a critic.. kindly update this article according to wikipedia norms and rules.. please.. let it be neutral.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobystones (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran was released in the UK on 30th September...

Although on the net it says 1st October, I personally saw it in the UK on the 30th September at 7:40PM. And the first show was at 5:45PM. I still have the ticket from the cinema. Does that count as advanced screening? Or is it an official release? ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chbabbu, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} look at this link, and add data to it. http://www.dailypioneer.com/287164/Robot-raises-filmdom-cine-goers%E2%80%99-euphoria-to-new-heights.html

Chbabbu (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.242.238.238, 6 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} This movie if not an exact remake, it is inspired to a very high degree and is based on the main plot of the moive called Hollywood, made by Upendra in Kannada. This is an important note to mention, and necessary to credit the original story writer. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_%28Kannada_film%29

115.242.238.238 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You would need to provide a source that states this movie is copied from another. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gopschennai, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10677952 budget 225 crores ONE DAY AMOUNT= PRINTS 2250 X 4 SHOWS X 500 SHEETS X 150 RS=67.5 Cr Per Day Gopschennai (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You simply provided a link. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to assume that the film received 100 per cent attendance in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi versions. The film reportedly received only 10 per cent attendance in Hindi version due to bandh in north India.

You seem to assume that all screens have minimum of 500 seats. It is incorrect. Most of the multiplexes have maximum of 200 seats.

You seem to assume that all classes of tickets were priced at Rs.150. It is incorrect. The maximum ceiling on ticket price is Rs.120. Anwar (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

INR to $ Conversion

Just curious to know why we cannot add INRConvert template, which also shows in US dollar conversion as well as in INR, I tried 2-3 times to add but other editors reverted it. I think it was good idea to add on English wiki as $ is international currency and better to understand than Indian currency(no offence I m Indian too). If we can discuss it will be good to understand why? its not relevant to add in this article. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why include dollars when the producers of the film paid in rupees?. It isn't necessary for readers to know how many US dollars the film would have cost in today's money, for the same reason that articles on Hollywood movies don't need to show how much they would have cost today. Whats important is that we have a source which says R162 crore were spent but doesn't mention any other currencies. If there is a reliable source which gives a dollar value then we can include that but as it stands there is no compelling reason to use the convertor. Also you should have waited a few more days before readding the convertor. Green Giant (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Kuwar on this but not so much so that I'd ever actually bother editing it in. I know absolutely nothing about Indian currency and its economy. Seeing R162 means absolutely nothing to me (and I would suspect to most non-Indian English readers) and so much so that it's hard to see the point in including it in the article. Having the conversion built in actually makes that piece of information meaningful. As for converting old figures to contemporary values I think that's a good idea but less pressing. I think a lot of people have a better feel for how currency values change over time even if it's not a specific conversion in mind. They'll at least know that having a million dollars in 1900 is a much bigger deal than having that same amount today. With Indian currency (sans conversion) there is nothing similar to go on. R162 could be $1,000 or a billion dollars relative to the Indian economy. Also, even if you don't think it's necessary to add the conversion template I'm not sure if I see how adding it would make the article worse. And off the top of my head I don't see how this so different than using temperature conversion templates. SQGibbon (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is not whether anybody knows about the rupee or the Indian economy. It is simply a matter of what the source says and in this instance it says "R162 crore". It would be acceptable to change that to "R1.62 billion" to make it more clearer for readers but beyond that we should only include a dollar value if the source gives a figure. At the time of writing, the dollar:rupee rate has changed from 46.845 rupees per dollar to 44.35 rupees per dollar in just one month, which means that if we had left the INR convertor in place it would have shown roughly $34,582,132 on 1 September 2010 and $36,527,621 on 1 October 2010 - a difference of roughly $1,945,488 (almost two million dollars). What exactly is achieved by showing such huge differences, other than confusing uninformed readers?

As for SQGibbon's last question, conversions between temperature scales don't fluctuate from day to day the way currencies do, so for example 32°F was 0°C yesterday and today, and it will be tomorrow and the day after; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use that conversion template wherever possible. Green Giant (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "R1.62 billion" is any more meaningful or useful than "R162 crore". Anyway, if I'm reading the conversion page correctly then I think the conversion is done only once -- the instance when the template is first called, meaning that the value would not fluctuate. This leads to the question that if an editor did the conversion manually and included that figure with the article is that acceptable? If it is acceptable then using the template just makes things easier.

And then on second thought, given how often the budget and gross values get vandalized this would mean the conversion would continue to fluctuate all the time anyway which would undermine whatever usefulness it might have had. Oh well. SQGibbon (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I added just for International viewer who doesn't understand ₹, why we need to add? let me explain, this wiki is written in internationally known language called "English" and if we add something that doesn't understand by rest of world, what point in adding it?, just for India?, I don't think so its just Indian wiki(again don't get me wrong I m proud Indian too). If this is Hindi/or any native language I never thought of adding it in first place because the viewer are mostly Indian. But in this case its viewer are international not just Indian, so adding $ conversion makes more sense here. Specially for this article as this(movie) will be released at large scale in rest of the world which means more international viewers. No offence, thanks KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, first of all, why do you keep supposing that people won't understand what the Indian rupee is? If they don't know what it is then isn't it obvious that they would easily find out what it is using Wikipedia itself? Also, what does the fact that this article is in English have to do with the currency?? Doesn't make ANY sense. Just because the viewers of this article are "international" there is no compulsion on Wikipedia to convert currencies to US Dollars. Only measurements (such as weight, length, volume) should be converted. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, well my point was if we use international language than our own language then why not international currency? I m not saying that we should remove ₹ I m saying just add converter or add $ in braces. So the rest of the world will know that this is also costliest film or Indian too developed costliest movies not just cheap ones. Yes there is no compulsion about it, but again if we think deeply why we written this article? or what Wikipedia is? then answer probably would be same i.e. providing information/knowledge to the world. I was just trying to make it simple to read. Again no offence :) KuwarOnline ^Talk 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets clear up some misunderstandings:

• When editing Wikipedia, you should assume that the readers will be completely uninformed, and that goes as equally for US dollars as Indian rupees. You should not assume that readers will necessarily have a grasp of what the dollar is, because not all English-speakers are Americans; in the UK a dollar value won't mean anything until it is converted into pound sterling.
• The US dollar is not the international currency, it is the largest reserve currency (forming about two-thirds of reserves), but the Euro is a significant challenger, forming about a quarter of reserves; so if we must have a conversion to dollars, why should we not also have a conversion to euros?
• English is not the definitive international language; it is just one of several widely-used languages which could be regarded as international; thats why the United Nations uses six official languages (Arabic, Chinese Mandarin, English, French, Russian, and Spanish)

If the output of the template will not change, which conversion rate would you suggest? The current rate in {{INRConvert/CurrentRate}} is relevant only if the film was paid for during the last month. The relevant rate would have been the rate when the film was paid for. We can avoid this by simply sticking to what the source says. If you can find a reliable source which gives both a rupee value and a dollar value, then that can be included in the infobox. Green Giant (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Still don't agree with adding US dollar figure to the infobox. A conversion can exist in the body paragraphs of articles, but it seems a bit too detailed when it is added to the infobox. By the way, I still don't understand the real reason to keep the US dollar figure, other than the attempt to keep the article "international", which doesn't seem to justify the need for it. An Indian film deserves its budget indicated in Indian currency, while a French film requires its budget in French currency, UK film in pounds, and so on. Adding the USD value of Enthiran's budget would require all non-American film articles to have their budget values listed in USD. It's better we stick to a similar format of infoboxes in articles and just keep the budget value in the currency of its native country. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on adding native currency, I never said we should just add $(see my above comments), the only one reason behind this was to keep this article as much as readable to everyone, as I said $ is internationally more known than any other currency in world. I know that English is not officially recognized international language same like Hindi is not official national language(ref1 ref2), but still we treat Hindi as national language and widely spoken than any other language in India. Again if this article is part of Hindi Wikipedia then I never thought of adding it. Anyways don't wanna fight over it, Lets keep it as it is. KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is no fight of course, we are building consensus which is good. But adding USD value would sort of defy Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule, which is important. I think we can agree with USD conversion in the body paragraph, but just not in the Infobox. It is taking up space and extra lines and making it larger. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aarudhnatraj, 8 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change DRDO to AIRD (Artificial Intelligence Research and Development). Only, the AIRD is depicted in the film, not the DRDO. Aarudhnatraj (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome. I've removed the reference to DRDO, but adding AIRD requires some reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vedaj89, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "His senior and head of the DRDO, Mr. Bohra" to "His senior and head of the AIRD (Artificial Inteligence Research Directorate), Mr. Bohra" because DRDO is a real organisation which is not mentioned in the film; it is AIRD (a fictitous organisation) which is repeatedly mentioned in the film. The following changes are to be made under the Plot section vedaj 12:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Done Welcome. I've removed the reference to DRDO, but adding AIRD requires some reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Janagarraja, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} the gross revenue is 117 crore in one week

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 114.148.174.116, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please edit the first weekend collection details as it was mistakenly mentioned in the article that only 62 crore rupees were collected instead actual amount, 95 crore the highest amount collected by any Indian movie till date during first weekend of the release. There are few References given below. http://www.abcnews.in/entertainment-news/rajnikants-endhiran-surpasses-dabanggs-collections-7805/ http://mytamilchannel.com/index/endhiran-surpasses-all-records-of-box-office-collections-in-the-opening-weekend/ http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/9679.html 114.148.174.116 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CuteRobin (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Endhiran first weekend and first week collection record surpassing all indian box office record creating new history

It is very very sad on you Anwar (talk) and I have no idea how you will allow good edits in future by anyone, even after giving sources. You are not ready to accept the facts. Its very very unfortunate to be reviewed in this bad manner. Never in wiki I went through like this. Please if you beleive you are a true wikipedian try to go for a consensus before adding what you feel is right ,which is against the whole world and sources. very bad and feel sorry !!! In your references 5 6 7 8 no where it is saying 62 crores. But the link I gave New Delhi Chronicles.com clearly says 950 million Indian rupees = 95 crores. Why you are not taking it. Then what beleive I have on those sites you added, especially when you are not ready to accept India's prime Times of India. In the first week the film netted 117 crores which is higher than Dabangg 82 crores - TOI explains it clearly. So mention that fact also along with, it equalled to sivaji life time collection. You are very much eager in adding all negative aspects of the movie, saying not doing well in delhi/punjabi etc., instead of positive reviews and collections. Note that Despite being a tamil movie it created history in Indian cinema which no bollywood movie will do in India as a whole.

You are so one sided and playing with your admins power. Too bad and soon other editors will raise question for sure.!!!

Anwar (talk) is neglecting all proper sources and doing edits without consideration of others.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

Anwar IS NOT ADMINISTRATOR. TO CHECK IF SOMEONE IS ADMINISTRATOR, GO TO THIS OFFICIAL LINK [4]. Search there to verify if one is a admin or not. Surely Anwar isnt in the list. If you suspect that [[User:Anwar saadat|Anwar] has multiple accounts, you may complain about this! More than one accounts is not allowed by wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varanwal (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bala1985ji, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Request to change the Box office Collection Information: Endhiran has collected 117 Crore within 7 days. It's a first Indian film to cross this mark within in a week. The recent hit Dabangg has collected 82 Crore. So, this the biggest hit of Indian film in terms of net collection. The film has got a net collection of Rs 60 crore in TN, Rs 30 crore in AP, Rs 8 crore in Karnataka, Rs 4 crore in Kerala and Hindi version Robot Rs 15 crore. Looking at the trend the film has crossed Dabangg's two weeks net collection in its first week itself.

