Talk:Bhaskar the Rascal

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to Add boxoffice collection . http://justfewseconds.com/2015/04/bhaskar-the-rascal-7th-day-collection-first-week-box-office-report/ . this is the link . please approve . Sarathh8 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined: Please cite a reliable source for box office collection details. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film revenue

This link from Filmibeat clearly states that film has turned out a blockbuster and has raked in a collection of 16 crores. The IB Times source gives the collection as 13.77 crore in 19 days and 16 crore seems a logical value too. First you provide a reason why this information should not be included or why this source should be considered unreliable. A reliable source does not mean that it should compulsorily be a print source or that it be in English. Filmibeat is the entertainment portal of a major Indian news website that is Oneindia.in. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmibeats is not a box office auditing site. And from the articles tone, the 16 cr looks like their prediction. The fact. It makes it necessary to add additional supporting sources for the 16 cr claim other than Filmibeat. VagaboundWind (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no box office auditing agency for Malayalam films. We usually do rely on news sources for box office details. Filmibeat does not make a prediction as you said but clearly states that the film has emerged a blockbuster with a gross collection of 16 crore and is still running in theatres. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Blockbuster", and similar phrasing, is of no encyclopedic value and in this case only serves to promote the film. This subject has come up a few times at the Indian Cinema Task Force and most who responded were averse to the inclusion of these meaningless terminologies, and I think if you were to ask WikiProject Film you'd receive an even more vocal opposition. If you want to say that the film grossed ₹N million, that's fine, because that is presumably a fact, or at worst an estimate. If you want to say that the film sold NN million tickets, that's fine, because again, that's somewhere in the realm of fact. However once we start using subjective adjectives like Blockbuster, Super-hit, Disaster, Failure, etc we're using opinions to tell the story, and we're only interested in opinions when relevant, for instance if we were talking about the critical response toward the film. We don't present opinions as though they were facts. An example: The US film Jupiter Ascending received primarily negative critical response. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 25%. It would be academically irresponsible to say "The film was declared rotten." Even if true, "rotten" is subjective and has no encyclopedic value. Most western film articles avoid this commentary by describing the critical response according to the aggregator's numbers. Instead, we say: "On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a rating of 25%, based on 203 reviews, with an average rating of 4.2/10". Now there's some objective facts you can sink your teeth into! I will point out as well, that per WP:V, "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Simply being able to source an opinion doesn't make the opinion a fact. See also Undue Weight. For these reasons I have removed the phrasing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bhaskar the Rascal. 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/20150417155539/http://english.manoramaonline.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/bhaskar-the-rascal-mammootty-malayalam-movie-review-nayanthara.html to http://english.manoramaonline.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/bhaskar-the-rascal-mammootty-malayalam-movie-review-nayanthara.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]