Talk:Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film)

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: page has been moved. U-Mos (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Body Guard → Bodyguard (2011 film) – User:AlwaysKabhiKabhi, a sock puppet of User:MrRohanM, who is known for his continuous vandalism on previous WP articles is at it again. Without giving any reason, let alone a valid reason, the user has moved the page to another title. The poster on the film's page clearly shows how the film's title is spelt. For this very reason, I request the page to be moved back to its original title. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, Common name is Bodyguard. [1], [2]. It also matches the 2010 version.

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.

Critical response

There are five major reviews yet (one gave 4.5, four of them gave 4, one mixed review 3 stars, while two negative ones giving 2.5 and 2 stars) so the average score is around 72.5%. Scieberking (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Idiot who is acting as though he owns the page is removing notable sites from the review section and handing over a bunch of rules for me to read. Behindwoods is a notable site and is supported by the fact that its Alexa ranking is less than 5000. Secret of success (Talk) 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a clear personal attack. Read WP:WEB which plainly states that websites such as Behindwoods.com are not notable.

• The website has not received specific coverage from independent, notable third party sources or newspapers.

• Its content has not won a well-known and independent award, and is not distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators.

One should learn to positively contribute to the article (such as expansion, grammar, formatting etc.) rather than disruptive edits and fighting over and inserting unnotable reviews. Scieberking (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Zaib97, 2 September 2011

Hello, please can you swap the words mixed and positive because they were generally positive reviews and it is a good movie. Indian reviewers didnt give good reviews but overseas did. http://www.totalfilmy.com/reviews/34056.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/aug/31/bodyguard-bollywood-film-review

Zaib97 (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — Status {^talk_contribs  09:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Should be "mixed to positive". "Generally positive" is just not right and accurate. TotalyFilmy is not notable and Guardian review has already been added a couple days ago. Scieberking (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To some disruptive editors, who don't make a single positive contribution but cause disturbance and edit war, can't even digest "mixed to positive", so "generally positive" is really pushing it. I've arranged all the reviews according to ratings, cleared spam and vandalism. 2.5 of 5 is 50% and mixed, not negative. Scieberking (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Npeastcoast5, 6 September 2011

please edit the overseas collections as they are outdated

Npeastcoast5 (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

More accurate budget

This source provides a more accurate budget as compared to the 60c estimate. Plz add it to the article. Secret of success (Talk) 12:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The infobox usually mentions production budget (which is 60 crore), not the advertising and marketing costs, which, in any case, have also been mentioned in the "Release" section. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rickiekhosla1, 12 September 2011

Please add the following line under "Soundtrack", after the sentence - "The music rights were sold to T-Series for 6 crore."

 The starting notes of the song "Teri Meri" sound the same as Christian prayer song called "La Betleem colo-n jos" by Cleopatra Stratan. 

Rickiekhosla1 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

actors wrongly mentioned in infobox

The actors mentioned in the infobox are not credited in the order as they are done so in the film. Could someone change it? Secret of success (Talk) 09:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

The Telugu remake name is not Ganga but BodyGuard

Please make the change

Arunelr (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

box office for BODYGUARD

plz change box office collections as the total figure now stands 253 crore

plz see here

http://www.salmanonline.net/news-desk/news-archive/1855-srks-raone-fails-to-beat-bodyguard-3-idiots-at-bo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.15.75 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. That site is clearly a fan site, and Wikipedia does not accept fan-sites for many reasons. A source has to satisfy the reliability guideline. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 13:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bodyguard Box office

Plz add the folowing things:

• Bodyguards Final VERDICT is All Time Blockbuster
• The total business of the film is 253 CRORES, cause if it collected 200 crores in 20- 21 days, it can defintely cross the 250 creore mark cause now its been atleast 2 mnths since the release of the film

here are some links how bodyguard ia All time Blockbuster

http://boxofficereport.net/bodyguard-6-week-total-collections-all-time-blockbuster/ http://boxofficereport.net/is-bodyguard-an-all-time-blockbuster/ http://www.skfanclub.com/2011/10/finally-bodyguard-became-all-time.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.15.75 (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The sources provided by you are not good enough to be used here. For information on what kind of a source is needed, please go through this guideline. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 13:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2011

please edit bodyguard is no longer the highest grossing film of 2011 and not the second highest grossing film of all time acc. to wiki http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ra.One raone is 123.252.213.104 (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Debate going on here. You are welcome to give your opinions provided you follow the guideline. X.One ^SOS 09:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

Please change the gross to 229 crores http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3752&nCat= 123.252.212.35 (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

Please change total gross to 229 in infobox It has been wrongly quoted 250 Raonebest (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3402&nCat= http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3409&nCat= The first week collections are 99.50 crores!!! Can't believe no one ever noticed that! Please edit in the first section itself!

Raonebest (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Note that estimates are subject to revision, especially in cases of human error. Dru of Id (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

First of all it is not the second highest grossing film worldwide. Acc. to wiki Ra.one is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ra.One

Secondly, its first week gross is 99.50 crores. The article wrongly shows six day collections. You'll understand if you check the other link. Also Tuesday is when the week ends. So 99.5 crores and not 102.86 crores http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3409&nCat= http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3402&nCat=

Thirdly it did not break My name is Khan's record in U.K. It says it is piosed as in expected to!! So it is not confirmed. Please edit.

Lastly, its overseas gross is 7.29 million USD. Edit! http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_highest-grossing_films_in_overseas_markets#cite_note-1

Hoping for unbiased response! Raonebest (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I answered your edit request on Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, so I'm answering the related request here. First, we can't use Wikipedia itself as a source. Second, the inclusion of 240 crore on the article was the result of a week consensus. [Read: Blind fanboyism] Ra.One is the second highest grossing film, only according to bogus claims by its distributors. On the other hand, many reliable sources cite Bodyguard as the second highest grossing Bollywood film ever. The overseas collections were 8 million and the all-India nett was 140.95 crore. The first week (not counting the extended but the first seven days) collections were 100.10 crore. From my years of experience here on Wikipedia, I've seen dozens of fanboys of some stars and their trolling behaviors and disruptions on the articles related to the rival stars. This sort of behavior is just not acceptable. I hope you can understand that. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Acc. to this article http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=3409&nCat= first week gross collections are 99.50 crores. And point me where it says it broke MNIK's record! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raonebest (talk • contribs) 11:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the final tally and the more frequent amount, and that for "nett gross", is 100.10 crore. Where did it say Bodyguard broke MNIK's record, and what record? Please be specific. Scieberking (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In the box office section, it says "On Wednesday, a full release in 51 cinemas raked in £195,000, making it the highest opening day ever for any Indian film,[49] and breaking the box office record for week-day collection set by My Name is Khan.[51]" Raonebest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

Yeah. It did break week-day collections record in UK set by MNIK (by grossing 1,94,000 pounds as compared to MNIK's 1,91,000 pounds). Read the source. Scieberking (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So CNN contradicted itself in two different articles so cannot be used. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bodyguard Worldwide Gross

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Scieberking, why are you changing the worldwide gross to 253 when you know the Hindi only version is 230 crores. We used 240 for Ra.one because Box Office India failed to provide figures for the other version of the film, Tamil/Telugu/German/Chinese/etc. We discussed this with many editors and reach a consensus on the Ra.one talk page. Please stop vandalizing the page. Consider this your first warning. Also, if you go by what CNN-IBN says then their LATEST article pegs Bodyguard at 229 crore. Box Office India says 230 crore. Now it's your choice. Because a recent article by CNN-IBN trumps the reference you provided. Asher Madan 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why the figure is written as ₹229 crores right now. I believe it is ₹230 crores. Small difference, but even this should not exist; Ashermadan, CNN-IBN is not a BO webiste, its reporting from some other source most probably. Ans Ashermadan, for the umpteenth time, sign your statements by typing four tildes (~).

Secondly, Raonebest (a rather weird name, I must say :D ), do not pay much heed to what some editors are saying. "Second, the inclusion of 240 crore on the article was the result of a week consensus [Read: Blind fanboyism]" and "Ra.One is the second highest grossing film, only according to bogus claims by its distributors" are statements that warrant ignorance and foolishness, as they sound extraordinarily fanboyistic and are clearly not made with any good sense or intention. "From my years of experience here on Wikipedia, I've seen dozens of fanboys of some stars and their trolling behaviors and disruptions on the articles related to the rival stars. This sort of behavior is just not acceptable." And I'm quite certain the said editor himself is one of these "dozens of fanboys", and he certainly goes about "trolling" pages. You need only a little WP experience to see that. The only reason why the editor is labeling everybody else a fanboy and troll is because the others do not fall in line with his thoughts and opinions; its his only excuse, and he's clearly losing. Let him be. The discussion was about Bodyguard's worldwide gross, and it is ₹230 crores. I hope that clarifies the situation to some extent. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. It's not about trolling, it's about being fair and neutral to every article. Scieberking (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not being fair and neutral. Everyone knows this. Please stop this. BOINDIA is going to be used here as it is used in every other Bollywood article. Everyone except you agrees to this. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN-IBN is a third-party reliable source and it's all that counts. Since there's no consensus or restriction to use BOI on any film article (inlcuding Ra.One), anything from a reputed source as BO collections can be used. Scieberking (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The same can be said for you : "[Read: Blind fanboyism]" isn't civil or a part of assuming good faith. Personal attacks, refer to the talk page of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Not a very great record in not attacking, is it?