The film had definitely grossed Rs 260 crore which was more than the entire collection of Aamir Khan starrer 'Ghajini'. Bohra said, The film has easily made a gross collection of Rs 200 crore plus which is nearly double of Dabangg." Link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News-News-By-Industry-Media/Entertainment-Entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms Bala1985ji (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done:The article seems well-cited. It is clearly mentioned that Endhiran has collected Rs. 117 crore indeed. For non-Hindi films, nett is the same as gross. That seems to be the source of your confusion. Thanks.CuteRobin (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Request to add information to Box Office Collection Information: The dubbed Hindi version of the film Robot too has done a business of nearly Rs 30 crore in the first week. Robot has broken all the norms of a dubbed film. No dubbed film crossed even the one crore mark. Link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News-News-By-Industry-Media/Entertainment-Entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms

Not done: The official web site of Bollywood's largest trade network - boxofficeindia.com - is giving a different picture. The Hindi version of the film is not quite doing brisk business. CuteRobin (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

well Cute Robin; nowhere in the boxofficeindia.com site, it says that its official or like that! you are making up your own story! at the link http://boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=about ; it says that . The numbers on this site are all indicative as actual numbers are rarely given out by producers and distributors. The site also says in its disclaimer, "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 AND OTHER USER AND MEMBER GENERATED PAGES AND THAT ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE, STATEMENTS, SERVICES, OFFERS OR OTHER INFORMATION OR CONTENT PRESENTED OR DISSEMINATED ON THE WEB SITE OR ON ANY OTHER USER OR MEMBER GENERATED PAGES ARE <THOSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AUTHORS WHO ARE SOLELY LIABLE FOR THEIR CONTENT.> " which clearly shows that its no official data whatsoever! So you guys don't go on discrediting the correct links given by us! Varanwal (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am tending to side with other people who have raised their concerns about CuteRobin. In fact I question CuteRobin's neutrality when he/she is defending the edits. The following link also talks about collections. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms Also BoxOfficeIndia is not an authorized or official site for India box office collections. So point being if you guys think economic times is not a site that can be trusted then BoxOfficeIndia should not either. Either remove references to Endhiran collection or update it with the information from Economic Times. MRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.245.9 (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.26.32.240, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

After reading this article, For me, It seems this article is not neutral especially about the box office collection information.there are so many articles in the web and various Indian newspapers have already published an article in their website about endhiran movie box office collection that has set a new record in the Indian cinema box office collection but i cannot see those information in this article and the box office collection collection information mentioned in this article is incorrect. There are many website publsihed information about the first weekend collection that Endhiran has crossed 95 crore rs just in the first 3 days of the release. Few References http://www.abcnews.in/entertainment-news/rajnikants-endhiran-surpasses-dabanggs-collections-7805/ http://mytamilchannel.com/index/endhiran-surpasses-all-records-of-box-office-collections-in-the-opening-weekend/ http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/9679.html

please.. let it be neutral and do not damage wikipedia's reputation .

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-117cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6716660.cms

The above link is from a reliable and one of the most trusted news channel in India . It clearly says , Endhiran movie has set a new record in terms of first week collection , but the way the article is written is not to give credit to Endhiran move but it suppose to .

The article goes and saying the following : Endhiran falls short of Dabangg opening]</ref> In the first week, the film grossed Rs. 117 crore from all versions thus matching the lifetime business of Sivaji.

I think, The above sentence not reflecting the new record made by endhiran instead it says dabangg still own the record and endhiran has just passed Sivaji movie collection.

I repeat it once again that , as per the above mentioned times of india's article 9http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-117cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6716660.cms), Endhiran movie has set a new record in terms of first week collection for any indian movie including debangg movie ,therefore please modify the article accordingly to give credit to endhiran movie for making new record as it deserve for that.

in terms of first weekend collection, there are so many news channel and web sites mentioned that endhiran collected 95 crores in just 3 days and this is also a new record in indian cinema history(please refer the above links provided) but if you don't agree with the reference links (then how can i agree with the link which the article provided for dabangg movie collection) then please consider to remove the first weekend collection information as the current first weekend collection information in the article about endhiran is conflicting with other websites and news channel's information.Moreover, the first weekend collection information is not required at all since Endhiran movie has already set a new record in terms of first week collection for any indian movie including debangg movie and endhiran is expected to make a new record in gross collection as well.

122.26.32.240 (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My thought about Wiki was that anyone can trust the wiki content. After reading this enthiran content, it's proved that I am wrong. Now I believe that wiki can be edited by anyone to show their personal view instead of the actual fact. Shame on Wiki because of some editors.

Not done: Your request spends more time accusing others of bad faith than it would have taken to simply make a specific request in a 'please change X to Y' manner. Please use less unhelpful rhetoric and just state your request and the sources which back it up. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bonqwert, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The last dialog "it started to think" - should be "i started to think"

Bonqwert (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Anwar (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot is a copyvio

• [Blog]

This movies plot in Wikipedia is an exact copy of this blog, Need to rewrite...--Kalarickan | My Interactions 10:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC) The critical reception section is mostly about the Hindi version. Given that the article is mainly about Enthiran, the critical responses could be from Tamil and Telugu sources as well.

Edit request from 122.26.129.29, 12 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I don't understand the reason to give importance to dabangg movie in Endhiran article.

As for as First weekend collection is concerned, it is said to be Rs 95 crores there are so many websites that support this fact but the first weekend collection information itself is not required to be mentioned in the article for the purpose of promoting debangg moview in the article instead endhiran since endhiran movie has set new one week collection record compare with all indian movies.

If you want to support debangg movie or criticize endhiran movie then please start your own website or blog and upload your view there , please don't use Wikipedia for your personal view.

Editors: Celestra and Anwar looks like these two are editing this article without neutral and they are using this space to promote their view by supporting hindi movie particularly khan's movies.

I will request all other neutral editors to edit this article with best of the actual fact details . 122.26.129.29 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This is not a place for requesting the deletion of an article. --Stickee (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Added Plot section

Have added a plot section to the page. Have a look and feel free to modify if it appears too long.

V.siddhesh 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.siddhesh (talk • contribs)

I think the plot section is quite weak. There is too much detail in some parts and you can't finish off the section by saying 'the rest of the film explains it', that defies the point of a plot section. Also Chitti does not start to fall in love with Sana after she kisses him, he has to be programmed with emotions and human feelings first, which Vaseegaran only does after Chitti obeys a command to attack him and thus Bohra proves the robot is not ready to be used in the army. You should also explain things like what the DRDO stands for. The bit about the girl who Chitti saves from the fire when she is naked is strange as well, she doesn't commit suicide, she runs out into the road and gets hit by a truck! I'm not sure how that qualifies as suicide. Would you like me to suggest a re-write? I can't edit the page myself. Mymindsmine (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, i got busy and never saw the wiki page till today. I guess its been re-written already. Siddhesh (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 152.51.48.1, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Where to change: Box Office 1. The film grossed Indian rupee62 crore from all versions in the first weekend, second only to Dabangg's Indian rupee65 crore haul.[63][64] 2. In the first week, the film grossed Indian rupee117 crore from all versions, matching the overall business of Sivaji.[65]

What to change: In the first section, when you compare Enthiran with Dabangg, then in the second section also, you should have compared it with Dabangg. But you have compared it with Sivaji. The sentence flow is incorrect. So,in the second section, please compare enthiran with dabangg not with sivaji. As shown below

1. The film grossed Indian rupee62 crore from all versions in the first weekend, second only to Dabangg's Indian rupee65 crore haul.[63][64] 2. But, In the first week, the film grossed Indian rupee117 crore from all versions whereas Dabangg collected rupee82 crore.

Referencehttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms

152.51.48.1 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done In part. The sources do not compare this film's one week box office to Sivaji, so I will remove that, but the one week numbers do not change the weekend numbers, so saying ", but " in inappropriate. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed reference to Sivaji. But I have retained reference to Dabangg as it is explicitly cited by several authentic sources. Also, it is misleading to compare the nett collections of Enthiran with nett collections of Dabangg as the former enjoys zero rate of entertainment tax. Comparison of gross figures will suit this case but we have no reliable gross data as of now. This is a peculiar case. Anwar (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The source at the time made the claim that the one-week gross surpassed Dabangg, so including that was NPOV. Your removal of it and your explanation here are not. Please consider undoing some of your recent changes, like "correcting" the spelling in the reference titles. Celestra (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed Endhiran to Enthiran to maintain consistency of the article. Hope it's not an issue.Anwar (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you changed the title of a source, it is an issue. The title of the source is whatever it is; it is not for us to correct the title. Celestra (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My stance is vindicated here - However Endhiran's first week gross is less than Dabangg's 120 crore opening week gross last month across India... But once again, segments in media are talking of nett collections or shares of Enthiran and comparing it to bollywood hits without explaining the real dynamics of these type of figures. It's worth again pointing out comparing nett collection of a Tamil film from Tamil Nadu to nett collection of a Hindi film is a false comparision; as are some other points of relative ignorance out there about economy at large. For example UP state, which has a higher GDP than Tamil Nadu overall, has nonetheless historically imposed a very high entertainment tax on cinema of Hindi films compared to the reverse policy of zero amount that Tamil Nadu government imposes on Tamil films... So a Hindi film that reports Rs. 20 crore nett collection in UP has actually generated close to Rs. 35 crore gross in UP box office because of 60% entertainment tax imposed by UP which means the gross is almost 1.7 times the net collection reported from there; whereas due to 0% tax for Tamil films in Tamil Nadu, a film which claims the same Rs. 20 crore nett from Tamil Nadu has only infact done Rs. 20 crore gross business also. Gross is the figure that's actually being generated from ticket sales not nett. Gross minus entertainment tax of a given state = nett. So the nett is the gross for Tamil films in TN whereas this works out quite different for Bollywood films in much of the Indian North and beyond (ex. Maharashtra).Anwar (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Then in addition to the claim made by boxofficeindia that it surpassed Dabangg, we should add a disclaimer that the gross is calculated differently with your source supporting that. Celestra (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be verbose. I think it is better to sit out the next couple of weeks maintaining the status quo. As more information becomes available about the box office performance of Endhiran, the box office section could be updated. Now, it's hardly ten days since release.Anwar (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to understand that the entertainment tax is not collected only in Tamil Nadu. But the rest of world puts entertainment tax. So enthiran's 117 crore net is not actually equal to gross and gross must be more than 117.

Box office split

User:Eelamstyle seems to have some problem in splitting the box office section into two - India and Overseas - like Bollywood film articles. He is trying to bunch all info together. It is difficult to read. Any thoughts? Anwar (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright Anwar, first of all, what do you mean "it's difficult to read"? You're splitting two small paragraphs into different lines of paragraphs that are made up of one sentence each--how in the world do you see that easier to read than two simple paragraphs. The first paragraph describes Enthiran's box office results in India while the second one describes its business overseas--it's DEAD SIMPLE that way, so I don't understand why you think two short and simple paragraphs are "difficult to read." Plus there is no rule on Wikipedia that tells editors to have Box office sections of Bollywood films split with subheadings as "India" and "Overseas"--it's optional to do so when necessary. What if we only had just one sentence of info for both India and Overseas business of Enthiran? Would you still give them subheadings just for one sentence information? Use your common sense. If the Box office section is made of multiple paragraphs (more than 2 that is) we can give them appropriate subheadings. Right now, with the two simple paragraphs, one describing Indian business while the other describes overseas business, it's perfectly fine and clear. Subheadings aren't necessary at the moment unless you find more information that requires more paragraphs, like I said. Also, why do you keep reverting edits by other constructive editors--that just shows you want articles to be kept just to your satisfaction. I added lots of sourced information and fixed up lots of grammatical mistakes which you kept deliberately reverting to your messy versions with split up paragraphs and lines, causing an edit war. If you want to update gross information like you usually do, or anything else, that's totally fine, just stop removing other's good faith edits. I'm hoping you will conform. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I will remove the subsections if it's such a bother. If the paras are small now, expand it adding more links in the future. Big deal. Anyway, I have also removed the conversion tag. But some IP is putting it back. So, you still have a battle at hand. That IP is not me. Also, I did not remove any refs you might have added. May be other IPs are busy doing that.

If you have a problem with only the Box Office section, do not blanket revert the article. You are removing the spelling corrections and other important ref links.Anwar (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nsmariappan, 15 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The Net collection is 117 crores. Not gross collection. Gross collection is 260 crores.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms

mari (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: See discussion above.Anwar (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Movie collection record and costliest movie ever in India

This article is under strong scanner of very very bad editors/reviewers. Totally in-acceptable edits are done in this page. I would like to provide some most reliable/verifiable source here for other true/genuine administrators to have a look, to claim my point here. I am posting the original references/sources along with their About us/Contact details for their trust and verifiablity. All these sites are India's most trusted ones with hundreads of reporters,workers generating news.

http://www.bollypatrika.com/2010/10/11/box-office-report-endhiran-robot-rocks-and-crook-disappoints/ http://www.bollypatrika.com/2010/10/10/endhiran-box-office-whooping-117-crores-in-first-week-for-robot/

http://www.bollypatrika.com/about/

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/Indias-most-expensive-film-Robot-sets-box-office-record/articleshow/6701064.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6726467.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-117cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6716660.cms

http://www.indiatimes.com/aboutus.cms

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/bollywood/Rajinikanth-beats-the-Khans/Article1-608663.aspx http://www.htmedia.in/Section.aspx?Page=Page-HTMedia-AboutUs

http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/9679.html http://www.moneylife.in/about_us.html

http://www.ndchronicle.com/news/Robot_or_Endhiran_box_office_collection_cross_Rs_117cr_in_just_7_days_1286649579/

http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?ID=ENTEN20100154445&keyword=regional&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/corporatepage/index.aspx

http://entertainment.in.msn.com/southcinema/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4256775

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/regional-goes-global/410296/ http://www.business-standard.com/india/common/aboutus.php

I want justice in this article to be done sooner. Please some administrators take care of this. Many people have faith/trust/truth on wiki articles and please restore them by removing all irrelavent/incorrect/inappropriate edits being done here. Interestingly many people are not permitting the valid/correct statements for their own benefits and against neutral point of view.

