Talk:List of Hindi films of 2017

	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 articles
	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 articles
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).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2017, when it received 16,391,427 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

User-space draft article is being used as a name of a movie.

A user-space page is being used as the name of the article User:Fly !/sandbox 3 , under 'Scheduled for April-June'.

Sincerely,

Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SACHIN MOVIE

Sachin movie releasing on 14 April 2017 please add this V99991111 (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@V99991111: -

Not done - Please provide reliable sources. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming movies in 2017

Add 4 August 2017 Secret Superstar Musical Drama cast :Zaira Wasim, Special appearance:Aamir Khan and also add 22 December 2017 Dutt Biopic Rajkumar Hirani Cast Ranbir Kapoor Aditi Rao Hydari V99991111 (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC) ref www.moviesboxofficecollection.com >upcoming movies in 2017[reply]

@V99991111: -

Not done - Please provide reliable sources. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. I don't know what moviesboxofficecollection is, but a reliable source it is not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming movies in 2017

Please add Secret Superstar movie release 4/08/2017 reference:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Superstar V99991111 (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

correct it please

Where is raees ? And also gross income of all the movies do not match with the income as shown in their own pages on Wikipedia.....

Vikram9055 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 list

In this edit I removed the Top 10 list for a few reasons:

In previous years, discussions seemed to favor the exclusion of the data, for instance at Talk:List of Bollywood films of 2014#WP:COATRACK. A wider discussion should take place for if and how to best incorporate this data, perhaps at WT:ICTF.
The table creates inconsistencies across articles. Ex: Raees was semi-protected because of pervasive financial vandalism. The gross there is 304 crore. The gross here was 290.45 crore. That's just not acceptable.
Much of the data is based on Koimoi.com, which is not considered reliable per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. (PK was stable at about 792 crore for about a year, how did it suddenly jump to 831.50 in 2017?. Is it still running?)
Some of the values are based on articles reporting gross values, rather than basing the table on articles reporting "Highest grossing Bollywood films of 2017". This is an important distinction. By focusing on gross values, we are shifting the burden to the reader to disprove the ranking. In order for the reader to verify the data, they would have to be privy to all the Bollywood film financial figures for that year, which is impossible. As an example, show me proof that Hindi Medium was the 7th highest-grossing Bollywood film of 2017, as opposed to being ranked 6th or 9th. The ranking burden should rest on the shoulders of our reliable secondary sources, and they should tabulate the results and publish them as a ranked "Top 10 highest-grossing Bollywood films of 2017" article. This is especially true when Indian film financials are so laden with inaccuracies and influenced by corrupt figures, and when even reliable sources must make proprietary estimates that are often inconsistent with other sources. How is it Wikipedia's place to act as a data aggregator and create definitive ranked lists from cherrypicked data? "Hmm, I like Hungama's take on Naam Shabana's gross, so I'll use that figure rather than IBT's." Anyhow, while Koimoi at least does the ranking, it's still not considered reliable by the community.

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I removed the content again, because the IPv6 editor who restored it did not pariticipate in the discussion. Though the list is no longer laden with Koimoi references, it's still problematic that Wikipedia is basically inventing a ranking for these films based on selected gross values. As previously argued, this shifts the verification burden to the reader to disprove the ranking. How does a reader prove that there was no film ranked between Hindi Medium (₹95.59 crore) and Kaabil (₹147.52 crore)? It seems to me that the only suitable way to verify that Hindi Medium was #6 and Kaabil was #5 is if a reliable source published a "Top 10 highest-grossing Bollywood films of 2017" article. Barring that, the list is untrustworthy and Wikipedia is not in the business of fabricating its own film ranking system. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the chart, or at least the ranks. In truth you could probably leave the chart in without the ranks, but obviously the ranks need to be sourced. It reminds me a bit of the problem at List_of_highest-grossing_films#High-grossing_films_by_year. If you look at that list you will notice every chart bar one is labelled the "highest-grossing..." whereas the year chart is labelled "high-grossing...". The reason for this is that in the case of some of the earlier years we couldn't say for certain which film was the highest-grossing. We had a pretty good idea but we couldn't actually source the claim so the language had to reflect that. This is basically the same kind of thing. There is nothing to prevent you listing very successful films and their earnings but you need to avoid making factual claims you can't substantiate. Betty Logan (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

baahubali 2

Why baahubali 2 is missing from this list? Vikram138740 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Tollywood film, not a Bollywood film. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Bollywood films of 2017. 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/20160605143231/http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/cast/id/9542591 to http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/cast/id/9542591

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) 15:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]