There has already been widespread discussion on this, and you should note with immediate effect that the Hindi version of Ra.One is ₹202 crore, and as such it has been mentioned in the Box Office section. What you are not trying to understand is the fact that Ra.One was a multi-language release. The common practice, especially among Hollywood films, is to take the combined gross of all versions (this includes re-release, dubbings, 3D etc.) A good example is The Lion King. The same should apply for all film articles. Bodyguard had only one language version, no 3D etc. and hence BOI is most notable. To quell any misgivings, it is possible to separately mention Ra.One's Hindi version gross along with all-language gross in the infobox, but that's about it. ₹230 crores is reported by the most reliable source (for Hindi films), so {India Rupee}}230 crores it will be. Hopefully you will try to understand this time. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your first warning Scieberking. We always use BOI UNLESS the film has released in multiple languages and BOI does not provide figures AS THE CONSENSUS THAT WAS REACHED EARLIER. Please do not put 253 or you will be reported. Asher Madan 06:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We rely on a reliable third party when we dont have any information from the main source BoxofficeIndia in the case of boxoffice collection for Bollywod films. IMHO, it should be ₹230 crores. Hey Ashermadan, there is no need for any warning while a doubt is discussed and as said earlier, please use four tildes ~~~~ to sign your comment in talk pages or discussion pages. -- Karthik Nadar 06:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Thank you for clarifying Karthikndr. I know that and that is what I told Scieberking. But he keeps on reverting the edits. Can you please explain it to him? Thanks in advance. Asher Madan 06:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent; we are nearing consensus. Ashermadan, I have already commented on your talk page, and you should follow up on it. I think ₹230 crores is the perfect number for BG. I am not under-reporting or being "paid by SRK", "being a blind fanboy" or "being a diva", so all excuses to attack me will be in vain. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt, first off Ra.One collecting 40 crore from dubbed versions is highly illogical, since there've been numerous media reports that discussed the low collections from dubbed versions. Secondly, 240 crore is official and "first-party" data. Many editors, including Karthik, have agreed that it is a promotional figure and "any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting." Regarding personal attacks, "Blind fanboyism" was not directed towards any specific editor, and even I did not say "the said editor", or use harsh language. Secondly, there's no, repeat no, consensus anywhere to use BOI for Hindi film articles. In fact, the notability and assessment process of BOI is highly disputed and controversial. BOI is not even considered "third-party" as it "estimates its data". In this case, CNN-IBN is a highly reliable third-party, independent source: "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." Third, this is not WP:VOTE and a clear consensus must be established. Please provide valid reasons if you want to revert my edits again. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right Scieberking. Tough BoxofficeIndia seem to be preferred for the Box office issues, when compared to CNN-IBN, I would prefer the later. CNN-IBN, been a third party, still they would prefer to research the information received by them. If then, would prefer CNN-IBN, but only when the info from BoxofficeIndia seems to be disputed. -- Karthik Nadar 07:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So CNN-IBN is a better source here, as I've stated above there is no consensus on any film-related project or any other relevant noticeboard to strictly use BOI. I don't mean disrespect for anyone, but lame things like a Facebook page and even tweets have been used only to inflate gross of certain films. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:::The latest article from CNN-IBN pegs Bodyguard at 229. It is from December 19 2011. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bollywood-rediscovered-mega-hits-in-2011/212464-8-66.html BOI is the preferred source in this case. Asher Madan 07:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Invalid point. This report is by Indo-Asian News Service (IANS), not by CNN-IBN staff, and not exclusive; therefore aggregated on several other newspapers also. The other source is an exclusive research report by Mihir Trivedi of CNN-IBN. When it was publshed on Nov 04, 2011, the theatrical run of Bodyguard was long over, so WP:RECENTISM is irrelevant. Scieberking (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:::: Well, I disagree. BOI is still the preferred source. Let's have a vote. Asher Madan 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:VOTE. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. Scieberking (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's clear the air once and for all, and put a full stop to all this nonsense being stated by Scieberking:-

• Fist off, ₹40 crores is the worldwide Tamil/Telugu dubbing gross. In India itself, the combined had a net total of around ₹10 crores (reported by BOI), which means the gross could be as much as ₹15 crores because tax in Southern states are much higher than the national average. 40 crores is very achievable; the media stated that it underperformed, comparing to the expectations created by Rajnikanth's cameo. They did not say the collections were poor in their own right, and Ra.One actually has a very high net for a dubbed Hindi film. Btw, its ₹38 crores, as Hindi gross is ₹202 crores.

• Secondly, no matter how much you say, the total figure must take up all dubbed versions. The Hindi-only version will not be put in the infobox; it may be put as an aside, but only along with all the language versions. There is no reliable source that states the all-language total, so there is no choice in the matter.

• There is a widespread, repeat widespread, and well-known fact that BOI is the only reliable source for Hindi films, unless Box Office Mojo starts seriously collecting Indian film numbers. There is no need of consensus as there are few BO sites for Indian films, and 80% of them are bogus (a la IBOS). It is generally accepted that BOI numbers are only to be taken, and in all film articles BOI numbers are used. Your excuses to reduce BOI credibility just to push up Bodyguard's numbers is bad. Care to explain why you are so hell-bent on using a BOI figure for Ra.One if BOI is not that reliable, according to you? Btw, BOI is definitely third-person, and the illogical claim of a single person doesn't change that. Non-third person character has been questioned by hundreds of Salman fanatics, who think that SRK pays BOI and hence BOI is not third-party, and that is so stupid that I don't even need to reply to such statements.

• I have not stated that CNN-IBN is unreliable, but they obtain their numbers from other sources (mostly BOI itself). You need not bring up definitions as BOI will stll remain third-party and reliable.

• Lastly, this is a consensus issue as you have been disruptive for long enough. This matter will be sorted out by seeing the consensus; after than we can see whether its a vote or not.

Good day Scieberking. I know you are unwilling to comprehend, but I must do my best so as not to be implicated by you later in some non-neutral discussions. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why there is discussion going on about this but ANIKITBHATT is right. BOI is reliable source and CNN can not be used here. Scieberking said that BOI is to be used before on other page but he is saying something else here. BOI should be used for Bodyguard (2011 Hindi Film). Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw, what is Scieberking's excuse to explain why a CNN-IBN article states that Ra.One earned 240 crores? I hope its not as lame as "240 crore is a bullshit figure". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah Scieberking, see your double standards are being exposed even by completely non-involved editors. Speaks volumes of Scieberking's tall claims of being neutral. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

YES HAVE NOTICED SCIEBERKING SAYING SOMETHING ON OTHER ARTICLE BUT SAYING SOMETHING NEW ON OTHER WORK. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::I don't understand why there's a debate about this. Kartik himself said that box office india should be used unless box office india can't provide the data. Bodyguard is a hindi only film and box office india is used for everything else. Just stick with box office india. Why was this issue brought like right now? Why not before? Plus, 253 crore was reported using 40% entertainment tax that Reliance always uses while others in the industry use 25% entertainment tax if you do the math. 253 is preposterous. Also, the tax for dubbed versions of a hindi film is 50% for dubbed tamil and telugu films. I thought Scieberking was actually confused as first but his double standards are clearly showing through. Even Zuleide agrees. Asher Madan 08:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Zubeidaas, please do not speak in caps lock. It means that you are shouting, and nobody wants anybody else to shout. Your point has been well-noted. Ashermadan, you need reading glasses; can't you spell anybody's name properly? Sperrking for Scieberking, Zuleide for Zubiedaas LOL. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for using CAP lock i am not angry. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of BOI has been disputed several times, and the latest entry was here, or even read this discussion. It has been established that BOI is an SPS and a weak source. Ankitbhatt, don't accuse others of bad faith, and comments like "nonsense" and "double standards". 40 crore is not achievable from any angle from a local net of 10 crore, as the dubbed screenings in overseas markets were very less, and to a very limited effect. CNN-IBN doesn't necessarily take it data from BOI, and as I've noted, this one is an exclusive research report by its staffer. Regarding Zubeidaaslam786's comment, it is useless because she contributes nothing to the discussion and I've already explained why BOI is a disputed source. Ashermadan, there's been no single source about the consumption tax. Everybody knows that all producers, including EROS, currently use 40% entertainment tax. Provide a source to back up your points. Scieberking (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I will use "double standards" if I see double standards being used; calling an editor as a "practitioner of double standards" is not an attack, just like "troll" is not an attack. The reliability has not been disputed, but the practice of approximation has been disputed; besides, it is well-known fact that even BOM approximates to a certain extent. It has certainly not been established that BOI is anything such, except perhaps by you. The statement "40 crore is not achievable from any angle from a local net of 10 crore, as the dubbed screenings in overseas markets were very less, and to a very limited effect" is pure original research and obvious POV, and such talk is not worth being given a second look.

Calling other editors "useless contributors" is unacceptable; her views are very much in sync with the truth, and she is an uninvolved editor who is looking at everything from a more distant view; the best view to see things. So your attempt at belittling her view will fail. Regarding tax, I do not know the exact figure for Southern states but the national average is 25% and most reliable sources say that South taxes are "little more than double" of it. Zubeidaas, it should be clarified that BOI is certainly not a disputed source, and Scieberking's multiple back-tracks on usage of BOI (especially regarding Ra.One and this article) have greatly diluted his stand.

Everybody knows Eros takes 40% tax? No, nobody knows and your statements are now bordering on absolute non-notability and pure fanboyism. I have no idea about Reliance/Eros or any other distributor, so I can' comment on individual stuff. But the South tax is 50%, shown by reliable sources.