Please take serious steps on this. Many thanks !!!

--Ungal Vettu Pillai 05:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats lots of reliable reference, what you wanted to change in article, please let us know so we can correct. KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I want to include these in the article. In the lead "Upon release, it enjoyed critical acclaim and commercial success across the globe[5][6][7][8], collecting an unprecedented Indian rupee 95 crores in the opening weekend, breaking many records at the box office within the first week of its release. Eventually it went on to become the highest grossed Indian film Indian rupee with 117 crores in its firstweek, breaking the records earlier held by Dabangg. Note here: the reference number must be kept as where I did here, bcoz all those 5 6 7 8 proves it is critically & commercially successful across globe. But does not reveal about number 62 crores as present form. But the sources I provided clearly says it has got 95 crores in opening weekend and 117 crores in first week.

Also in the lead "Produced by Kalanidhi Maran and Hansraj Saxena, it is known for being the most expensive film in Asia ever made, officially budgeted at ₹162 crores.". NDTV source clearly proves it.

Finally if you raise any question further on verifiability then I have same 100% doubt on all those links you provided or already listed. I am not ready to accept Boxofficeindia.com if you are not ready to accept Times of India/Economictimes of India/NDTV/moneylife/hindustantimes and all etc., Please do not mistake me that I want to compare endhiran to dabangg. But the fact should be accepted whatever it is beyond our own likes/dislikes. I feel Endhiran facts are all missing and less focus given to it comparing to the previuos record collection movie from India Dabangg. Because too much facts inserted in second-lead-para of Dabangg's collection, whereas no one letting/permitting endhiran to be edited in correct way with neutral view itself.

Do not be one-sided and rude here by not accepting/considering others concerns with all source given following wiki rules. Already among many endhiran lead paras have created a big big worst dis-respect for Wikipedia becoz of its worst edit, showing incorrect data/facts. I hope you understand me. wikipedia is for all than you/me. Thanks !!

--Ungal Vettu Pillai 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran is not the most expensive Asian film. That honour belongs to Red Cliff. Your links point to tabloid not specialist trade web sites like boxofficeindia.com, ibosnetwork.com. Stop trolling. Anwar (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, atleast 25 Bollywood films have grossed over 100 crore till date. So, Enthiran's gross is a milestone for Kollywood not Indian cinema.Anwar (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Endhiran Collection clarification on net/gross 0% tax exceptions in TN for Tamil films

I suppose everyone claiming just one issue leaving others. "Hindi film that reports Rs. 20 crore nett collection in UP has actually generated close to Rs. 35 crores GROSS in UP box office because of 60% entertainment tax imposed by UP which means the gross is almost 1.7 times the net collection reported from there; whereas due to 0% tax for Tamil films in Tamil Nadu, a film which claims the same Rs 20 crore nett from Tamil Nadu has only infact done only Rs. 20 crore gross business also".Ok !!

---

Note that: Endhiran total gross = 117 c (1st week). So net also 117 c as 0% tax. Then Dabangg total gross = 120 c (1st week). So net = 120 c of 60% tax = 48 c. Are everyone ready to accept. Endhiran net = 117; Dabangg net = 48 (1st week). Hence it is the duty of wiki editors to mention this tax exempt and indicate the figures in numbers, instead of blindly leaving this quotient. That is more appropriate & neutral.

---

Wait I have a reason for this. An avg film budget = 30 c (Tamil). Assume it is Hit. So its Gross say = (20-35)c Maximum (1st week).

Same avg film budget = 30 c (Hindi). Assume it is Hit. Its gross will be = (70-100)c Minimum (1st week). why? ---- Because no of viewers = 10-15 times more for Hindi, than Tamil(Regional). So accepting this advantage do you feel all are mentioning that Bollywood films are Hit because of larger audience both India & Abroad in each & every single article like 3-idiots/Dabangg in wiki. No right ??? ------ Then there is no need to even think Endhiran of 0% tax is enjoying this success. So record is record & dont say reasons.

What I am saying, Larger audience -- advantage for Hindi. Tax free -- advantage for Tamil. Whats wrong here???? Never deny true facts.!!

Robot hindi version is --DUBBED--. Comparing it to a direct Bollowood film like Anjana Anjani saying, it is FLOP -- is not fair & violates. As per trade sources for dubbed movie Endhiran has record collections for both Hindi/Telugu creating new boudaries. It is missing in Box office section and has violations claiming it did not do well in Northern belt except Maharashtra. If there is a separate article ROBOT(Hindi) -- then all these are suitable/correct/fitting there, but not here in Endhiran --- since it is Tamil movie.

Please please understand I hope I clarified and help to edit in neutral way for wiki -- to earn good name;;; rather than 'bad' impression. Thanks.!!

--Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Endhiran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Nvarma85 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 183.83.183.121, 28 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

gross revenue : 318

183.83.183.121 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fæ (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources for 318 crore in 3rd week?

The website oneindia.in is a "portal" that re-hashes news items from elsewhere. Searching Google News and LexisNexis (which includes all major international printed newspapers) results in no matches for Endhiran or Enthiran with "318". I have removed this income figure (again) on this basis as I believe that the information fails WP:CIRCULAR as http://oneindia.in may have copied it straight from an unverified earlier version from Wikipedia. Please supply credible quality sources before re-adding this figure.

I note that a number of people have been canvassed in order to have this source and figure added (including myself). Please be aware of the guidance of WP:CANVASS. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Name is Endhiran

The name of the movie was Endhiran and not Enthiran, this can be backed by going through the initial press statements released by SUN (production house behind), kindly look into it. Fanofbollywood (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Can be verified here - Sun Network Fanofbollywood (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and other sources use the other spelling, please check the talk page archives at the top of the page. The consensus on two separate occasions (based on all available sources) was to stick with Enthiran. Fæ (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Endhiran new history at box office in Indian Cinema

Hi. I want to include this in the article in a neutral way only. Since the articles merit really permits to include it there. Need help here. Help it to edit in better way. Mentioning the true number in facts does not violate neutral view I beleive. Also to indicate the success & the record it registered, bringing-in valid comparison with other films --- does not violate neutral views. I strive for neutrality. But also understand facts also must be included on the pure merit of the article, which gets additional support from verifiable acceptable sources.

  Source: http://www.abcnews.in/entertainment-news/endhiran-creating-history-being-the-highest-selling-movie-in-one-season-8708/ 
          http://www.abcnews.in/about/
          http://www.indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/115629/Nation/robot+rajini=rs-300-cr.html (Page 1,2,3)
          http://www.indiatodaygroup.com/new-site/publications/ite-about.html 
          http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Endhiran--Biggest-hit-in-the-history-of-Indian-cinema/697154/ (Page 1,2)
          http://www.indianexpress.com/contact-us/
          http://www.bollypatrika.com/2010/10/17/endhiranrobat-constantly-breaking-records/
          http://www.bollypatrika.com/about/
    

--Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There now seem sufficient sources in the article to back up the income figure of 350 crore. Most of the websites you identify here are less specific that the ones already included. Fæ (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

IBOS

Hi, Please find reliable and independent sources for latest box-office figures of Endhiran. As per IBOS network, the total Gross from India after 06 weeks is Rs 260.96 Crores. (http://www.ibosnetwork.com/asp/curyearworldwide.asp). IBOS does not show overseas gross. According to Eros International website, distributor of the film and a stock market listed firm, the overseas collection was Rs. 61 crore after 17 days (http://www.erosintl.com/media/pressinfo.asp?pid=91&Title=Eros%20announces%20record%20overseas%20box%20office%20collection%20of%20Rs.%2061%20crore%20for%20Endhiran). The gross will be more than Rs 322 Crores till now. Further, Endhiran is also the biggest grosser in India as it crossed 3Idiots' Rs. 259.50 crores gross from India(http://www.ibosnetwork.com/asp/filmbodetails.asp?id=3+Idiots). Please update the article with these links... Bangalore102 (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat your request in different parts of this talk page, see #Request IBOS home page. Fæ (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.113.168.130, 14 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Endhiran collection crosses Rs.318 after 3 weeks

http://thebollywoodactress.com/endhiranrobot-box-office-collection-318-crores-after-3-weeks/

216.113.168.130 (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Per the note at the top of the page, the actual sales figures are in dispute. Apparently, the request is to have 2 or more "high quality" sources. That site doesn't appear particularly "high quality" to me, but I could be wrong. If a regular editor of this page believes the source sufficient, feel free to make the change. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gross Revnue Endhiran collection crosses Gross Revnue of Rs.318 after 3 weeks

http://thebollywoodactress.com/endhiranrobot-box-office-collection-318-crores-after-3-weeks/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sai rajesh19 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Karthi4052, 2 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Sir the gross is not 250 crores now .. it has crossed 382 crores please check the link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305797/business

Karthi4052 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: IMDB is not considered a reliable source for this information (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). Please find alternative quality sources instead. Fæ (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Please find some latest information on Endhiran Box-office gross after 50 days at Rs 350 Crores. http://chennaionline.com/movies/cine-buzz/Endhiran-crosses-50-days/20102720032718.col —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.119.160 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The source expresses the figure in a rather vague way and qualified the number with "reportedly collected" leading me to wonder if the number is rounded up or down to 350 crores. If this source is quoting a more authoritative source then the principle source should be quoted. I would expect that the 50 day figure may now provide some realistic sources to update the article but this example is a poor one to justify such a change. Fæ (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request IBOS home page

Hi,

Please find reliable and independent sources for latest box-office figures of Endhiran. As per IBOS network, the total Gross from India after 06 weeks is Rs 260.96 Crores. (http://www.ibosnetwork.com/asp/curyearworldwide.asp). IBOS does not show overseas gross. According to Eros International website, distributor of the film and a stock market listed firm, the overseas collection was Rs. 61 crore after 17 days (http://www.erosintl.com/media/pressinfo.asp?pid=91&Title=Eros%20announces%20record%20overseas%20box%20office%20collection%20of%20Rs.%2061%20crore%20for%20Endhiran). The gross will be more than Rs 322 Crores till now. Further, Endhiran is also the biggest grosser in India as it crossed 3Idiots' Rs. 259.50 crores gross from India(http://www.ibosnetwork.com/asp/filmbodetails.asp?id=3+Idiots). Please update the article with these links...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs)

• Not done: The IBOS page states the Worldwide figure as Rs 260 Crores which appears logically incorrect as it also shows this as the India box office figure (IBOS archive as of 2010-11-20) consequently this seems an unreliable statement as there is no reason to think the India figure is correct if other parts of the table are blatantly wrong. Cherry-picking figures published on different dates and in different sources to create a new total would fail the guidelines of WP:SYNTH. I suggest you search for two or more quality sources that make a clear, consistent and complete statement. Fæ (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As you would agree, Box office figures in India are not published, as there are no official sources. Further, please note that there are articles on Wikipedia with box office figures quoted from BoxOffice India.com and IBOS Network. As you might have noticed, these are the two sites which update the box office figures regularly. Please check the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films. Endhiran article of Wikipedia also cites some references on box-office numbers from IBOS site.

It is understood that all of the reliable articles (read Times and Indian Express) declared box office figures of Endhiran up to two weeks only. After two weeks, I have not come across any reliable source showing box office figures for Endhiran barring IBOS and BOI. As you said, accuracy of these sites is questionable and can be depended when other reliable sources are not there. Given these issues, I suggest to keep the box office figures of Endhiran for two weeks only till an official confirmation comes out on this. Please note that the Rs 250 Crore gross of Endhiran shown presently on Wikipedia is based on two weeks data only; however this fact is not clearly depicted in the article. It is better to add in the article that this box-office figure is for two weeks from release of the film. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The article infobox used to say "21-day global total" and at one point it had something like "18 days" after the 250 crores figure. I would not be against such a qualification if this is based on one of the footnoted sources (those that mention the figure seem to be dated 21 October 2010). However as I cannot work out why it was removed, and the four footnotes I have just checked do not clearly state whether this was from a 21-day income figure or from some other point in time (like 18 days since release), I would not add such a qualification until there is a reliable source that pins it down. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Boxofficeindia.com and NDTV video links clearly stated that global lifetime business of Enthiran is about ₹250 crore. It is a non-issue. These filibustering spammers are Rajinikanth fans without jobs. Money.news (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 152.51.48.1, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Endhiran Revenue is 350 Crore in 50 Days

Please see the official news paper of Sun Network. http://cinema.dinakaran.com/cinema/EndhiranDetail.aspx?id=3840&id1=18

152.51.48.1 (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The website is owned by "Dinakaran Tamil Daily News Paper" with Dinakaran seeming to be a reliable source. I would prefer a second reliable source before adding to the article and superseding the current four citations (preferably one in English for ease of verification). Considering the importance of this box income figure in the history of Indian cinema, it would not seem possible that no English reliable sources would run this story; though I currently am unable to find any matches in LexisNexis. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is some other websites in English for English viewers.I think we don't need to discuss whether these sites are reliable or not. Because, Dinakaran is owned by Kalanidhi Maran who is a producer of Endhiran film and his own newspaper can not publish wrong information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_TV_Network —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.51.48.1 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7382577-endhiran-completes-50-days
  
  • NThis appears to be reposted from some Wordpress blog. Fæ (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.zimbio.com/Tamil+Movies/articles/MBTZO86rsiO/The+Endhiran+Complete+50+Days
  
  • N This looks like a forum post and is badly written. Fæ (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.endhiran.org/endhiran-robo-reaches-its-50th-day/
  
  • N See http://www.endhiran.org/site-for-sale/ - highly dubious, not a reliable source. Fæ (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• http://m3chennai.com/cinema/endhiran-crosses-50-days
  
  • N m3chennai.com is an anonymously owned studiopress generated website hosted by Wordpress. It does not appear to be a reliable source. Fæ (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• http://chennaionline.com/movies/cine-buzz/Endhiran-crosses-50-days/20102720032718.col
  • N chennaionline is another news aggregation site/portal and has the following disclaimer - "While enough care has been taken to check authenticity of information displayed in the site, Chennai Interactive Business Services (P) Ltd, does not in any way guarantee or vouch for the accuracy of the information provided." In this case there is no reason to believe that enough care includes confirming the source of the information is reliable as the text just states "reportedly" rather than explaining where the box income figures actually came from. Fæ (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done You appear to have regurgitated a series of spam and doubtful news aggregation websites from a Google Search. Please take time to read WP:RS before posting any other poor quality links asking that they be included in the article. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel that we can add this information (350 Crore) to this article as Dinakaran is an official newspaper of Sun Network. At the same time I agree that other sites which are provided by this user are not reliable site. what do you say? Bala1985ji (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not done: I still say no. A figure of 350 Crore would make Enthiran the highest selling Indian film of all time, a fact that needs careful sourcing. This article has suffered weeks of continuous lobbying solely on this box office income figure and had to be protected for this reason. This would be a highly significant news story for India and such a statement of income should therefore be easy to source to multiple reliable sources, not only to one non-independent website of the Sun Network. The fact that such independent quality reliable sources are not forthcoming seems to indicate an issue with this statement about an estimated (as the given figure appears rounded up or down to 350 Crore) box office income. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dinakaran news seem fake. The scoop also claims there were 3,000 prints worldwide for Enthiran. What a load of ballocks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.40.95 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 59.92.47.99, 28 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

INR 1120 59.92.47.99 (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please state exactly what you want changed in the article. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Gross Revenue

add till date or number of days to gross revenue SyberGod (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2024 UTC [refresh]

Enthiran collection report latest

Enthiran latest collection report here for discussion. Just make note here. Help the article to include more details along with it. As already it has been officially said it collected 350 crores from Sun Pictures official daily dinakaran, the Tamil newspaper. This is an extra evidence and conclusion and please update the gross to 350 crores. All are reliable ones.

  Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/rajini-fells-all-recordssci-fi-entertainer-endhiran/409935/
          http://movies.rediff.com/report/2010/oct/04/endhiran-box-office.htm
          http://www.thefilmstreetjournal.com/2010/10/robotenthiran-%E2%80%93-rajnikant-rules/
          http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/09/30/stories/2010093051791100.htm
          http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/hindi/article/61154.html
          http://www.cmr.fm/thamilfm/Newclients/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=5138

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

N cmr.fm does not support your claim, it states "It can be easily predicted that the 3rd week can add another 80 crore to nett." indiaglitz.com does not support your claim, it says "Enthiran – 270 crs" and provides no clear source. I stopped wasting my time after checking those two. Fæ (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Aiswarya Rai's payment of 6 Crore

Article mentions that Aiswarya was paid 6 Crore and gives a citation(http://www.sify.com/movies/robot-confirmed-news-tamil-kkfui0fdfig.html). The link doesn't mention about this payment. Vinay h (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done See diff. --Fæ (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Endhiran Collected more than 400Crs.

Endhiran collected more than 400Crs all over the world.

Please update the page

$83,617,560 (Worldwide) (15 December 2010)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305797/business — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaymm (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As mentioned several times before on this talk page, IMDB is not a reliable source for these figures as it is unclear if they were copied from a reliable source or figures passed on by a fan. Fæ (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sureshkrish87, 24 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} total business done by enthiran is $83,617,560 (Worldwide) (15 December 2010) highest ever grossing film in indian cinema. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305797/business

Sureshkrish87 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Not done: See last section. Fæ (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Highest Grossing Indian Film - Please Update

In the second paragraph of the "ENTHIRAN" article, at the last line, it is mentioned as "the second highest-grossing Indian film of all time". But the Gross Revenue is $84,000,000 (400* crore) and still running successfully which is more than the "3 Idiots" collections. "3 Idiots" overall collection is 339,48,00,000 in Indian rupees which is shown in the "List of highest grossing Indian films" article which is less than the collections of ENTHIRAN.

So, please Update the "the second highest-grossing Indian film of all time" to "the highest-grossing Indian film of all time" in the ENTHIRAN article in the second paragraph, last line.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.130.98 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

N Your comment appears based on source that has since been removed. Fæ (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Vivian.richards, 9 January 2011

Boss, You are doing a nice job! But few things haven't been updated properly. First of all, you have mentioned the Enthiran is the second highest grossing movie ever. That is wrong. Only BOI states this as they are very partial towards bollywood movies. Even their competitor IBOSNETWORK states that ENTHIRAN is the highest grossing Indian Movie ever. All recently Forbes India, who is the master of listing everything from the richest people to everything has clearly stated that ENTHIRAN is the highest grossing movie ever. I'm furnishing the reliable sources below. Please do the changes immediately and prove that you are impartial in providing details. Don't ignore this and show partiality towards Bollywood like BOI.

Also you have stated Rs.318 crore as the gross. You yourself verify the source you referred there, it clearly states that the collection was only till 17th day. Total gross has crossed over Rs. 400 crore.

Thank you.

http://www.richestpersons.net/forbes-india-has-selected-rajinikanth-as-the-person-of-the-year/ http://www.thecinemanews.com/2011/01/endhiran-robo-celebrates-100-days-in.html http://roborajini.com/enthiran-news/endhiran-robo-celebrates-100-days-in-200-theatres/ http://www.ibosnetwork.com/asp/rawalltime.asp Vivian.richards (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Boss? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

N You appear to have added a set of links that do not say anything about Enthiran's income passing 400cr. The link to richestpersons.net does say "The magazine also revealed that the Endhiran is the highest grossing film of all time in India" but provides no link or reference back to forbes.com and provides no comparative income figures or explanation as to the published source of the data. Fæ (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Accesskollywood.com and Rs. 318 crore figure

This source: http://accesskollywood.com/kollywood-news/4125-endhiran-breaks-all-records dates from 19 October 2010. However the other sources already in the article dating from the days after this date around the 3-week after release mark show global box office income at 250cr. There is no explanation of why this discrepancy exists or any explanation in the accesskollywood article of where the figure of 318cr comes from. I propose to remove it. Fæ (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.5.0.61, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

gross of the endhiran is Rs. 450 crores

24.5.0.61 (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fæ (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

{ please, all u guys dont try to edit this page & dont relay this wikipedia for anything. becouse the list give in the highest grossing indian film has no reliable source including the movie "3idiots" and the movie DHASHAVATHARAM". i dont the reason why the fact on endhiran is being denied.- Jhon} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.64.197 (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ENDHIRAN - Collection 400 Crore - Please Update

Below is the link in which recently mentioned the Endhiran collection is 400 Crores and running in 4 countries till date. Please Update in the gross revenue section.

http://flashnewstoday.com/index.php/rajinikanths-endhiran-honoured-at-star-screen-awards/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.130.98 (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

why include 250 crore if there are no offical sources?

If there is no offical figure for the box office collection of Enthiran, why include it in the first place. The statement that Enthiran collected only 250 crore is laughble, considering that it is running even today in the best theaters in Bangalore. Even an average person would dismiss that Enthiran collected only 250 crores. Considering the number of people across the world who would visit this page, isnt this information seriously denting the credibility of WikiPedia? I personally estimate the total collection by the producers to be at 600+ crores (considering the various mediums and a deep-penetration,high GDP state like Tamil Nadu). The box-office collection is probably around 450 crores.

The citation for the 250 crore mark is as weak as the citations that claim a much higher figure. I guess, it is time to remove that figure until an official figure is released.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.248.13 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it you that said "What a load of ballocks!" earlier on this talk page? Such comments don't encourage me to take up your suggestions, thanks. Fæ (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"What a load of ballocks!" - I didnt say that. I dont even know what ballocks mean. The above comment was my first in this page. In any case I am disappointed that we have revenge being taken in a community like Wikipedia. The question is still genuine or have I got something wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.104 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Move protected

I have protected the article from being moved after the recent move warring. Please take it to WP:RM if you think the article needs to be moved. —SpacemanSpiff 14:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Premkumar12345, 23 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} <Mass posting removed> Premkumar12345 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not paste the entire article on this talk page (see diff), instead please explain what it is you want changed so that it can be reviewed. Fæ (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

International film festival

Endhiran/ROBOT featured in Overdrive category of Tromsø International Film Festival,Tromsø, Norway between January 18 to 23.This is the only Indian movie screened at this film festival (is the largest film festival in Norway as considered by attendance figures; in 2010 there were 58 267 admissions. This film festival included movies like 127 hrs, Black swan etc.,

This is considered as a tribute to the team of ROBOT and Rajnikanth. This should be the answer to ones who questioned and make jealous about the success of the film and its box office earnings.

OFFICIAL SOURCE FOR WIKIPEDIA MEMBERS; AS MANY ALWAYS ASK..IT IS NOT A SELF PUBLISHED OR UNAUTHENTICATED MESSAGE. VERIFIER CAN GO TO THE WEBSITE

links:

http://www.tiff.no/?go=film http://www.tiff.no/?lan=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The truth aboout Endhiran has come out. The gross revenu is about 194 crores rupees http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/tamil/article/63423.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.147.246.16 (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum, please make specific suggestions for improvement rather than shouting the odds. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The screening section could do with some improvement in terms of writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.90 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

another highest grosser source

use it please http://www.indianexpress.com/news/endhiran-biggest-hit-in-the-history-of-indian-cinema/697154/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.104.90 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

N Old news, see #RFC Reliable source. Fæ (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.202.142.77, 14 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} collection seems to be lesser total collection is 350 crors

117.202.142.77 (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fæ (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If the collection seems lesser, then try faking it in page, don't tinker Dasa page! n||n Imemadhu (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid writing in fake accents, this is not a forum and it may be taken as defamation against Gungans. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Endhiran the biggest grosser in Indian Film industry

Those who are trusting the official sources, it would be no better than the sun networks official daily news paper than the Dinakaran; supporting the 350cr plus gross of Endhiran. Below link can be referred by Wikipedia officials who can read Tamil news paper from the sun network, the producers family.

http://cinema.dinakaran.com/cinema/EndhiranDetail.aspx?id=3840&id1=18.