And I am still waiting to hear the excuse about why the CNN-IBN link cannot be used as a source. Make it a good excuse, please. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Scieberking must be useless as he can not accept BOI is to be used. How do I report his uncivil behavior? He should be banned. Scieberking is rude and uncivil. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also I have read everything Scieberking has said on RaOne. He has made nasty remarks about everyone and he also sends nasty personal messages to other editors regarding certain people who comment here. He is Salman Khan fan who is upset that RaOne broke Bodyguard record. He is not a trade analyst so he does not know what he is talking about. He is two faced and a manipulator. I demand he be blocked for calling me useless. Please tell me how to ban a rude person like him. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I've said this once and I'll say it again. Box Office India is used all the time unless there is a problem like them not providing data for all the versions. Bodyguard is a Hindi only release. What Scieberking is saying is just pure fantasy. I do not know where he is getting this information. Box Office India is the right source to use here. The reasons stated above couldn't be more clear. Asher Madan 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The article I provided is perfectly acceptable because CNN should not have published it if the numbers disagreed. There is something called consistency. It appeared on the CNN website and they knew that that article said 229 while another said 253. 229 article is newer so it should be used. Ideally BOI should be used.Asher Madan 08:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Asher we all agree that BOI is best source. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing other of speaking "nonsense" is clearly one. BOI fully operates on the practice of approximation, which doesn't make it a third-party and independent source, but a self-published and weak source. Even the 50% tax in the Southern region can't make 40 crore gross of a 10 crore nett. There were very few, overseas screenings of dubbed versions, it all goes almost on the verge of overlooked. The entertainment tax is around 40 percent in most regions: 1 and 2. Secondly, you don't need to misinterpret my views. Where did I say that Zubeidaaslam786 is a "useless contributor". I only said that her/his comment (not herself/himself) contributed nothing to the dicussion, hence useless. Thirdly, what IBN link are you talking about? Ashermadan, it was an IANS report and therefore also published on other media. It took all its data from BOI, without citing of course. Scieberking (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It was on the CNN website and published by them. Sorry, you can't use that as an excuse. The article I sited was more recent and more valid. Please stop this right now. Everyone disagrees with you. Asher Madan 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to control your abuse Scieberking or I will report you. You are uncivil. You must be useless, not me. Everyone except you is neutral and you have agenda. I have read all your message to Kartik and Secret of Success XOne SOS. You did this on purpose because you are upset over the number put on other article. Stop being fanboy and rude to me. I am warning you. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I need to go to sleep but I am sure Meryam90 will get involved and support the decision to use Box Office India in the morning. I am sure other editors will support us. Box Office India is the best source we have currently. There were no multiple versions of Bodyguard and there is no need to use contradictory CNN articles. Asher Madan 08:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it was aggregated from IANS, and unlike Mihir Trivedi's research report, not by a CNN-IBN staffer; hence irrelevant. Scieberking (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It appeared on their site and is relevant. Sorry. Asher Madan 08:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Scieberking it is good source. It show why CNN can not be use here. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Scieberking, we have voiced our opinion and you are the only one still pushing your agenda as everyone is saying. I will oppose using that source no matter what. Zubeida, Anikit, Meryam will too. The last thing I will say before I sleep is that you need to stop being a Salman fanboy and think of wikipedia first. You need to be neutral. Asher Madan 09:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It clearly mentioned IANS, while the other one has "Mihir Trivedi, CNN-IBN" on the top. Check this out; a general report and aggregated on a few dozen places. It is not a WP:VOTE Scieberking (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not having commented earlier; I was a bit busy with my user page.

The link provided by Ashermadan is a perfectly reliable source, and if it is used by CNN then definitely it can be used as a source. Sorry Scieberking, that is unfortunately not true; it doesn't matter even if IANS reported (and IANS itself is not unreliable), if the highly reliable sources use it, there is credibility in it. It is definitely not irrelevant.

Zubeidaas, refrain from saying that other editors are useless, even if other editors say so to you. It is best to ignore them or leave them off with a short warning.

Ashermadan, let's top this fan war, its been going on for too long. We know where allegiances lie, so no need to over-publicize the fact. Just concentrate on the issue.

Yes, it is agreed that BOI is the best source if for Hindi alone. I have said this hundreds of times.

BOI approximates to 99% accuracy (it has been backed by distributors) so your attempts to reduce BOI credibility are going down the drain. It is a reliable third-party source. And need I again point out the fact that you were extremely set on using only BOI on the Ra.One article? Come Scieberking, nobody is a fool, so don't treat others like one.

"Ashermadan, it was an IANS report and therefore also published on other media. It took all its data from BOI, without citing of course." LOL, if it took ALL its information from BOI, then they should have reported ₹202 crore for Ra.One as BOI has not reported anything other than Hindi version of it. I'm sorry Scieberking, you are weaving your own trap bit by bit, and your comments are becoming increasingly funny to read. Your stand has been greatly diluted, and your views no longer carry the sort of weight they used to carry before, mainly due to this back-tracking and double-facedness.

Tax is 40-60% in several states, but what Scieberking conveniently forgot to mention is that several states are tax-free, such as major revenue earners like Punjab. The nation-wide average is 25%.

Scieberking, I seriously can't believe you said this : "Even the 50% tax in the Southern region can't make 40 crore gross of a 10 crore nett." LOL, when did I say a 10 cr net form India alone makes 40 cr gross? I said the worldwide gross is ₹38 crore, and that is very possible. it is to be noted that your repeated statement about the negligibility of dubbed versions overseas is a plain lie, as Ra.One gained a considerable dubbed release overseas, especially in Tamil-populated areas such as Malaysia.

Yes, Scieberking has been very silly in Ra.One and he is becoming quite silly here as well. A shame, really. Neutrals have already run down Scieberking's arguments (Karthik), and still he stands defiantly. Clap-worthy. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a fine line between aggregated data and an exclusive report like I've pointed out above a few times already. Secondly, as I've twice stated, the latest entry about BOI has made me skeptic about its practice and it lacks a business face. Let's wait for other established editors' opinion on this. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop this. Scieberking seemed neutral here. If I have missed out anything, please let me know. And Ashermadan has gone to the extent of canvassing stating that "Meryam90 will support me". I did not have patience to go through the entire discussion, but rubbing on it says that there is something fishy going on here. You better take a break, just like we did in SRK's article, or admin intervention is required. X.One ^SOS 09:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, SOS. Yeah, let's just take a break. Scieberking (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

X.One, read through this discussion and then tell me that Scieberking is neutral. Btw, let's take a break, then what? We'll be back to this. Do you think Scieberking is going to stop insisting a higher figure for Bodyguard? You must be very naive if you think "yes". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If editors are unwilling to take a break, fine. Let's solve the issue here and now. According to WP:PSTS, primary sources are not reliable enough to override secondary sources. BOI is a primary source, as discussed in a previous RFC, and CNN-IBN is not, if they take material from various other agencies, as they mention in their disclaimer. Regarding the IANS report, it says that the information is from Box office India, yet I see no mention of BOI giving a 240c report for Ra.One. There are some errors in it, no doubt. But as long as we did not have contradicting sources for BOI, we could have used it. X.One ^SOS 09:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And Ankit, please point those incidents where it has taken place. If it is indeed a violation, I'll accept without hesitation. Please keep Zubeidaaslam out of this if they cannot control their extent of pouring personal attacks, and threats. X.One ^SOS 09:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How nice. BOI is a primary source. Great. Anyways, the point is that 240 cr figure can be used. Right or not? Give a plain answer. Keep Zubeidaas out of this? Huh? I don't know what sort of nonsense Scieberking is feeding you, but let me make it clear that I did not bring the editor into this discussion. This has gone far enough. Support Scieberking if you wish, but don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. And go through discussions before jumping in with opinions. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN published two contradictory articles and is not reliable. It cannot be used here because in one newer article is says 229 and other it says 253. Only BOI can be used here. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Zubeidaaslam786, please stop adding redundant stuff into the discussion. Your concern has been already answered thrice and the discussion is already getting too lengthy. Thanks for your understanding. Scieberking (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The 240c figure for Ra.One is perfectly fine, as long as other reliable sources, do not contradict it directly. I have no objection for that. BOI had given the data only for the hindi version, and the dubbed versions cannot be ignored. Period. X.One ^SOS 10:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And Ankit, I'm not "supporting Scieberking" by any means. Please don't accuse me of that. My opinions are my own interpretations of Wp rules and regulations. X.One ^SOS 10:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I'm willing to discuss each and every bit of this conversation with you, if you would lend me your ears and patience for the time-being. X.One ^SOS 10:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So CNN contradicted itself in two different articles so cannot be used. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern has not been addressed and you just insulted me instead Scierber. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that CNN lost it's credibility because it published two articles on it's website, thus giving those reliable status. One said something else and the other said something else. They endorsed the content by making it available on their website. Your source was proven to be wrong because the same publisher published something completely different. There is a contradiction from the same source so it cannot be used here. Stop trying to ignore that and make up your own theories. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, "Bollywood rediscovered mega hits in 2011" is not a direct research by CNN-IBN. The issue is not as simple as you think. News organizations may use reports from other news agencies like IANS, and that means as long as they give an attribution, they cannot be held responsible for that report. If you are a new user, consider reading the guidelines and policies first. X.One ^SOS 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

253 source cannot be used because publisher contradicted himself! Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the rules and that is my interpretation. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Zubeidaaslam786, please read from above. The first source was an exclusive research report by "Mihir Trivedi" of "CNN-IBN", while the other one claiming 229 crore, owned by IANS, has been aggregated on more than two dozen places, and was not CNN-IBN's own work. Scieberking (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BOI is still the most reliable source. I will not change my stance. You are wrong. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The publisher contradicting himself cannot make it an issue. It is the person who has created the work which matters. And Simply saying that a horse has five legs doesn't make it true – you must prove it.. X.One ^SOS 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not talk to me until you have read all this discussion. You are misinformed. 253 cannot be used. Read AnikitBhatt's explanation. Stop this fanboyism. I have read all the exchanges between you and king so stop pretending to be neutral. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read your personal attacks against other editors and Ra.One film. Do not deny it. Your talk page is filled with personal attacks and biased statements. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What you say here does not erase what you have said about others on your private talk page. I was shocked and disgusted by those comments. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is one such comment: "Hey, how can you compare a dumb elephant and an intelligent mouse? :P If Imran had the same fan-following as SRK, this film would have soared to great heights, not to mention the overseas collections. X.One SOS 16:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)"