The same has been approved in the Wikipedia itself in the below mentioned web page for highest grossing tamil films.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Tamil-language_films

regards siva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See #RFC Reliable source. The rationale that other articles use it, is no guarantee of a reliable source and I have pointed out on the relevant article talk page that this figure is self-published, a dubious estimate and blatant cherry-picking of sources to find the highest possible figure. Fæ (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Economic Times by Times of India

Hi,

I came across a very reliable source for Endhiran's gross in The Times Of India. Recently Sun Pictures has announced the revenue generated from Endhiran. The Times report quotes Chief Operating Officer of Sun TV which states " While there is no official source for box office collections, Robot must have raked in at least 375 crore for us and the trade combined and this is a conservative estimate". The report further adds that "The film went on to become the highest grosser, overtaking Aamir Khan’s 3 Idiots". Please check this link http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/rajinikanth-adds-30-to-kalanithi-marans-sun-tv-network-revenue/articleshow/7394423.cms

I think given the fact that one of the most reputed newspapers such as Times of India has quoted these figures, the article needs to be updated for "box office figures" and facts on the "highest grosser in India" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

N As you stated, this was a quote from the COO but not verifiable accounts or a statement to shareholders. The Economic Times have in no way verified the figure you have chosen to pick out from the quotes given. On the other hand the article does provide some official figures that the company has published (such as the company’s net profit of 225.5 crore during the last reporting quarter). Fæ (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

hi 3 idiots u have entered the data from box office india.com.. do u thing that website is the reliable one. is that is more reliable than economics times and ibnlive.com. in india no offcial website for box office. all are approximate. i dont know why are arguing only for endhiran. you cant verify any movies revenues. or if you stick to your policy then please remove gross revenue of all indian movies. it will make wikipedia more reliable.

1. Please do not insert new threads in the middle of other discussions.

2. No I do not think that box office India is a reliable website but others use it, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com.

3. I am not responsible for all the articles on Wikipedia and have no obligation to fix them all before applying good practices to this article. See WP:BURDEN and WP:OSE. Fæ (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I agree with you that 375 crore figure is not verified as there are no official sources for box office income in India. This is the case with any film and not only Endhiran. The Endhiran talk page starts with a notice "Unless you are prepared to find a source that is a quality source (not a news aggregation website, forum or fansite) and the source makes an unambiguous credible statement of box office income rather than future projections of income or vague estimated income...." First of all, Economic Times is a quality source, right? Secondly, the source makes "unambiguous credible statement" that "The film went on to become the highest grosser, overtaking Aamir Khan’s 3 Idiots". Now my question is ..what is the issue in acknowledging the fact that Endhiran is the biggest hit in India as Economic Times clearly states this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe there is an issue and we probably agree on the facts just not how to add them to the article. My rejection is to representing such a figure as an encyclopaedic statement of income (be it gross or otherwise) when it is a qualified estimate. If the figure was suitably qualified in the article (preferably with a representative number of alternative estimates as used in other sources, or indeed the same source as it was the Times of India that estimated gross income as greater than 400 crore) I see no issue with it being used and I would support such an explanatory addition to the article as it would illuminate how controversial and unreliable these figures are in this industry. Fæ (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

the real grosser source

the truth about endhiran gross revenue http://www.sify.com/movies/enthiran-profit-rs-47-crores-news-tamil-lb5ndDcgdej.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.35.174 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

N See profit and revenue. Fæ (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Another Official confirmation from Sun tv COO

i want to ask the wikipedia administration one question.. on what basis you people put 250 crores as revenue for dasavatharam. you contradicts ur own policy. according to your policy gross revenue should be from two independent reliable source. where is that second reliable source. also in india we dont have exact box office calculations. all are approximate collections only. when a coo of the producing company admits that gross revenue for endhiran around 375 crores. what is ur problem in accepting that. any way you are going to put that as reference. so no one question ur reliability. so be neutral in accepting or rejecting any issues.. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmsjdd (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/142049/rajinikanth-starrer-robot-grosses-rs-375-crore.html here is the ibn link stating endhiran is the highest grosser in the history of indian cinema... also SUN TV COO has spoken about enthiran collected around 375 crore.please update endhiran aka robot is the hishest grosser of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkrish87 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See #Economic Times by Times of India above. Fæ (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am really surprised to see that, for films like Dasavatharam, 3 idiots, where are the  official box office figures?; i never seen any such arguments for those films or open statement from the Chief operating officers of the producers company for those films. Atleast for Endhiran, Sun tv network COO came infront of media and gave rough estimate of 375 cr (Probably this should be the white figure between 350 to 400cr). There are thousands of articles and quotes which are just news given as reference.

Sun tv has also given the 3rd quarter revenue for endhiran which do not include the distributors share and theater owners (179Cr revenue for Sun network alone). It is not possible for any one to say the actual and trustful figure from producers end; who need to pay tax as well. I also dont think that no one will written statement for that. Since Suntv is public listed company it has shown some figures. you can watch the interview of Suntv COO

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/142049/rajinikanth-starrer-robot-grosses-rs-375-crore.html

Leave out the box office hits, how then the flops are decided?; it all the rough estimate from different sources.I also dont think that no one will written statement for this also.

Thanks for including this in reference.

Video?

I found a YouTube video of the film, and would like to add it to the article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svOlz2ei4Yk&feature=player_embedded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkhaoz (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No YouTube videos of the film on Wikipedia. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC Reliable source

When sites owned by many private television companies in India are reliable sources why isn't the site of Magazine owned by sun networks a reliable source ? SyberGod (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)5

• Sun Network is more reliable than other private television companies. Sun network is a publicly listed SENSEX company, they can't betray their shareholders, as it would destroy the company. I think, people like Fae understand this, but he seems to be an Aamir Khan fan.. Dinakaran is perfectly reliable, when you're able to gather information from there--72.14.194.1 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

addition: I've seen many Indian film articles citing numbers from "boxofficeindia.com" etc. Has anybody looked into, who is providing the information? Where is Fae's pro-active "neutral" input here? I say "boxofficeindia.com" is a fraudalous site giving fake numbers and interviews. Can anybody in this world prove their credibility? --72.14.194.1 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Box office figures based on promotional press releases from the production company would require some supporting reliable independent sources. As has previously been stated, vague rounded-up figures and forecast figures are neither verifiable or credible. Fæ (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Listen Fae.. any verifiable box office figure comes only from the production company itself. You are basically saying, that Dinakaran, a newspaper owned by the production company Sun Network was not verifiable or credible, which is simply wrong and Sun may issue a complaint for this statement. It's a publicly listed company, therefore reliable, verifiable and credible. It's not your business to check, if the source has English newspaper feedback. It's a Tamilian film and hence a box office statement is in Dinakaran and not in "E!". Do we need an admin here?--72.14.194.1 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you would like some authoritative alternative views on whether it is appropriate to single source these figures based on promotional press statements rather than verifiable accounts, then I suggest WP:RSN as a suitable noticeboard though you are free to use the processes described at WP:DR though they would not apply until this RFC is completed (it would normally run for 30 days). Fæ (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that the IP address 72.14.194.1 (talk · contribs) has since been re-blocked for two months as an open proxy. As it is apparent that anon IP accounts are being mis-used here, please set-up a named account if you wish to be taken seriously in this RFC discussion. Refer to WP:BENEFITS. Fæ (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Endhiran is reported as the Biggest hit in the history of Indian cinema by Newspapers such as Indian Express also. Please check http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Endhiran--Biggest-hit-in-the-history-of-Indian-cinema/697154/. Here, the article compares it with 3 idiots also. Further, noted trade analyst from Hindi Film industry, Komal Nahta also reports on his site that "Shankar’s Tamil film, Enthiran, starring Rajnikanth, was also a blockbuster, and if one were to consider the collections of its Telugu and Hindi dubbed versions (both titled Robot) too, the total would surpass the collections of 3 Idiots" Please check the link http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/bollywood-box-office/bollywood-hits-flops-diwali-to-diwali/. I feel the article needs to be updated with this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Indian Express link discusses income up to the second week and is addressed by sources already in the article. The article by Komal Nahta on koimoi.com (archive) does make these statements but quotes no figures or sources for the information and so the article appears to be an opinion piece. Fæ (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is now not reliable encyclopedia as its not ready to accept the fact on endhiran boxoffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.24.211 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As there is no source for official collections in Tamil Nadu and most of the south India it is almost impossible for the media to collect data ,So the Gross announced by the Film's producer shall remain as the reliable source. SyberGod (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Film's producer published income figures that appeared accurate and with some rationale to how they were calculated (such as a set of monthly totals by region) and then we could see that figure used by other quality reliable sources (as they undoubtedly would, considering the lack of sources) I might agree, however in this case we only have a vague rounded up unexplained figure in a marketing statement that has not gone on to be quoted by any of the quality sources such as leading national newspapers, magazines or film analysis publications. Just because some editors are frustrated at the lack of reliable sources does not mean that we should throw away WP:V, particularly considering that this figure is the difference between getting the film rated as the top box-office income film in the history of Indian cinema on the top world-wide website for information (Wikipedia) or not. Fæ (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a Tamil Movie , so quote some reliable tamil sites sources other than dinakaran !

SyberGod (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think now most of the people raised questions about Endhiran, might got answer by means of Sun pictures Chief operating officers interview on CNN-IBN and economic times report. The point is before Endhiran, one hindi film was accepted as highest grosser for couple of years. Now suddenly question raises about reports in leading papers like Economic times. Worry continues.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

International film festival

Endhiran does it again!

please add this reference

http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-news-1/jan-11-05/rajnikanth-endhiran-29-01-11.html

Jan 29, 2011

Super Star Rajnikanth’s Endhiran, which had made heavy collections worldwide, was screened at the prestigious Thromso International Film Festival in the Arctic Region. So far no Indian film has been given this much of importance here.

Thromso, a city in Norway, is a snowy place situated at the North Pole of the world. This prestigious film festival is one of the important International Film Festivals and is held for six days every year.

Around 55000 people from around the world participated in this festival. This festival was started in the year 1995 and this year’s fest commenced on January 18th 2011.

This year the only Indian film which participated in this festival was Endhiran which had Rajnikanth and Aishwarya Rai in the lead roles. This film, directed by Shankar, was screened for two days with English subtitles. The international audience who saw this film appreciated it very much. Though many Indian films were recommended for this festival it was Endhiran (Tamil version) that finally made it.

There was a good response for this film which was screened on 19th and 20th January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be devoting your account to getting this Norwegian film festival promoted. Please consider the guidelines of SOAP and SPA. Fæ (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am neither a Norwegian, nor a stake holder of Film festivals. I actually wondering how people are unable to accept the truth. Earlier even after providing the links, administrator were unable to scrutinize it properly. Then for such condition, I was in the position to answer your query and to clarify. Because wikipedia will need Proof for every thing. But I am not having the video clips of the film festival either. I am helpless.. sorry. If you wish this page can improve, you may add this one as well. Regarding devotion, You are right, I sincerely work for each and everything I come across. Thanks

Tromso film festival-Norway

Please add about the international screening of Endhiran (Source official website- Tromoso international film festival as mentioned below)

Endhiran/ROBOT featured in Overdrive category of Tromsø International Film Festival,Tromsø, Norway between January 18 to 23.This is the only Indian movie screened at this film festival (is the largest film festival in Norway as considered by attendance figures; in 2010 there were 58 267 admissions. This film festival included movies like 127 hrs, Black swan etc.,

Links:

http://www.tiff.no/?go=film

http://www.tiff.no/?lan=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any film article lists individual screenings, unless there was an award won at the film festival. Secondly, I cannot actually find Enthiran mentioned on the pages you have linked to. Fæ (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Administrator, for your query regarding not able to find endhiran in the list;

http://www.tiff.no/?go=film In this Link, you can see the text like the following (Please select English language option in the right corner of the sections/tools Overdrive IRON DOORS - Stephen Manuel, 2010 KOKUHAKU - Tetsuya Nakashima, 2010 NANG NAK - Nonzee Nimibutr , 1999 ONG-BAK - Prachya Pinkaew, 2003 ROBOT - Shankar Shanmugam, 2010 My point is to just "making a mention about its screening". It is like a nomination for the award which is generally mentioned in the Wikipedia. Though the film didnt get award, to screen the international film festival is incredible and it is the only Indian movie screened.

I am really surprised to see that, for films like Dasavatharam, 3 idiots, where are the official box office figures?; i never seen any such arguments for those films in the forum or open statement from the Chief operating officers of the producers company for those films. Atleast for Endhiran, Sun tv network COO came in front of media and gave rough estimate of 375 cr (Probably this should be the white figure between 350 to 400cr). There are thousands of articles and quotes which are just news and given as reference for other films. Sun tv has also given the 3rd quarter revenue for endhiran which do not include the distributors share and theater owners (179Cr revenue for Sun network alone). It is not possible for any one to say the actual and trustful figure from producers end for 375 cr; who need to pay tax as well. I also dont think that one will give written statement for that. Since Suntv is public listed company it has shown some figures and general estimate should be more than what we are discussing about. you can watch the interview of Suntv COO http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/142049/rajinikanth-starrer-robot-grosses-rs-375-crore.html Leave out the box office hits, how then the flops are decided?; it all the rough estimate from different sources.I also dont think that, one will give written statement for this also. Thanks for including this in reference.

thanks for the source. it is now included in the release section.--Wangond (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

IIM-A syllabus- Success of Endhiran or Robot

Please add this reference if the administrator thinks genuine.

The sci-fi movie, made originally in Tamil, would be included as a part of an elective course called "Contemporary film industry" in IIM-A. Robot would be part of the syllabus as a case study to analyse the business of cinema and its success story. Another Tamil film starring Rajinikanth -- Muthu -- would also be added to the syllabus.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/124324/latest-headlines/rajinikanths-robot-becomes-part-of-iim-a-curriculum.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The content was implemented.--Wangond (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is a crore?

Nobody knows what a crore is, at least, nobody outside India. I tried to change the values in Western numbering (this is ENGLISH Wikipedia, and English numbering MUST BE USED), but someone evidently thought otherwise and reverted my edit. My congratulations. --Gspinoza (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are under a misapprehension, this is the English Wikipedia, which means it applies everywhere English is spoken rather than England or the US/UK. Currencies are quoted in the format of the country to which the article applies, in this case India. See MOS:CURRENCY for the official guideline. Fæ (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes but "crore" is not a currency, is a system of numbering. If I'm not mistaken, the currency of India is the rupee. Or are you implying that an article in English wikipedia about the Maya should use only their base-20 system of numbering? You folk are being really ridiculous. --Gspinoza (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The usage here is correct. The ₹ symbol is the currency, and writing "₹ 350 crore" is acceptable. I'm going to go make a change now so that the first use of Crore links to the Crore article. Rogerawong (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Title Spelling Change

I believe the correct transliteration of the film's title into English should be spelt "Endhiran", with a "d". This could be an arguable issue since there is no acceptable transliteration standard between Tamil and English. However, as a native Tamil and English speaker, I feel Endhiran comes closest to a phonetic equivalent to the film's original Tamil title. A simple google search will prove that as many sources and resources are using the "Endhiran" spelling, if not more.

Hello. I support your view, but somehow the title was transliterated in roman letters as Enthiran in the movie itself. This shows the lack of a standardization in transliteration of Dravidian languages.--Wangond (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ya. One needs high standard of knowledge to understand Dravidian languages especially Tamil.

Edit request from 202.153.41.35, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Enthiran The Robot collections are more than 500 cores coz for simple reason 375 crores is only from domestic market and only Tamil version.............. Sachin rocki (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You might want to take into account the last 6 months of debate. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Crore"

I'd like to suggest that crore (and lakh) are words that are mostly unknown to English speakers outside India. They are of course perfectly valid English words in Indian English, but it may be helpful to either avoid them or (better yet, in my view) to explain them. I don't know what the Manual of Style has to say on this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion #What the hell is a crore? above which points to the MOS guideline. As all the sources use crore it would be odd to arbitrarily deviate from the conventional terms used when discussing large financial figures in English in India, however I agree that if the consensus is that the article does not read well for the layman then crore should at a minimum be linked to on first use, or explained in brackets (e.g. "Rs. 23 crore (230 million rupees)"). Fæ (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WTF 375 crore!

375 crore is an untrue, exaggerated figure and not even a proper claim. Totally against wiki policies. Remove it immediately and reinsert 250. --175.110.141.12 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please look in to this reference also http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/williamsburg-film-fest-has-global-appeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

William Marry film festival, USA 2011

Please add this international screening in William Marry film festival, USA 2011 Super Natural- GLOBAL FILM FESTIVAL at Kimball Theatre.

http://filmfestival.wm.edu/ http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/williamsburg-film-fest-has-global-appeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

N Unless there is some remarkable reason for mentioning a screening, such as winning a notable international award (i.e. an award with it's own Wikipedia article), then such mentions for the sake of including external links to film festival websites fail WP:IINFO. Fæ (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

terrahertz

....is spelled terahertz. Why don't you enable editing so that people who know things can actually modify these pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.198.175 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

See the page logs, it has been protected several times for persistent extensive vandalism, mainly from anon IP contributors I'm sorry to say. If you wish to contribute please set up an account, see WP:BENEFITS. Fæ (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about Stan Winston and ILM

A few days ago I removed this from the article: "the leading US-based Stan Winston Studios and Industrial Light & Magic, who took care of the visual effects in the film" — because they aren't listed on IMDB for this movie (and I found no reports in reliable sources of their involvement). This edit has been reverted, so I'm documenting this reason here for posterity and re-doing the change. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

IMDB isn't considered a reliable source, because it's user edited. You can watch the movies' credits or here: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/tabloids/hollywood-studio-creates-rajini-android-endhiran-635 --Wangond (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that says Stan Winston, but does not mention ILM; I'll modify the sentence. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, and to prevent further confusion, ILM maintains a complete list of all movies they've ever worked on at http://www.ilm.com. (Alas, it is flash: you must click "Our work" on the left menu bar to be taken to an alphabetical list). Riotnrrd (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Top grossing Indian film of all time"

Even if one were to accept figures in hundreds of crores, this wouldn't make Enthiran the highest grossing Indian film of all time. After adjusting for inflation, Sholay netted Rs 813 crore; see http://www.ibosnetwork.com/asp/actualalltime.asp -Splitpeasoup (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sholay was released in 1975 and its now over 35 years of its release and 813 crores is defenitely within 1 year of its release. If you give Endhiran 35 years and post this comment, then its possible agree. But I do see Endhiran making more than 813 crores in less than 3 years. Moreover the link above shows only Hindi movies doenst consider regional audience hence the report is biased and could be wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.110.49 (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ARTICLE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vensatry (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)I wish the article could be smi-protected for a period of time to prevent vandalism. It seems like many Anti-Rajini fans are editing this page in a wrong way.

Enthiran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Vensatry (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please raise your request at WP:RPP rather than here. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enthiran/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Prose seems fine, and MOS compliance is grand,

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   There's a few "citation needed" tags that need to be addressed (or the contested information removed, since the information tagged is trivial). Otherwise, citations are fine.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems grand to me.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History has been chequered. I had a look through the edit history and it seems to have abated, but I'd appreciate someone involved in the article confirming for me that the edit warring mentioned on the talk page is over. If so then that'll be grand.

   I believe it is self-evident from the page history that edit-warring over budget and revenue figures and the long, long term issue over how the title is transliterated into English are contentious and have been subject to continuous edit warring since the article was created. That I have just reverted changes related to both these topics shows the article is not stable and I am surprised that this would not be evident to any reviewer checking the history. Fæ (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   I hadn't seen anything recently when reviewing, and asked for clarification on the matter from the nominator, which I received here. I took this at face value and assumed it would hold true, though if it hasn't then I'll stick by my initial apprehension over this criterion. GRAPPLE X 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   A stroll through the most recent history over just the last month shows continuing instability on box office figures:

   3 April diff1 and diff2

   28 March diff

   20 March diff1 and diff2

   17 March diff

   13 March diff

   3 March diff

   The edit history should be preferred to make any decision on stability rather than giving such weight to the opinion of one major contributor who is the same person requesting GAR. Thanks Fæ (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   This change made today is the same issue. Fæ (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

   In this case, I'll accept that this promotion was premature, as this is definitely not satisfying the criterion listed. I'm unsure of the procedure for overturning a promotion, should I withdraw the promotion and fail the article myself or should I hand over the reigns to someone else? GRAPPLE X 13:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are grand, no problem with their sourcing or use.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm going to put this on hold for now until I hear back from someone about whether the article is still contested as it has been of late; also 'd like those citation needed tags to be addressed, though they arent crucial since they aren't marking controversial material,|I'm going to put this on hold for now until I hear back from someone about whether the article is still contested as it has been of late; also 'd like those citation needed tags to be addressed, though they arent crucial since they aren't marking controversial material,

   Everything raised has been addressed, so I'm going to go ahead and pass this as a Good Article. Well done.

gross dispute

The sources that are used for gross right now mention both "total gross" of 375 and "net gross" of 179. This seems to be something particular to Indian cinema. Would you happen to know which of these figures is typically used as the gross in Indian cinema articles? Perhaps mentioning this in the article and listing both figures could put an end to the confusion. BollyJeff || talk 12:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I previously added the 'disputed' notice at the top of the article in order to encourage a wider discussion about the meaningfulness of these figures; unfortunately Eelamstylez77 removed the notice just before raising the article for GAR and effectively forced a premature closure of the discussion intended to resolve the stability issue (at which point I sort of washed my hands of the article for a while and left them to it). It is now a bit of an embarrassment that the article has been classed as GA whilst the long term edit-warring continues.

375 crore is a promotional estimate and not based on any verifiable published figures. Personally I would prefer it removed altogether as there is a doubtful argument that the 375 figure is any more valid than other estimates available in other sources of 400 crore, 250 crore or 179 crore. The terms total gross or net gross are meaningless as without any published figures there is no way to judge what the associated tax or other liabilities might be. Fæ (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we have this discussion already concerning List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, and you (or someone else) said it was okay to use estimated figures in individual films but not in list form? There has to be a permanent solution, else no Indian cinema articles can reach GA in your eyes. BollyJeff || talk 12:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a discussion about the copyright of creative lists, this is a slightly different matter of what would be good practice for a GA class article. Any estimated figure is contentious for the box office income for Enthiran. For the article to become stable it would seem likely that a long discussion and examination of alternatives is needed. Cherry picking the figure of 375 crore from the promoter's campaign is easy to challenge as the single estimate of income when other figures are available. A solution may be to include an estimated range or add a section to the article explaining the issue about problematic box office income figures. Fæ (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let me make my clarifications. I removed the dispute tag considering how long it was since there was any dispute. I believe it was agreed upon that the 375 crore estimate from two reliable sources IBN and The Economic Times, along with some qualifier denoting that the figure is just an estimate, was enough to cover that part of the infobox. Secondly, the dispute tag was removed well before I nominated Enthiran for a GA review, although I agree I should have consulted Fae if, according to him, the disputes seemed to be clear. Also, at the time I submitted Enthiran for GA I made sure there was no recent editwarring going on, otherwise I surely wouldn't have submitted it, and I sure don't believe there was any editwarring, or mass editing for that matter, over the past month or two. Now for the issue of verifiability, I believe leaving the gross information the way it is at the moment is enough. Gross information does not seem any different from any other "estimated" claim that could be cited on artices, using a valid source. This is of course different from the 'list of highest-grossing Indian films' debates and related debates there were, as those articles would require set-in-stone figures in order for such rankings to be valid. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

One reason that the 375 figure is controversial is its relationship to claims that the film is the highest grossing Indian film of all time (which it might be if this figure is true). If the figure is an unverifiable estimate and we have no strong grounds to believe that figures of 400, 300 or 600 might be any less credible, then quoting any figure is dubious and can be validly challenged as cherry picking. If we quote one figure as "the" estimate then to provide balance we should probably also quote some of the other estimates that have been removed. Fæ (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder how this article got to GA as well. Just in the boxoffice section alone, I see misspellings, broken links, and sources that were considered not reliable in other GA reviews, such as behindwoods. This article says that the film did better than Anjaana Anjaani in the US on the same weekend. However, Boxofficemojo, which is considered reliable, shows AA but does not show this movie at all. Sure there are lots of links, but how many are quality? I also ran the article through a checklinks tool and found many dead links. Not good! BollyJeff || talk 16:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Do all reliable sources claim 375 as the estimate or are the reliable sources predicting various figures? Some unreliable sources usually inflate the figures. I think I made the mistake of submitting this article for GA without considering how premature it was. To be honest, I was a little surprised to find that the GA review only found a couple of problems overall. Does this mean a reassessment should be done or completely withdrawing its GA status? I now realize the multitude of errors this page has. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be missing the point, there are no reliable sources for these figures. When a national newspaper has repeated a figure it has invariably been quoted directly from either the production company's promotional claims or off the cuff forecasts from pundits, none of these sources have any possibility of verification as they have no independently verifiable accounts or process for reaching their forecasts or estimates. As for the different estimated figures available these vary wildly depending on what point the pundit involved is trying to make, including figures above 600 crore. A browse through this talk page's archives will show you that. Fæ (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not going to change, and we can't ban all Indian cinema articles from WP, so let's try to come up with a reasonable solution that could be implemented across them all. Maybe someone could write a separate article about the box office issues and then we could link to it from the word "estimate" on all the other articles. Also, in the meanwhile, what do we want to do with this one, given its other problems? BollyJeff || talk 12:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make a joke of my opinion by marginalizing it as an attempt to "ban all Indian cinema articles", I would rather take this article off my watchlist and walk away rather than be accused of some form of anti-Indian bias. I am pointing out that the number "375" is problematic even when declared as an estimate and you will note that I have avoided editing the box office figures in the article myself over the last few months due to my preference for discussion and consensus rather than becoming part of the long term edit-war problem. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not trying to accuse you of anything. You are a much more experienced user than me, so I am asking for your opinion on what to do. BollyJeff || talk 13:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

For the GA, as both original requester and reviewer have both expressed opinions wishing to withdraw the GA class, then there seems nothing to stop either of them doing so without resorting to a re-assessment process. If a third party were to object, then the third party could apply for independent reassessment themselves.