You have also abused other editors multiple times here. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was commenting on content, not on any specific user. How is it a personal attack or a disruptive activity then? I discussed it with a user, and that did not interfere with any article or the encyclopedia as a whole. X.One ^SOS 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Zubeidaaslam786, instead of adding irrelevant allegations, please actually contribute to the discussion. Scieberking (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have received a complaint about edit warring on this article, and I have taken appropriate action by fully protecting the article until some agreement is reached here. It is clear from reading through the discussion that there is more than a disagreement over content, with some comments being less than civil, and others suggesting a battleground mentality. If any clear agreement cannot be reached then alternative options should be considered, such as mediation. I will not unprotect the article until a clear consensus has been formed. CT Cooper · talk 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I came here for similar reasons, and see enough incivility and personal attacks to block at least 3 of the editors in the exchange above. Follow WP:DR. Come to consensus wording ("according to sources, it has earned between 229 and 240..."). Seriously, this picking of nits is ridiculous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I was directed here from this note. I have read through most of the discussion, and it is not proper to question the reliability of CNN-IBN against Box Office India. There is absolutely no rule that BOI figures have to be used. CNN-IBN is a reliable source. If any consensus was obtained to use BOI figures for Ra.One, it does not extend to other movies. If there was any RfC that was closed with a consensus that only BOI figures are to be used, I stand corrected. Any unfounded argument that CNN-IBN is not "as reliable" as BOI is invalid, because CNN-IBN clearly falls under the definition of a reliable source. I see a repeating pattern; might be worth going for an RfC. Lynch7 12:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but the point me and Scieberking have been trying to implement is that CNN-IBN is not a primary source as it gets reports from various organizations whereas BOI is, as they estimate their own research. Hope it is taken note of. X.One ^SOS 13:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fine, we will get consensus. I suggest some administrator to close this discussion; I shall start a brand new one, and prior to everything I shall clearly lay out the matter as it is. I hope that is fine with everybody, and agreeably this discussion's length is going unchecked. Admins, I suggest any new additions to this section be automatically moved to the next section. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see that a fair bit of consensus has been reached for implementing the range in the article's lead and "box office" section, while at the same time, it also has a consensual support for blanking the infobox. As all parameters in the infobox are optional, the gross field will not appear while reading the article. X.One ^SOS 15:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Request For Comment

I totally agree with Bwilkins (talk · contribs)'s suggestion of using a range. How about using this?

• Various sources estimate the worldwide gross of the film at 230 or 253 crore.

Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Okay, so I think we may have a consensus? Instead of a range, we shall keep all box office stuff out of the leads and infoboxes of all three articles (this, Ra.One and Enthiran), and discuss various source reports in the Box Office section. Is that fine then? Let's wrap this up. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Enthiran already satisfies this part. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The verdict will be announced a few days later, based on the comments of all editors. Currently, the use of range is being favored by most participants. Scieberking (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? X.One has given ":very weak support", while only Lynch and Karthik have given support. That isn't "most", not yet at least. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, enough of this. When Scieberking made this comment, this wasn't the situation. Put it to a rest please. Lynch7 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The RFC will continue for a few days. Scieberking (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough of this? Enough of what? The consensus is definitely not yet in favour of a range, and frankly whoever is opposing the range is being confronted, asked to give reasons, questioned about the reason of voting so etc. As if voting against your opinion is bad. If an editor feels that the range should not be present, see it and keep quiet. Don't go about asking as to why the editor is doing as such. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough of misinterpreting others' comments. When Scieberking made that comment, the supports were more than the opposes. Your comment was more than 20 minutes later, when the number of opposes were more. Lynch7 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, everyone has their own opinion; it is not wrong to ask the rationale behind their comments. This is not a vote, but a discussion; discussions, are by virtue, interactive. Lynch7 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is upto the closing person to decide what the consensus is. We cannot interfere. X.One ^SOS 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Asked to give reasons; this is a part of the process. Scieberking (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Giving reasons is part of the process; continuously questioning the motive of the editor, asking whether this is as part of consensus/vote, demeaning the value of the editor's stand by "assuming" it to be as a vote and not as "consensus", all of this is not part of process. The editor is required to give the reason of consensus only once; you are to read it and shut your trap. You are not authorized to go about asking as to "why have you posted as this, is it because you are voting?" etc. as it means you are discrediting the consensus. Frankly, I can't care less what you and your gang of buddies say, as you guys are capable only of posting flowery lies and laughable excuses to cover up a horde of shams you carry out in multiple articles. Let this be the last bit of nonsense I hear from you or your gang members. Clear? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's clear to everyone who's being neutral, and who's not. Scieberking (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to closing editor : I have struck out the comments and opinions of Zubeidaaslam786 as they have been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Ashermadan here. X.One ^SOS 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, there are 5 editors who supported the use of range, and only 2 who opposed it (opinion of a sock doesn't count). Scieberking (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Good suggestion. Might just get rid of the headaches this discussion has been causing. Lynch7 14:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Very weak Support: The "range" is not wide enough to be placed in the article and I don't see any other Bollywood article having such a thing.Enthiran had a very similar problem and the editors decided to completely remove budget and gross from the infobox because of that. It would be inconsistent to follow a totally opposing thing here. If we wan't to add it here, then it must apply to Enthiran also, because the sources being discussed for giving conflicting opinions are the same for both the films As it has been confirmed that the consensus shall apply for all the three films, its fine with me. X.One ^SOS 14:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

An RfC could also be asked for Enthiran on its talk page. One more thing to note here is that the infobox wouldn't, but only the lead and box office sections would mention the worldwide gross. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Like that will solve the problem. It'll increase the discussion scope by bringing not two, but three films, one of which is not even in the same language as the other two. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Language does not matter Ankit. The sources being the cause of the dispute are the same (BOI and newspapers). And I don't think we need an RFC in Enthiran's talk page. Like Ankit has said, we can finish off three films with one stroke. X.One ^SOS 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We can "finish off"? That means we can destroy them :D. I believe you meant that we can get rid of the same problem for all three articles, and yes, that is true. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Finish off" means to finish a task completely. Besides, this is not an English forum. Scieberking (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Scieberking, it was meant as a joke. A little escape from this rather tension-filled discussion. Is that a mortal crime? I hope you noticed the smiley at the end. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking this discussion as "tension-filled" at all, but your recurring personal attacks on me and others have made it so. Scieberking (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My personal attacks? Such as? Oh I see, saying that what you told is "nonsense", according to you, falls under "personal attacks". That is not the definition of an attack, and as of now I'll ignore this statement. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Coward, lost his mind, gone crazy .. and the list goes on. Scieberking (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gone crazy? Lost his mind? LOL if you have to lie, then lie properly. I never stated "lost his mind", it was Ashermadan. Go confront him. It would be better than shamefully lying like this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise, it was "Scieberking has gone crazy". Scieberking (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that was stated by Ashermadan and not me. Go use your lies on somebody else. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Then, what about "coward" and others. Scieberking (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I take it for granted that the consensus here applies to Enthiran as well? X.One ^SOS 15:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for another RFC on Enthiran talk page. Mainly because this is not a general thing like reliable sources or wikiproject film noticeboard. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out "The sources being the cause of the dispute are the same (BOI and newspapers)." And frankly, no one is interested for discussion on the film. I see no harm in keeping the consensus as common for all Indian films. X.One ^SOS 15:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We can have such a discussion a bit later; certainly not in this talk page, probably WT:IN or the Films Wikiproject. I think the situations are different for different movies, and this discussion has been centred around Bodyguard, so we'll need a formal discussion and RfC for that. Lynch7 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the consensus. If it is to remove numbers from the infobox, Enthiran already satisfies that part. X.One ^SOS 06:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I would support it, but I'm sure infobox gross will be left blank. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as I've stated, gross wouldn't be mentioned in the infobox. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that we can add the min gross in the infobox. EX. ₹230 crores in this article, tough we will add in the lead section that ............. Is it possible? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the complication :P . I don't support that. Lynch7 17:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment I think this could be a good move and will be helpful in avoiding unnecessary problems pertaining to gross like what we have in these kind of articles. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I fully support the use of "Range of BO Figures" to avoid these kind of lengthy frustrating discussions in addition of Wiki being neutral towards its articles. --HereToSaveWiki (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose. To point out, there are only two sources that state ₹253 crore (Bollywood Life, CNN-IBN), the former is unreliable, the latter is; there are many sources which state ₹230 crore, and one of these sources is CNN-IBN itself. The majority, including BOI, reports the later figure, hence the latter figure it will stay. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  "One of the sources is CNN-IBN itself". It merely reproduced BOI's figures [3]. Lynch7 14:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking about contradicting figures by CNN-IBN, this article has been written by its staffer and also says 253 crore. This article, like the other one by Mihir Trivedi of CNN-IBN, is by Rituparna Chatterjee of IBNLive.com, and not an aggregated report by an outside news agency. Scieberking (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MikeLynch, you clearly don't understand what I said; if the report directly reproduced BOI, why the hell is Ra.One figure stated as 240 crore? Think. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think you understood what I said. Of the two contradicting reports by CNN-IBN, one of the reports mentions a figure that was attributed to BOI (it was not CNN-IBN's figures), and the other is a figure by CNN-IBN itself, not by BOI. Lynch7 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it was attributed to IANS (as far as I have seen). Has the original source attributed to BOI? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The numbers above the picture have been attributed to BOI and the ones below are from IANS. Got it? X.One ^SOS 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The IANS report clearly says "According to Box Office India". Besides, two exclusive reports of CNN-IBN staffers now say 253 crore. Scieberking (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I stand corrected. But my opposition remains; it is still to be noted that most sources quote ₹230 crore, as opposed to only one reliable source stating ₹253 crore. Btw, two writers from the same website (CNNIBN.com) does not constitute two different sources, as the sourcing site is still the same. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But it sure does handle the issue of contradiction well. Yeah, that's the reason it has been suggested to use the range thing, rather than exclusively using 253 crore or 230 crore as worldwide gross. Scieberking (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you must know, I believe it is policy that "whatever is stated by a majority of reliable sources is taken into Wikipedia". As against two sources, we have many others. Clearly, the majority of sources go by 230 crore. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did this, "whatever is stated by a majority of reliable sources is taken into Wikipedia", come from? Scieberking (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please state the relevant policy, and the sources to support your claim (Note, I'm not challenging you or anything, its just for the benefit of readers of the discussion). Lynch7 15:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator. There had been a dispute regarding a Sports article, and there the admin had stated that "in case of a content dispute, if a large number of sources quote one thing as opposed to a very small number of sources quoting the opposite, one should always put the majority statement in the article. As an aside, one can quote the minority opinion but only in the article body, not in its lead/infobox". That would be the best thing; quote 230 crore as majorly accepted, and note a 253 crore report in the Box Office section. In all other places, it should be 230 crore. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Provide links please. One administrator's closing remarks about some unconnected (or even connected) article is not a policy. Its merely his observations on that particular discussion, which need not hold good here. Lynch7 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some randsom sports article is irrelevant here. Besides, Bwilkins (talk · contribs) too is an administrator. See WP:OSE. Scieberking (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Links will be very difficult to provide as the discussion took place over 2 years back. Note that the administrator spoke in the most general terms; he wasn't referring to the article in specific. Yes, its not policy but as far as I'm concerned, the admins are supposed to know policy right? Btw, its not some random sports article, it was a GA. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Largely immaterial. Supposing that such a discussion even took place (I'll take your word here), the closing comments are relevant to that discussion only (unless a mention of policy took place). If you show me a policy, I'll correct myself. Lynch7 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See my previous comment. Read WP:OSE. Scieberking (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankit, if you cannot find the links, then how did you give those quotes above? Also, go through WP:BURDEN. X.One ^SOS 15:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does BURDEN have to do with this? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you say such a thing happened, you have to provide links for it. The burden of evidence lies with you. X.One ^SOS 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

* Strong Oppose. Do not use a range in the infobox, just leave the infobox blank and discuss that Bodyguard has conflicting reports in the appropriate Box office section. Does that sound reasonable? Can we do that and end this now? Please. Ashermadan (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Begging editors to do something without proper consensus will not work. X.One ^SOS 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Even Scieberking agrees to this. Read what is written below. Remove the infobox gross and disucss all this in the artlce in the appropriate area. range is not going to be used. Just remove Bodyguard's. Ashermadan (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A range would be mentioned in the lead, and later eloborated and explained in box office section. As I've already stated, it wouldn't be placed in the gross field of infobox, which would be left blank and erased. Scieberking (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes mention two figures but not range like 230-253. Day one source say this other source say this. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have read the notice above? I've said that something like "Various sources estimate the worldwide gross of the film at 230 or 253 crore" (and that too in the lead and box office section, not infobox), and not 230-253 crore, would be mentioned. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to a range. include both sources in box office area below and empty info box of data as range is not good to put there. This is only for Bodyguard though. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons for this? Or is it just a plain vote? X.One ^SOS 16:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have said reason in below discussion Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to the range of course as there is no need at all for a hindi movie like bodyguard. Make Ra.one, Don2, The Dirty Picture, Enthiran infoboxes BLANK or just put hindi boi ww grosses. Bodyguard like any other hindi movie should be 230cr. A range should neither be used in the article nor the infobox. Taran,komal,cnn,bbc,everyone except boi change their figures with passing time.No need to include figures on box-office matters except BOI cos its the only site that provides a uniform level for comparing all movies. The article immediately gets tainted and shady as soon as we use a source like taran or komal or cnn or bbc. ONLY BOI WHETHER IN ARTICLE OR INFOBOX. Dubbed figures for the FOUR movies i mentioned should be added in the article details (under bo-section) that too acc to limited boi articles we have. Thanks. Seeta Mayya Ji (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt you've read the entire discussion, including the problem with using BOI, before making this comment. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As usual, attempts to curb the discussion into a single editor's favor. Such gross man-handling and arm-twisting is rarely seen in Wikipedia. There is no problem in using BOI figures, but you are free to teach SM as otherwise. I won't be surprised to see SM supporting this editor sometime in the near future. Wonderful tactics. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just a general comment. I'm not asking any editor to vote in my favor or trying to influence their opinion. You must attain a better understanding of what is right and what is wrong, while keeping in view the relevant guidelines and policies, before accusing others of bad faith. Scieberking (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Worldwide gross of Bodyguard and Ra.One

Since the above discussion has already reached a zenith of length, this new discussion will start where we all failed to end. To make matters clear and simple, let me make a list of things that has been going on, and a reason for it. If any editor has any objection to any one of the stated points, clearly mention your problem under the appropriate comment section.

1. The use of Box Office India. Box Office India is unanimously accepted as the most reliable source for box office figures of Hindi films, but there is no official consensus that only BOI can be used to quote figures. However, in any dispute regarding gross figures, BOI fugures have generally won over the figures of others. It is also to be noted that 99% of all sources, be it well-known newspapers or internet websites, quote BOI numbers with small round-offs (example, Ra.One First Thursday was ₹22.8 crore, most sites report as ₹23 crore). There has been widespread talk about the approximation of numbers by BOI; let me clarify to the uninitiated that distributors back BOI figures to a very high degree, differing by mostly a few lakhs or so. There are trade analysts like Komal Nahta and Taran Adrash who are already known as unreliable sources, so their numbers are never quoted.

2. Other versions of film. Films are liable to be dubbed, converted to 3D, re-released etc. to improve box office performance. To note, Bodyguard is a strictly Hindi-language film with no 3D and no re-release (yet). Ra.One is a 3D-converted film with dubbings in Tamil and Telugu (first phase of release). BOI accounts for 3D version as a part of normal net, but it does not account for dubbed versions of any Bollywood film; they are known to account Hindi dubbings of Hollywood films alone. Hence, BOI reports strictly Hindi-only figures, not taking into account the dubbed versions. Also, to note, Ra.One had a considerable dubbed release, mainly because the film was so expensive it needed all possible avenues of revenue-earning.

3. CNN-IBN is a reliable source, and nobody is disputing that. However, it is to be noted that as of now, the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) is considered reliable as well (their reviews of films are taken into Wikipedia articles). And even if any IANS article has been made, if CNN-IBN takes it up and publishes it in its website, it automatically means that CNN-IBN also endorses the figures. No news channel will purposely endorse incorrect figures; if any such practice does occur, please point it out. If CNN publishes this article, it means that the article is also under its jurisdiction. Hence the article is perfectly liable for use. To point out, half of the news received by most newspapers is by freelancers or from other sources; that does not make the news unreliable or irrelvant.

4. India has an average national entertainment tax of 25%; however, this tax varies from state to state, going from as high as as 60% in Bihar to tax-free measures in Punjab. Southern states (for Tamil, Telugu versions) have an entertainment tax of 50%; the tax vanishes if the film has a regional language title (not applicable in any of the aforementioned films, an example of this is 7aum Arivu).

So let's get things a bit straight here.

• Scieberking has been going against BOI hook line and sinker. It should ideally be brought to attention that the same editor was most insistent on using BOI figures for Ra.One. I am still awaiting an explanation for this curious behaviour.

• The editor has also been very insistent on reporting ₹253 crore for Bodyguard, which was reported by CNN-IBN. Another article of CNN-IBN (sourced from IANS) states the figure at ₹229 crore. This is contradictory; advice on this issue is definitely required.

• X.One and Karthik Nadar, in addition to other editors, have clearly pointed out that dubbed versions cannot be ignored, and that unless a specific source contradicting a ₹240 crore gross for Ra.One appears, we can definitely use the figure as it is published by CNN. In addition, most reliable sources state Bodyguard's worldwide gross as ₹230 crore (inclluding BOI).

I do not want to comment on incivility or battleground mentality etc., but understand that resolving this issue automatically means that issues over two articles get resolved in one stroke (one of these articles is going for a future FA review). This is a very important consensus, and very serious for all film articles as well. Take this up with utmost care. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Point 1

"However, in any dispute regarding gross figures, BOI fugures have generally won over the figures of others." Sorry, not correct. The only criterion is whether they follow WP:RS or not. If contradicting sources exist, we should not cherry pick. Its a case similar to Enthiran. "There are trade analysts like Komal Nahta and Taran Adrash who are already known as unreliable sources, so their numbers are never quoted." The major newspapers like Times of India and Hindustan Times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) quote Taran and Komal Nahta more than BOI. They are always referred to as "Trade analysts", meaning that the newspaper recognizes them to be experts in the field of analyzing trade. Their reports have been used many times, in many notable media, so on what basis do you say they are "unreliable"? Please clarify. X.One ^SOS 14:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify on Taran, Komal, newspapers report their figures initially; after a while, Taran and Komal "revise" figures and report reduced collections (these numbers are much closer to BOI numbers). Example, for Agneepath, Taran reported 25 crore opening day and later reduced to 22 crore (in line with BOI's 21.76 crore). Enthiran is a wholly different issue, and besides there is even less organization in BO data in Tamil films than in Bollywood, so its difficult to find the exact figure. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do they explicitly state that the figures are from BOI? Lynch7 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that you are finding it very difficult to understand my statements, so I'll repeat once again to get it into you: I said "these numbers are much closer to BOI numbers". Your question is absolutely unrelated to what is being talked about, and is frankly unclear. Stick to the topic. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether they are near BOI's or not, it's original research to say that they have been changed just due to BOI's releases. X.One ^SOS 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, BOI doesn't have a business face. Scieberking (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how does that affect its reliability? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is insane. Wherever in the world did I say that Taran and Komal reduce their figures because of BOI? I said they reduce the figures, and their final figures comes close too BOI's. Is this clear? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Then how come you say "However, in any dispute regarding gross figures, BOI fugures have generally won over the figures of others." SOS is right and precise about the WP:OR. Lynch7 15:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: in any Bollywood article in Wikipedia, BOI figures have been used; in case of dispute (save in this section) the post-consensus decision has been to use BOI. A similar discussion had taken place for Tees Maar Khan as well, and in the end BOI figure was quoted. Is that understood? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it is not. Was there any discussion (in a proper location) in which it was concluded that BOI figures have to be used for all movies? If there was, I'd be happy to go by it, and if there will be, I will be happy to follow that consensus. Lynch7 15:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, see WP:OSE. Scieberking (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, Ankit, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Please provide the links for the discussions. X.One ^SOS 15:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Point 2