As for how to avoid future instability on box-office figures, this needs to embrace the views of the anon IPs that feel the need to keep on changing the figures. Solutions such as removing the estimate altogether or including an explanation of the range of estimates available in the sources have been suggested so far and it would not hurt stability to run a consensus process such as an RFC on the alternatives that stays open long enough, such as a full 30 days, so that some of the casual anon IPs feel they have been heard and influenced the outcome. Fæ (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A majority of IP editors inflate the gross income figure to make their favourite film look like it is doing well, thus they are vandals. Some only came to the rescue of Enthiran to try emphazing the fact that their favourite film was successful, thus those editors exhibit a clear POV. I'm not saying that we should disregard IP editors' inputs entirely - some could be quite valuable, but this debate would rather come to a much more structured, reasonable solution with inputs from those who regularly and sincerely contribute to Indian film articles. So it's better we take it to WikiProject:Film and/or Indian Cinema Task Force. For now, we should leave Enthiran's gross figure the way it is. It's got two valid sources, what more do we need? Unconstructive changes to it can always be reverted. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But about the GA... Someone needs to fix it fast, or withdraw the GA status and fix it as time permits. Can you do that? BollyJeff || talk 02:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to withdraw GAs (I only know how to nominate them...). But in the meantime I'll take a look at the dead links and see if they can be replaced. Any other issues? EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This page has a tool for checking all the links on a page (checklinks). I saw several categories of problems with links that you will see when using the tool. It also has a tool to check for disambiguation problems (dab solver), and one to help complete references (reflinks). All of these should be run for starters. reflinks is a tool that can help, but in the end, all the references should be completed with cite type, url, title, date (with like formatting), etc, and they should look uniform. Its a lot of work. I will look for spelling and grammar problems. Also look here for a list of trusted and not so trusted sources; and BTW, blogs are not trusted sources. See if you can replace some of the questionable sources (there are a lot here) with better ones. The Shriya Saran reviewer was much more strict than whoever reviewed this one; it never made GA. I also don't know how to change the status. BollyJeff || talk 13:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the following statement is apt for an encyclopedia article: "although because official box office records are not kept in India, this cannot be independently verified". Wouldn't it be better if we said something along the lines of "it has been claimed that the film is the highest-grossing film of its time"? EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever; it just can't stay as is. BollyJeff || talk 02:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Critical response section

The quotes in this section appear needlessly excessive. It would seems more useful to summarize the nature of responses from critics, possibly listing the publications that gave yet another good review without having to regurgitate long quotes from each review which by themselves are not particularly notable, as a list fail to meet WP:IINFO and due to being excessive direct quotes are probably a poor interpretation of copyright limitations as interpreted by WP:NPS. I propose these are trimmed right down so that only a maximum of 2 or 3 quotations are used in this section. Fæ (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I did some trimming. BollyJeff || talk 01:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Widespread critical acclaim?

• The claim "widespread critical acclaim" is not correct. Western critics especially have mocked this film in their reviews -- that doesn't translate to "widespread acclaim". ThomasJarrod (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Also non-Tamil people that I've seen discussing this film all find it silly and lame. No critical or public acclaim outside of the Tamil Nadu. ThomasJarrod (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you make some corrections then, instead of just drive-by tagging? BollyJeff || talk 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot find these bad reviews that you speak of. Bollywood Hungama and Rediff, both mainstream reviewers of Hindi films, give it 4 of 5 stars, and I can't find it on Rotten Tomatoes or other English sites. Removing tag after minor edit. BollyJeff || talk 17:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Article on Chitti

Why not write a separate article on the character Chitti and his powers and abilities? We can use some of the information from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinjanjaa (talk • contribs) 08:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of that. In fact, the whole "Scientific accuracy" section is really not needed and mostly unsourced, but I left it for now. The article is supposed to be about the making and showing of the film, not a bunch of scientific and fictional facts. BollyJeff || talk 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy

I think it is better to include this subsection under Reception section rather than Production section. Arfaz (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? Reception is how the film was "received" by audiences, box office, critical, etc. Not a place for random facts. See my comment above. BollyJeff || talk 15:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree this section is a bit random to be encyclopaedic. It describes plot elements which have little to do with an analysis of scientific accuracy. Asimov's laws of robotics are science fiction, not science and random technical jargon (such as the song using 'blue tooth') do not address the point and the fact that house fires may easily exceed 1000 centigrade is not mentioned even though we see the robot running around an entire building explosively burning (see Fire#Typical_temperatures_of_fires_and_flames). If anything the text could be trimmed to a couple of lines about the robot fantasy specifications and merge it into the plot section. --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

400 crore gross figure

The figure given in the article lead is based on an estimated figure from the Times of India which states "Rajinikanth's last film Robot was a spectacular hit that released in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi and grossed more than Rs. 400 crores worldwide." There are no authoritative sources that would back up this rounded up and vague appearing estimate. As this figure makes Enthiran the highest grossing Indian film of all time, the figure needs better explanation and sourcing than being plonked into the text as if it were an encyclopaedic fact. Fæ (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The IndiaGlitz figure really doesn't make sense. Prior sources reported 250 crores being made by the film worldwide, how could the number be much lower now? EelamStyleZ (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

i expected this from Fæ

@ eelamstylez google "revenue" . revenue is different from gross...

SyberGod (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I understand the difference, thanks. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think its better to put the domestic gross figure only (IBOSNetwork) and indicate that in the infobox. The actual overseas gross isn't available yet. The Times of India article is only based on estimations.--- Managerarc ^talk 15:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, i have added a source from economic times, where sun itself estimates a 375 minimum combined share. The other sources talked about 400 crores. I have therefore left it at 400.--Wangond (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? 400 is less credible as an estimate as it is the highest rounded up estimate any of the sources give. Not only is the number currently quoted as an unqualified fact rather than a vague estimate, adding the highest figure you can find fails the guidance of WP:CHERRY. See #Economic Times by Times of India above that discusses the same source. Fæ (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't give exact figures for Indian movies, because there is no national box office! Do you want to delete all these estimates from 1000+ Indian film articles? If so, please discuss it then at an appropriate place, not here, because this movie would be treated unfairly.--Wangond (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather worn out argument, please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF for the reasons why it is not accepted. Again, please read #Economic Times by Times of India above. Fæ (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF quote: "Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias". So Wikipedia recognises bias against this article, if treated unequally. And here you fail to recognise, that you have to include all film articles in your argumentation. You even block, when you get noticed by different users on the same issue. This is clear bias. I recommend you to take other steps, if you want to make a difference. As of now, there is a common practice to include figures from reliable sources, because there are no other possible ways to get numbers.--Wangond (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not blocked anyone as I am not an admin, you must be thinking of someone else. The guidelines for bias are slightly irrelevant here as there are plenty of Indian websites and newspapers already referenced. If you are arguing that because it is difficult to find reliable sources we should accept unreliable ones then I will continue to disagree. This article can quote a range of debatable figures cited from alternative sources (including the 375 crore and 400 crore figures) but should not cherry-pick a contested figure and present it as an established encyclopaedic fact. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No reference to any website or newspaper homepage, film magazine homepage, etc can give really verified numbers by official box office bodies like for instance theatre associations or similar bodies. All the box office sections, including this article, must be wiped out, cause nothing is 100% verifiable. If there is only one source out there, which gives a box office figure, this means only, there is only one unreliable source! It doesn't mean, that it's verified then or something similar! Please stop it already, and accept the realities here. Please move to dispute resolution of you want to remove everything related to box office figures in all Indian articles of Wikipedia. Thanks! --Wangond (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on your last comment we are in agreement that:

1. We agree that there is only one source for either the 375 or 400 crore figures.
2. We agree that the source is not independent and therefore is not a reliable source.
3. We agree that the figure is an estimate and not based on any published or verifiable sales figures.

However there is no consensus that this article should be an exception to the verifiability policy and yet you insist on removing the dispute notice from the article. Fæ (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"No reference to any website or newspaper homepage, film magazine homepage, etc can give really verified numbers by official box office bodies like for instance theatre associations or similar bodies." --Wangond (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"All the box office sections, including this article, must be wiped out, cause nothing is 100% verifiable.°--Wangond (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"You can't give exact figures for Indian movies, because there is no national box office!"--Wangond (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Please stop it already, and accept the realities here. Please move to dispute resolution of you want to remove everything related to box office figures in all Indian articles of Wikipedia. Thanks!"--Wangond (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouting does not help your argument. Insisting that all other articles must be fixed before this one is a fallacy that has already been explained to you. Please take time to read through Other stuff exists for an independent explanation. Thanks Fæ (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Official Box office - Rs.179 crore