No opposition here. BOI reports only gross of Hindi versions of the film, unless in highly notable South Indian films like Enthiran. BOI estimated the Tamil, Telugu and Hindi gross collections of the film, but that sounds a bit irrelevant here. X.One ^SOS 14:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Point 3

"And even if any IANS article has been made, if CNN-IBN takes it up and publishes it in its website, it automatically means that CNN-IBN also endorses the figures." This is where you are going wrong. It does not mean so. CNN-IBN always attributes IANS because they are not responsible for material directly published from other sites. I believe someone else can give a better explanation of this. X.One ^SOS 14:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I stictly believe that even IANS is a reliable source. I have seen many news websites like The Times of India, NDTV, etc. publishing their news. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is. That's another thing to talk about. Btw, off-topic, nice new signature Karthik :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. IBN says it doesn't take responsbility for any report it uses from external news agencies. Read 1 and 2. Scieberking (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So? IANS still is reliable, and their figure is definitely a part of the "reliable sources" quoting 230 crore. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

IANS is reliable, yeah, and it directly quotes BOI on said article. Scieberking (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever or whoever they quote, they are a reliable source (and so is BOI, by the way). And IANS is one of the many reliable sources going by 230 crore. The majority is accepted. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankit, if a hundred news sites copy a certain report from BOI, that does not mean that there are 100 sources supporting the report. There is only one. It is just a mere transfer of information. You need independent parties to research the information, not take for granted that if one site does so, a hundred will follow suit. X.One ^SOS 15:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you prove that all the sources have copied the same thing from BOI? If you can , please do so. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

They say that they have done so. They attribute the work. Did you see the IBN live source? It says "According to BOI..." X.One ^SOS 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the other sources who also state 230 crore? Move over IBN, there are other websites also reporting numbers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, if you kindly provide links, it will be nice. X.One ^SOS 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment Ankit regarding signature. IMHO, many websites use Wikipedia as a primary source for research. Remember, we edit quickly using BOI, which is later used by other websites and they publish it sourcing them. This is just my opinion. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome Karthik (or as they say in our school, Welx :D). Maybe that is the case; anyways, I know exactly what is going to be the outcome of this "discussion", and the verdict has already been laid out by certain editors. Still, I hope that this range is not used, and instead we opt for a discussion in Box Office sections of all three articles, leaving infobox and lead blank (of figures). Ah, that's way too much to ask, but I must hope. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS, Ankit. X.One ^SOS 16:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, X.One has a great fondness for posting all sorts of Wikipedia policies, perhaps as a way to show his extensive knowledge. However, what completely fails me is the fact that I am definitely not canvassing, and I clearly stated "I hope". So I do not understand the rather pointless quote of CANVAS here, and I have not gone on mass posting and begging of votes, though the same is not applicable for others. Nobody has questioned the skill of X.One regarding Wikipedia policies, but I don't think that this page is the right place to show it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about "I know exactly what is going to be the outcome" and "the verdict has already been laid out by certain editors". It was just a friendly note, and not an accusation :). X.One ^SOS 07:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell me how that comes under canvassing; it is an opinion (a firm one, but that's not the point), and opinions are not canvassing. Perhaps you actually don't understand the WP policies properly, so it would be better not to quote any one random policy whenever I make a statement; I am entitled to opinions and I will state them, no matter whether some vested editors feel uncomfortable with it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is likely to influence the closing person in a way by saying "I hope". Its like pleading with someone to carry out your opinion. And similar for the other two statements. Nothing more. X.One ^SOS 08:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In case you did not notice, I was addressing Karthik. Besides, as I have clearly stated, it is an opinion, and the closing editor will not take up opinions as part of consensus. Okay, I think that's enough of excuses to prove I'm canvassing (which i'm not anyways). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Point 4

What's your point here? X.One ^SOS 14:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This was added to state as to why the dubbed versions have such a high worldwide gross; yes, it isn't directly related to the article but it did come up in the discussion. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, never mind if it is WP:OR. Leave it. X.One ^SOS 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

General Comments

"Box Office India is unanimously accepted as the most reliable source for box office figures of Hindi films". Says who? Provide links please. Lynch7 14:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to "unanimously accepted" in Wikipedia. I cannot provide a single link, I'll have to provide hundreds, to prove that. See any Hindi film article's Box Office section, and the numbers will be from BOI. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Its presence on various articles across Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedians unanimously advocate its reliability. A formal discussion has to take place. Lynch7 14:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no such consensus about BOI and all of the points made by you above have already been answered in this section. Let's end all this and just use this section for final discussion. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sciebrking, get off the high horse. Your answers are not the final truth, and they will be discussed. And your answers have been unsatisfactory, to say the least. Truly, this is getting very silly, but assuredly sense will prevail over illogical insistence. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As aren't yours. Lynch7 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they aren't. I am stating what is the accepted practice, and no amount of dilly-dallying is going to change that. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And what authority makes it an accepted practice? Scieberking (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As is clear, this is not about authority. It is what is done by Bollywood-related editors (taking BOI numbers); go ask these editors why they take only BOI. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's no reasonable justification on why BOI numbers are necessarily reliable. "Because tons of other Wikipedians use it" is not any measure of consensus. If there is a proper discussion about that, then its fine; without that, no consensus. Lynch7 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Look it's truly simple: There are movie releases in HINDI only and there are movies releases in HINDI AND OTHER LANGUAGES.

Now BOI only reports the worldwise gross of the HINDI version only...Now in the case of Bodyguard, ALL gross from ALL screen count is reported by BOI. In the case of Ra.One, the money/gross accumulated from the cinemas/screens that showed the HINDI version only is reported but what about the money/gross from the 500+ screens that showed the Tamil/Telugo versions? We should just forget about them because no one is talking about them? --Meryam90 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bodyguard released in Hindi only so BOI is a reliable source for it. There should be no doubt about that. A range has never been used before on an article so there is no need to use one now in the infobox. As has been suggested, let's leave the infobox empty and talk about these differences in the Box Office section below. That is possibly the best way to resolve this issue and give the reader a proper understand of how one source (CNN-IBN) differs from the others. Just leave the infobox blank as there are conflicting reports as in the case of Enthrian and explain all this in the Box Office section in detail with maybe an analysis. Ashermadan (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of you, read the whole discussion about "dubbed" and "BOI" and then comment. Scieberking (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashermadan, that would be the best thing to do: leave the infobox blank for all three film articles, discuss all sorts of contradiction in BO section. Scieberking, they need not read the whole discussion because there is only one meaning of "dubbed", and BOI doesn't report it. Plain and simple. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think just leave Bodyguard blank. We already reached a consensus on the other film he is after. Leave Bodyguard's infobox blank. End of discussion. Maybe Scieberking will want to give a good explanation about why two sources report differently for Bodyguard. Just leave it blank because this discussion will never end. Ashermadan (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the "dubbed" discussion and agree that dubbed versions cannot be ignored and must be included in a film's release. But, this is an article about Bodyguard which released in Hindi, why is there even a discussion about the dubbed version? Bodyguard was Hindi only and BOI provided all the data from all the cinemas. Ashermadan (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

in and simple. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the whole discussion should be read by a new editor before making his/her comment. And a more logical version of this supposed suggestion by Ashermadan is all what "Request for Comment" (about using range) is about. Gross field in infobox would be left blank and the lead and box office section will provide details of worldwide gross. Scieberking (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ashermadan Please leave info box empty and explain in box office india section. Using range is not advisable but a thorough explanateon about why one say 253 other day 230 is good. Leave it blank. This is disscusion about Bodyguard n not other film. Leave other film out. Focus on topic at hand. Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So, is it settled? Leave infobox blank and discuss it in the box office section? yes? or am i missing something still? Ashermadan (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I find this acceptable, provided that both the conflicting figures are mentioned, without giving any of them undue weight. Lynch7 15:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mike Lynch :) Both should be mentioned and concerns addressed :) Acceptable everyone? I think most people agree if I am not wrong. Thanks Ashermadan! Let us love and not fight over this anymore. :( Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashermadan, see my reply to your comment here. A range would be mentioned in the lead, and later eloborated and explained in box office section. As I've already stated, it wouldn't be placed in the gross field of infobox, which would be left blank and erased. Scieberking (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think it is settled then yes? Just talk about how Box Office India says this and the other source says this? Happy? Are we at a consensus now? Can we move on and unprotect this article and get some work done? Ashermadan (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you agree here, then please change your vote from "oppose" to "support". The RFC will still continue for a few days. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that is necessary. We're getting consensus here, that should be enough. A formal RfC hasn't been opened. Lynch7 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

True. I haven't followed the procedure as specified by WP:RFC but it will still do the needful. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And in the end, I hope the closing person takes care of the full discussion, and not a part, as it has been a case in the past. X.One ^SOS 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the changes, keeping in view the final verdict, will be initially placed here, and then to the article body. Scieberking (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll never forgive myself to miss out all the action happening here as I was travelling. But wow, this is gone upto a different level altogether. I've gone through the entire Bible story Mahabharata over here and I was desperate to summarize all this. Please read below.

• Firstly two die hard fanboys of SRK couldn't digest Scieberking adding up a reliable source of Bodyguard's gross at 253 crores which is obviously more than that of Ra.One's. Hence they jumped in and started a war. In the war, they made up a clone (inspired from Ra.One of course) of themselves to support them and named it Zubeidaaslam786. I'm just wondering why anyone couldn't notice her as a mere sockpuppet of either Ashermadan or AnkitBhatt. Throught the war, she just kept saying "I agree with Ashermadan", "I agree with AnkitBhatt" or "AnkitBhatt is right etc., " but always failed to provide her valid reasons. She kept accusing Scieberking of abusing her or personally attacking her but lets ask her "Where exactly did he abuse you Zubeidaaslam786? What are the words he used? Where are the links? Please provide them. Can someone open a sockpuppet investigation on her? If no one does then I'll do it. All her opinions and voices should be considered null and void as it can be clearly seen from her Contributions that she actually created the account a midst all the discussion happening over here.
• Second. Isn't it a simple thing to understand that when Ra.One can use a BO figure other than BOI (and it can be for whatever reasons) then why can't Bodyguard. If Ankit and Asher are so hell bent upon NOT using BOI figure for Ra.One just because it excludes dubbed versions, then they should just be just fine with Bodygurad too. They CANNOT and SHOULD NOT dictate as to which source should be considered for Bodyguard and which one for Ra.One. I request the admins here to stop them from monopolizing Wiki articles in such manner. Wiki is a collaborative effort and everyone is free to contribute. This act of theirs is sheer dominance over Wiki articles which should be stopped.
• Third. Lets make it plain simple and clear. If Ra.One uses CNN-IBN or Economic Times figure so can Bodyguard. If gross is blanked in infobox and lead sections in Bodyguard, the same shall be applicable to Ra.One as well.
• Fourth. The Ra.One lead section says "According to its distributors, Ra.One is the second highest-grossing Bollywood film worldwide." I wonder how Ra.One was passed as GA with such nonsense and unsourced claims. Can someone please remove it as we don't put such false accusation without a proper RS and infact in the first place we don't put such claims from distributors at all. Isn't that fanboyism at extreme level? I guess then if that is not removed, all film articles can include such claims by their distributors saying "XYZ is the highest grossing bollywood film ever" or even "ABC gross is even more than that of Avatar".
• Lastly I support Sciberking for I see a NPOV in what he is saying. I would repeat the same thing again "The editors opposing him are born to do nothing good in this world except editing SRK's pages and his articles read like semi-offical fanzines". Please. For God-Sake Please. This is Wikipedia-an encyclopedia and not a blog or a forum.--HereToSaveWiki (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. Just figured out Zubeidaaslam786 should be actually an sock of Meryam90. Oh this is getting interesting.--HereToSaveWiki (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be a sock, yeah. User:Zubeidaaslam786 was created on Feb 8, 2012, the same day it all started. It was later pointed out by another editor as well. A strong possibility. I think we'll go for a WP:SPI. Scieberking (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the mega-troll is back. I was wondering how this "highly notable" editor, who gets such huge backing from some editors, had failed to appear in this "consensus". And wonderfully, this troll has plainly over-looked so many details that I'm dying to give this troll a proper and fitting answer.

• I cannot speak for Ashermadan, but nope, Zubeidaaslam is not a sock of me, at least. Sorry troll, you got your first rant wrong. Better luck next time. Just because the editor agrees with me/somebody else all the time, it does not necessarily make them a sock. Whatever, please open an SPI discussion or whatever troll. Best of luck in that endeavour. Two "die-hard fanboys" it is then, and I am loving this title to bits. I can't wait to use the title of "anti-SRK ranter" for you. Please don't cry, or run to your backers for support, or do some more foolish thing.

• Sorry, its definitely not that I can't digest that Bodyguard earned 253 crore worldwide, because it didn't. What you clearly failed, and failed enormously, to see is that Ra.One had dubbed releases which added considerably to its worldwide earning. To note, the BOI figure of 202 crore (for Hindi version, and duly stated by BOI) has been mentioned clearly in the box office section. Hey, wait a minute, what am I doing? I'm reasoning with a troll? What a shame. Sorry, I got carried away. And yes, thank you so much for saying that i can actually monopolize Wikipedia; frankly, even I didn't know I had that much power here. You've enlightened me greatly.

• Yes troll, that was what everybody was saying and you clearly forgot to see in your jump to rant here. The infobox will be left blank for all three articles (Bodyguard, Ra.One and Enthiran).

• Nonsense and unsourced claim? Yes, perhaps for you. And please, do not compare the Ra.One article, or even the film, to the Bodyguard article/film. Ra.One isn't worth the insult. To note to the WP policy-quoters, this is not a personal attack against any user, so don't come rushing to my talk page abut "how could you say this?" etc.

• Oh, NPOV in Scieberking. That's news to me. Thank you for calling these great articles "semi-official fanzines"; it is to note that you and your backers' claims have been noted and discarded. A few people's unhappiness over the fact that the Ra.One article is way ahead of the Bodyguard article in all terms, be it reliability/prose/verifiability etc. is not going to make the article a "semi-official fanzine", much as you wish for it. Btw, no, I do edit on Aamir Khan film articles, and currently I am editing solely film awards articles (that too not Indian) so your baseless claim is made even funnier.

In short, I suggest this troll to read carefully and thoroughly before performing more trolling and pushing an already-bursting "consensus" to the limit of readability. Adios, and I will be waiting for some more rants. Oh yes, to note, "calling an editor a troll is not a personal attack". Just a small warning to keep away certain editors from filling my talk page with unnecessary reprimanding. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Only one comment from me. Whoever is a sock here, should know that they are underestimating wiki and its team to a great extent. X.One ^SOS 15:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::: Just when you think this matter is over you people start again. Great. Keep it up. Good job. Zubeidaaslam786 is probably a sock puppet of X.One or something and they're laming Meryam90. I figured out that Here to Save Wikipedia is a sock puppet of X.One. I know he is. Ashermadan (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything will be revealed shortly. By this highly notable troll's logic, he himself is a sock as he twice, very forcefully, said that "I completely support you, Scieberking, and your stand". Pity, really, that WP:SPI may have not one, but two major headaches coming up their way. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Scieberking (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mildly humorous reaction; after all, what more can this editor do other than make expressions eh? Cover-ups and shams are rapidly falling off; hard times lay ahead for the gang. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss the article, and nothing else. If an individual has grounds to complain about socking, they should go to WP:SPI. Other complaints about individuals should go to WP:ANI. What I and other admins said about conduct matters earlier still stands as well. CT Cooper · talk 18:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

::: Why haven't we resolved the matter? What's the big deal? Isn't there a consensus yet? We decided that we would remove the 230 from the infobox and discuss the two figures down below. How hard is that to understand? What's the update? Ashermadan (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned twice above, the request for comment will last for a few days so that more editors can weigh in their opinion. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• CommentSorry for the late comment on this. I think US films have it easy. BoxOfficeMojo is the gold standard for public reporting film numbers and also in presenting that information. (BTW - note that BOM and IMDB are part of the same group, if you didn't know.) It's not complete and oddly one of the holes is India (no reason I could find for that either). There isn't a true equivalent for Indian films. BOI does a decent job, but their presentation of information is poor, to say the least, especially in comparison to BOM. It is referenced fairly often by other good sources which is a major plus. Numbers are presented by other reliable sources thought that differ from BOI.

The Indian film market is complicated by multiple language/region releases, plus overseas releases, making the numbers even more challenging to present. That's part of where I find BOI lacking - it's difficult to find a breakdown for a particular film where BOM makes that fairly trivial (where they have data, of course). For smaller releases, this isn't as much of an issue. It's the larger releases where this really is problematic.

Ultimately, I think in situations where there are several strongly sourced estimates, they need to be presented as a range in the info box / lede, then covered in the body (X says the revenue was A, Y says it was B). Breaking the numbers down into Overall vs India (or similar region) probably also needs to be done the same way. If there's only a single strongly sourced estimate, but a differing estimate that's not as strongly sourced (say, from a single reliable source?), I would use the single estimate in the lede and infobox but note the range in the body. In all cases, the source of the estimate needs to be included in the body (BOI says the film earned ZYX dollars overall). The source does not need to be mentioned in the infobox or lede (reference should be provided for the infobox number of course!). Ravensfire (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All good points made. My suggestion was to remove the gross field from the infobox and mention the range in the lede, which would later be elaborated in the box office section. How does that sound? Thanks for your time. Scieberking (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points to note. Yes, one turn-off of BOI is its rather plain interface and lack of separate film pages, but otherwise their figures are quite reliable. BOI's policy is to take DISTRIBUTOR NUMBERS from various circuits, and then using that to closely estimate the revenue earned. You have to understand that in India, this is as close to accuracy as you get as 50% of theaters go without computerized ticket billing and randomly change prices from morning to afternoon. And to point out, over 70% of Box Office Mojo's outside US figures are estimates, yet we do use those estimated worldwide figures in the List of highest-grossing films.

Its pretty clear that multiple-language releases must be included in the total gross, and Hollywood also follows the same pattern. Breakdown are actually available from BOI circuit-wise in India, so I don't see how the "no breakdown" part comes up. And yes, they are the most referenced among all other reliable sources for BO figures (certainly not Taran Adarsh or Komal Nahta, as some people said).