Sun TV, being a listed company, published quarterly results disclosing the total cost of Enthiran to be ₹132 crore and total income ₹179 crore. We have to go by this figure only and avoid speculation by media. It also means the box office figure on Dasavathaaram is faulty and needs research.Kollyfan (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The revenue made by the company is less than the total grossed by the film due to the theaters share of gross not earned by or reported by Sun. The document above says nothing about box office. BollyJeff || talk 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That is speculation. The producer knows his product's worth more than the media or fans. Stop revert warring here please. Dasavatharam data is exaggerated, please help find correct data for that film.Kollyfan (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Now this is unnecessary, enough explanations have already been given. Gross is different from revenue. Almost all Indian film articles represent gross figures. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I placed the following question to all four projects associated with this article. Now we wait to see what happens:
Can I get a third party opinion of [edit] which is now locked? Can the company's revenue report of 179 crore be taken to mean the same as box office gross? Are the sources that were there already considered reliable? If not, what can be done, as it seems that aren't many sources for Tamil films deemed reliable. BollyJeff || talk 19:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out around a hundred times during this talk page history (go check the archive pages) there are no reliable sources for box office income. If any figure is quoted in the article it is an unverifiable estimate or a fantasy figure from a promoter. If anyone does care to provide a third party opinion, this should be taken into account. --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But what is your opinion of the 179 figure from Sun? Is that a box office gross figure, as Kollyfan claims, or something else? Is it reliable? How would you define it? BollyJeff || talk 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a declared revenue figure from the view of production company, hence not box office income (i.e. ticket sales) and the relationship between the two may be down to accountancy trickery depending on how the CFO wants to split up cash flows. Detailed financial statements that are already out of date when the encyclopaedia article is about the film rather than the company is misleading and unhelpful for the reader who would be looking to compare films by box office sales. It is equally misleading to quote 400cr (or whatever other estimate that can be plucked from various pundit publications) as these have no foundation on real ticket sales as far as anyone can determine. Fæ (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For a detailed review on the box-office figures have a look at this. Almost all high-grossing bollywood films use this as the primary source. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 03:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This source above looks authentic. Assuming ₹179 crore is the amount received by the producer (after sales to distributors), then it is the investment for the distributors. But, media reports claimed that the film was directly released by the producers in most of the territories (meaning zero distributors).Kollyfan (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Three sets of figures are given in the above source - gross (highest figure), nett and distributor share. I know nett is derived after deducting entertainment taxes (which differs for each State). What is the difference between distributor share and nett?Kollyfan (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Vensatry, User:Bollyjeff and User:EelamStyleZ77 seem like hard-core Rajinikanth fans. They have a conflict of interest in editing this article without POV. Anyway, if you guys believe ₹375 crore is authentic simply becoz a COO of the producers speculates on total takings at the box office, you would probably believe this fraud Harvard textbook as well that claimed erroneously that Sivaji - The Boss grossed ₹350 crore worldwide. It is a fine example of bogus records.Kollyfan (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say. See being a fan of Rajinikanth doesn't matter, any registered user would not do anything against the spirit of Wikipedia. Enough explanations have been already given. The article wasn't edited by those three editors alone. Numerous editors were involved in bringing up the article to GA status. Infact, I was not associated with this page before a month or so. And bringing up Sivaji is totally irrelevant to this context. If your claim being the case then it's not only a problem with this article, also with other Indian film(s) articles. This is not the first time such a problem being arised here so I suggest you go through the archives of this talk page where issues relating to budget, gross, etc are available. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 06:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me post my views here again. Well, that "official tally" is an official document, agreed, but it concerns the Sun TV Network company and NOT the film Enthiran! The number quoted there is the production company's net revenue, not the total gross revenue! The production company does not get the entire gross revenue of a film!! Don't you think all the theatres that screened the film will get revenues too?? Nowhere in your "official tally" it is mentioned that the film's total gross revenue was 179 crores! No, indeed there is no official source for the overall gross of the film, but in any case it has to be much more than the production company's net revenue. I hope you will understand now! Johannes003 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I get your point. I have modified the copy to include the new source link given above by User:Vensatry. My understanding is the producer sold the film for ₹179 crore (to distributors). Taran Adarsh is well quoted throughout Bollywood. So, his estimate of ₹255.5 crore seems reasonable. He even gives break-up for each language version across all markets.Kollyfan (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway the figure {INR}}375 crore was nonsensical as the film was a failure in Bollywood (for which 800 prints were allocated). So, it means, Enthiran is second biggest Indian grosser (after 3 Idiots) based on global receipts. I have changed the copy accordingly.Kollyfan (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, Enthiran gross ₹255.5 crore and Dasavatharam gross ₹200 crore. But more work needs to be done on Dasa.Kollyfan (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kollyfan, I applaud your skepticism; since you brought up Sivaji, may I ask what makes you refute the film's gross revenue details from that textbook? To my knowledge, McGraw-Hill is a well respected publisher and would be fairly rigorous when it comes to factual accuracy. Anyway, your comment of us being Rajinikanth fans seems to be out of the blue. You're calling everyone who edits Enthiran Rajinikanth fans who lack a NPOV? Your accusations are totally immature. It's as if we could say that you're a Rajinikanth hater, finding it hard to accept anything about Rajinikanth films. My position on this issue can be found here and here. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the last revision by User:Vensatry as of 13:13 9 June 2011. Perhaps a restriction to registered users only could be requested to prevent any unauthorized changes. Anyone can further discuss meaningful ways to strengthen the accuracy of the gross revenue information of Enthiran right on this talk page, or take it to Indian Cinema Task Force since its an issue for all Indian film articles. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't log in for a day and you pounce at the page removing links and reverting to your fancruft POV. Now you are claiming Sivaji grossed ₹350 crore? O man, you need to see a shrink. The Hindi population is 3 times larger than the combined populations of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.Kollyfan (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand to what others say. Your intentions doesn't seem good. Just before a couple of days you changed the figure as ₹ 179 c and now to ₹ 255 and trying to dominate others. Now it's very clear that you are against this article and other editors. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now how do we reconcile this 255 figure from boxofficeindia, which is considered a reliable source, with the 375 figure, which has several decent sources as well? BollyJeff || talk 13:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Where was BOI agreed to be a reliable source? Fæ (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, make that "reliable estimated figures" to everyone who regularly edits Indian cinema articles. I know we have not come up with a solution that pleases you, and probably cannot. BollyJeff || talk 13:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, note that the rebellious User:Kollyfan even admitted that BOI may be reliable. However, I think the sources we currently have for revenue and budget are adequate. There are multiple sources that echo the figures in those sites, so with respect to verifiability, it's better we keep our current sources. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The point being made here is not that we can point to some sources with numbers in them, but we should not just fill out the film infobox for box office figures without qualification as no box office income figures are officially published or verifiable for this film. The only figures available are unverifiable estimates from non-independent sources. As for revenue and budget these may be relevant to discuss, but they are somewhat tangential for the film as revenue will be declared corporate revenue (not box office income) and budget will be a figure that the production company have chosen to declare for this film (probably for tax purposes) which can be quoted but should be put in context. --Fæ (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When you say qualified, do you mean "(estimated)" like we have now or are you thinking of something else? We realize the problem, but need help with a solution. BTW, movies from any country would have the same problem that you described with budget. That will never be independently verifiable. BollyJeff || talk 12:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mean "(estimated)" or an equivalent. Budget might be verifiable (such as by looking at the company's annual report) but this is still at best tangential to an article about a film unless the film is particularly notable on that basis. Fæ (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it is a standard field in Template:Infobox_Film. If not considered important, it shouldn't be there. BollyJeff || talk 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the gross revenue should still be included in the infobox. We've got some sources that give what we are looking for so it wouldn't really make sense to have this article the only place where there is no data about it. I really don't see any negative implications with having estimated figures on the article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably you are suggesting adding the "total revenue" figure reported by Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd? This figure is not box office revenue or gross revenue and lacks any context in the section "'Enthiran' drives robust 3Q performance" and is not part of the financial summary, in fact at the time of the financial report a component of this figure was a forecast income flow rather than a currently booked revenue. If you feel you understand the figure, it might help if you could explain it clearly and why you think it is meaningful for an encyclopaedia article infobox without saying an awful lot more than "(estimated)". Fæ (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is another video by the same people (IBN Live) as one of the 375 sources, that claims 250 instead, and second all time Indian film, not first. I am not a Rajini fan; I only seek the truth. And here is another claim for the 200s. BollyJeff || talk 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it undoubtedly took a lot of money at the box office but you will note that IBN live says "reportedly earned 250cr" without explaining where the figure comes from and BBOI's figures are unexplained estimates. No matter how many pundits and regurgitated "sources" you dig up, the fact is that there are no audited accounts and there is not even a consistent method of estimating box office income. Putting any of these numbers in the article infobox will always be cherry-picking an arbitrary estimate and unencyclopaedic. Fæ (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, unless several people object with good reasons, I am going to enhance the box office section with some of these newer sources, and replace the current estimates in the infobox with ranges. BollyJeff || talk 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that any numbers we put in would be cherry picking, but what choice do we have when there are reports from major news agencies? Shouldn't mentioning the figure that the majority of these "major news agencies" report be an option? And no, I was not supporting the corporate financial report that Kollyfan was trying to include into the article, as you can see above, I was totally against that - I know that had nothing to do with the film's gross revenue. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for box office figures in India. North Indian media irrationally hype up their Hindi movies and belittle Southern films. Eros (the North Indian distributor, publicly listed) posted a higher overseas figure than the BBOI blogsite. I wonder, whether Bollyjeff is only here to make Southern films look poor, too, going by his suggestions and username. I remember, that Salman Khan said, that nobody should believe in numbers. And frankly, I don't believe, that Enthiran was a flop in North India, going by reports of UP/Delhi distributors published in DNA India. And many non-suspicious sources claim Endhiran was highest Indian grosser. So let's try to accept public listed producer estimates for the time being.--David Fraudly (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you avoid ad-hom argument, it will undermine any other point you are making.

Sticking the arbitrary and unverifiable producer's estimate in the infobox is misleading even if we stick (estimated) against such a number as it is undoubtedly an inflated best guess for advertising reasons. I would much rather see no figures summarized in the infobox and instead (if anyone can be bothered to write it) have a section in the article which explains clearly the problem with these figures and then can illustrate with a range of conflicting example estimates (which are supported by the sources available). --Fæ (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole of India (except Tamil Nadu) regards 3 Idiots as the top Indian grosser ever. That's sufficient consensus. Here we are debating about Enthiran as numero uno. What is worse is Dasavatharam flopped in both Hindi and Telugu and that is inflated based on one source, not corroborated by any other media. It's time to throw away egos and prejudices and stick to majority opinion. Taran Adarsh is a veteran. His estimates and rankings are widely circulated among the corporate world and film trade. If he is unreliable, who else is? I suggest tagging the article as disputed or not neutral until everything is resolved. Frankly Dasavatharam gross must be around ₹150 crore and Enthiran around ₹255.5 crore worldwide. Remember 3 Idiots made ₹100 crore in Mumbai metro alone. All this racist talk about non-recognition of southern accomplishments by Bollywood is just hearsay and must be brushed side. The producer's COO was thinking loud when he gave ₹375 crore as a ballpark to promote his film. That interview was broadcast within a fortnight of release. But the official corporate SEBI filing was published several months after release. Blindly pushing article to GA status creates museum pieces far removed from reality. Anyway, there is no point in arguing about bogus records. So I am not going to waste any more time here.

Mr "KollyFan", Taran Adarsh is a veteran Bollywood pusher, and as such he is supported by Hindi media only. Noone else is interested in his fabricated sales numbers. South films beat Bollywood films not only in India, but overseas too. 75% revenues come from South: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-11-18/news/27638208_1_film-industry-small-budget-movies-farokh-balsara Bollywood is a defacto tiny industry besides all the Hindi media hype --David Fraudly (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The film crossed 90 million $ according to http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/indias-kollywood-seeks-global-movie-spotlight-2293368.html --David Fraudly (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a estimate thrown up during a promotional interview with Hansraj Saxena, head of Sun Pictures by "AFP". It is not a reliable figure either calculated or supported by The Independent. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A promotional interview 9 months after film's release is very unlikely. And the independent takes the responsibility for publishing this figure.--David Fraudly (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's nonsense and you have added the figure with no consensus here. The Independent is accurately reporting what someone whos job it is to promote the interests of the production company has said in an informal interview. The number is clearly part of a quote given in quotation marks, this is not The Independent publishing the figure, only them quoting what was said for which they take no responsibility whatsoever. If the interviewee said "all Christians are cannibals", they could correctly report it, this would not make it an encyclopaedic fact. Fæ (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You are very narrow minded, when it comes to Indian collection figures, but that doesn't mean automatically we should go your way or you were correct by assuming bad faith against film producers. Bring some sources saying Sun Pictures overplay box office collections with reasonable sources first. After 9 months nothing can be tagged as promotional. Get that out of your head. It's only now somebody came up with the new figure, 2 weeks after it was published. This tells alot about the promotional character of this interview!--David Fraudly (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are really amazing! First I get accused of trying to inflate the figures, and now I get accused of trying to lower them. As I said before, I only seek the truth. I have have absolutely no bias toward north, south, east or west. I am not even Indian at all. If you Indians don't stop warring with each other though, I am going to try to get this article permanently tagged as disputed and delisted as a GA. Don't go on and say that I am against Indian films now. Look at my history and see that I put a lot of work into this article and others bringing them up to GA standard. I am willing to rewrite the last paragraph of the boxoffice section to include all estimates, big and small, but I don't know what to do about the infobox to stop this constant warring. If there are any admins out there reading this, can you help? BollyJeff || talk 16:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong to point the finger at you, but I doubt, that a Kollywood wellwisher would bow down to numbers produced by their northern counterparts, of which all these Bollywood sites are part of. Suddenly and from nowhere they give a South films total estimate - and say, the numbers were lower than their highest grossing Bollyfilm, while usually reliable newspapers claim all time records. Box office India or dedicated Bollywood media can never be reliable, especially not in South film terms. --David Fraudly (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By any possibility a Pakistani/Muslim?--David Fraudly (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, but why does it matter? Why can't you accept that someone can be impartial? Why can't we all just get along? BollyJeff || talk 02:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm openminded, but there are borders within India, which are reflected in the Indian media when it comes to reports, and hence there are sentiments and objectivity to be evaluated before using such reports here.--David Fraudly (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop accusing each other. This discussion doesn't seem healthy at all. I also request others to speak/think in a constructive manner, instead of having thoughts to make the article delisted. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)