I still oppose the range, though I more than support the discussion under the box office section, but I'm fine if the range is opted for. However, to note, in Ra.One there is no talk of range simply because there is only one figure for Hindi worldwide gross (BOI) and only one source for complete worldwide gross. I think both should be mentioned in the leads/infobox of the article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This should do it I guess

Click the show button to read this section

Namaste. Sorry,i had lost my password. As a fairly neutral and unbiased editor like i have always been, i want to remind everybody about my starting days on wiki Talk:Ra.One/Archive 2 i.e. 12th december,2011 again where the solution to this debate lies. The debate on these box-office figures started when my 2 dear colleagues AnkitBhatt and Meryam90 went against the whole wiki community of editors and admins and went against the normal unsaid rule of posting figures according to BOI. They posted Ra.One gross in the infobox from a ridiculous source(which btw i can see till now) other than the ever reliable and universally wiki-accepted BOI. I along with some other respectable editors had told them that it was not fair to thousands of other movies that use BOI whereas they dared to use eros. I even mentioned then that the case of Ra.One was the exact same as Enthiran. If Boi can't provide correct dubbed figures of ra1, then so is the case with enthiran. So when enthiran ww gross in infobox is left blank, is it fair to lacs of other bollywood movies to give SPECIAL STATUS to ra1 by mentioning its gross other than boi. At last, i have to conclude my point by saying : Either choose to keep infoboxes of movies that release in languages other than hindi like ra1/enthiran/dirty picture BLANK without gross OR just mention gross for the hindi version i.e. the one which is provided by BOI. 202cr(hindi) for ra1. This should solve the problem. In no case however urgent or important it may be should a source other than BOI be used for box-office collections in infobox. Count the crap taran adarsh or his innocent tweet(i remember the poor meryama LOL) or komal or cnn or bbc or film's own distributers or economic times as null and void. BOI is the only reliable source for box-office collections in india and im not even saying the best or better. People and fans of movies whether bollywood or hollywood consider wiki / boi / bom as the only sources of comparing their favourite stars movies or otherwise. We at wikipedia should therefore oblige those millions of fans by using a single source for all movies-- only box-office mojo for hollywood and boi for bollywood. Period. Regarding bodyguard, even Scieberking (talk) knows it that he has no intention of keeping the 253cr and even the range thing is a joke. But, in case AnkitBhatt and Meryam90 still persist on keeping raone as the ridiculous 240, i will support what Scieberking (talk) is saying that though there is no need of any range, but we should definitely use 253cr or even higher for bodyguard as confirmed by reliance and approx 400cr for 3idiots also confirmed by reliance. So, please guys, the whole debate will end now and here itself if two so-called editors AnkitBhatt and Meryam90 agree to scrap 240cr for raone and either leave it blank or just 202cr hindi cos frankly there is not even a .00000000001% chance of raone earning 40cr from dubbed versions. Its only and only pure fanboyism of ankit and fangirlism of meryama, and their ridiculous snobbish attitude. I don't understand how such people are SRK fans btw. SRK would be ashamed himself having such fans. Look iam also a fan, but still want wiki to only present bo figures from single source BOI even if it means going against ra1. Now coming to the TROLL psycho-boy Ashermadan (talk). I seriously want to bring to notice that this was his second attempt at sock-puppeting. So iam really shocked to see that X.One SOS and Scieberking (talk) just went for a 1 week ban innstead of a permanent ban for this huge troll on wiki. The guy for gods sake only reverts and reverts other editors edits and shouts and DOES NOT know a single rule or "w" of wikipedia. Here this Zubeidaaslam (talk)is one more account of this guy other than which X.One SOS caught Zubeidaaslam786 (talk) which he used as a sock on this page Talk:Ra.One/Archive 2. The guy is a troll-king and should be banned indefinitely. He should undergo another investigation for this 2nd sock-puppeting crime and this time a perrmanent ban please. Huh.I am tired now. Thanks. :D :D Seeta Mayya Ji (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Just to say one thing that shuts the mouth of this troll: the discussion has clearly agreed upon keeping infoboxes blank for all three articles, and I stated that at least 3 times in the discussion. Troll, I'd suggest you read through the discussion before ranting here; there are numerous film forums where you can rant and rave to your heart's content, but this is certainly not it. Oh yes, nobody gives a twopenny-worth as to whether you are an SRK-fan or not, and intelligent editors will not give a second look at your claim of being "fairly unbiased and neutral" (as you have never been). I can explain as to why Ra.One required different figures from BOI which BG doesn't require, and if there is any sort of neutrality here then X.One will also agree, but frankly I can hardly care as to the whims of some street-side know-all. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your points, Seeta Mayya Ji. However, that could have been said in a much nicer and lighter manner. If you'd like, you could either support or oppose my suggestion of using a range for Bodyguard worldwide gross. Scieberking (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I must say we have had enough, and this was unnecessary. If I could get the permissions of the above three editors, I shall delete this section. X.One SOS 07:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Nope, there's no need to delete this section, since Seeta Mayya Ji (talk · contribs) also, like other editors, has a right to speak her mind, though I think it could've been more civil. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC) No, first I would like to make it clear that these trolls are clearly not looking at the discussion at all, and are making statements that are adding up to the discussion in a completely fruitless manner. I can't give a damn what this troll thinks, but the fact is that it was decided to leave infobox blank for all three articles, and I supported that; I only oppose ranges, and I said it would be better to have nothing in the leads and infobox, and discuss various sources in the box office section. I'm fine if the consensus comes out in favor of a range, but next time this troll better research before ranting. Btw, yes you can please delete this totally useless section. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC) A show/hide template will be shortly added. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I have removed the header on the section, so need to label my comments as rants or trolls and there was absolutely no need for collapsible at all. My each and every comment was fruitful and its a real shame you want to overlook my comments and start calling me troll. This was the nicest and lightest I could have been regarding 2 editors who call others trolls while they are themselves the biggest trolls and vandals out on wiki and treat other editors as if they are "street-siders" "cans of trash". The guy just started a rant against me without even reading my comments. Such a shame this ankit guy has been holding a grudge since so long. Regarding support or oppose, my only firm opinion is that the decision to keep all 3 infoboxes blank is completely wrong because bodyguard is a normal hindi movie and can be kept at 230cr like ready at 185cr acc to BOI. Ranges not needed. Only infoboxes those of raone, don2 , tdp and enthiran need to be kept blank. Period. Thanks. Seeta Mayya Ji (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC) AnkitBhatt starts any conversation with this line "No, first I would like to make it clear that these trolls are clearly not looking at the discussion at all, and are making statements that are adding up to the discussion in a completely fruitless manner." . Is it not clear that this editor has not even read my single comment over here? The guy just wants to make this discussion into an unnecessary debate and argument by starting anybody who has an opinion against him as troll. How is wikipedia suppose to work if we have such uncivil editors? How? Thanks againSeeta Mayya Ji (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry to burst your bubble, but I read through every comment that you made (and some of them were very amusing to read). Thank you so much Troll for calling me a troll. And again, I didn't start a rant, I laid out facts and it was pretty clear you didn't see my support for removal from infobox. Sorry Troll, its you who are ranting. Nope, your comments were pretty fruitless and made more as a way to (try to) insult me/Meryam; the problem is, I don't feel offended by dirt. Finally, you gave a good, fruitful addition to consensus by saying this: "my only firm opinion is that the decision to keep all 3 infoboxes blank is completely wrong because bodyguard is a normal hindi movie and can be kept at 230cr like ready at 185cr acc to BOI. Ranges not needed. Only infoboxes those of raone, don2 , tdp and enthiran need to be kept blank." Had you said only this and nothing else, the matter would have not even started; but who am I talking to about starting silly fights? Umm I think this is the first time I've ever said that line; you seem to have the singular gift of seeing things that don't exist. I don't call everybody opposed to me as a troll, otherwise X.One would also have been called a troll; another one of your rants burst. Contrarily, I have absolutely no interest in speaking to you, but you dragged up my name first. Sorry, lies don't work on me. As for my civility, you would be the last person to talk about that. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Well, sorry to burst your bubble Mister. You were the first one to start a rant every time I even try to comment. It's not so tough to understand why an editor like you would find the same comment fruitful after i have said it like five times and not the first time itself when i have pin-pointed all of my points separately. I find it not only amusing, but rather insulting to continue further talk on this topic with a like you. Sorry, you need not be entertained again.Seeta Mayya Ji (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Five times? I think you need some mathematical help. Excellent, you find it insulting; you have no idea how I feel talking to something like you. You can keep your mouth shut and not talk to me. Good for me, actually. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC) My final vote and opinion above at rfc. THANKS.Seeta Mayya Ji (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925091755/http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=ENTEN20110183223&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&keyword=bollywood&nid=130626 to http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=ENTEN20110183223&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&keyword=bollywood&nid=130626
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141013014516/http://www.koimoi.com/reviews/bodygurd-review to http://www.koimoi.com/reviews/bodygurd-review
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830082836/http://www.indiaweekly.com/MovieRatings/ to http://www.indiaweekly.com/MovieRatings
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924102543/http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_Review.aspx?id=650 to http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_Review.aspx?id=650
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110901030514/http://www.hindustantimes.com/mayank-shekhar-s-review-bodyguard/article1-740223.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mayank-Shekhar-s-review-Bodyguard/Article1-740223.aspx
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130129145730/http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?ID=ENTEN20110183306&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=130886&cp to http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?ID=ENTEN20110183306&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=130886&cp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925090849/http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?ID=ENTEN20110183432&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=131187 to http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?ID=ENTEN20110183432&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=131187

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)