Talk:Tiger Zinda Hai

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

Su cche (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[[Albina Spahiu ]]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

Please change the 'Box Office' collection from '₹166.18 crore to ₹256 crore' , the link is ' https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/25/salmans-tiger-claws-out-biggest-monday-ever-with-projected-%E2%82%B939-5-crore-6-2m/#45a576f47a20 ' .. 183.78.95.191 (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done  shivam (t) 18:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Overseas gross

Overseas gross has been updated and its 54.79 crores now please update worldwide gross JV Tuber (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

70.53 crores now JV Tuber (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2017

mesal tamil movie is the first film to get one million likes 116.68.105.121 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, including references would be helpful in the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Till 26 dec?

I think it should be till 25 dec in box office just my opinion JV Tuber (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I have reverted the changes.  shivam (t) 07:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2017

The Worldwide box office collection on Tiger Zinda hai is 450cr. The link is<a>https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/28/tiger-zinda-hai-blasts-into-indias-all-time-top-20-%E2%82%B9475-cr-74m-ww-now-locked/#2f4967246f3f</a> Tejas513 (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is a Forbes Contributor article, which are articles specifically not under the editorial control of Forbes and so the independence and reliability are unknown. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

Shakeel Sahab (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Shakeel Sahab: Not sure why you're suggesting creation of a second article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018

Miamiheat2014 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. AdA&D 17:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Please change the Box Office from '₹478.96 crore to ₹500 crore' , the link is ' https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2018/01/07/tiger-zinda-hai-tops-%E2%82%B9500-crore-78m-worldwide-gross/#73476e3e1fb5 ' .. 183.78.95.251 (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: See my answer to your duplicate request at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

{{subst:trim|1=

The ISI( a terrorist organization group) kidnaps 15 nurses and India has no answer to save them but Shenoy thinks Tiger is the man to saved the hostiles.The US plans to bomb where the leader Abu Usman has kept the nurses and gives Shenoy 7 days to get their nurses back or else he will have to bomb the place. Meanwhile Tiger is enjoying his time with his family and Tiger and Zoya have a son named Junior. They track Tiger down however Tiger was the one who send them the signal. They request Tiger to help those nurses and at first Tiger wasn't willing to do so but inspired by his wife Zoya, he went and made his unique team to save those nurses. After a master plan, Tiger and his group manages to get to the hospital where the nurses are being held and where their leader Abu Usman is. Zoya joins Tiger after she learns that out of the 15 nurses, there are also Pakistani nurses. On the day of the bombing, Tiger managed to get the nurses out but Abu Usman has captured Zoya. They keep them as hostiles and puts Tiger in a poison chamber. However he manages to escape and defeats Abu USman and his troops They escape with the nurses and Tiger and Zoya again goes into hiding because he thinks RAW will never forgive them but he tells Shenoy in a phone call that if his counry ever needs him then Tiger ZInda Hai(Tiger is Alive) The movie ends with Swag Se Swagat song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.145.97.95 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

Please change the 'Box Office' from '₹513.47 crore ($78 Million) to ₹539.11 crore ($85 Million)' , the link is ' https://www.koimoi.com/box-office/tiger-zinda-hai-inches-closer-cross-dhoom-3s-collections-worldwide-box-office/ ' .. 183.78.95.86 (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Koimoi is not considered a reliable source by the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

The Box Office already 85 Million but why you all didn't change yet? .. 183.78.95.86 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Are we in a hurry? And where are the reliable sources you'd want editors to consider? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

₹539.11 crore is equals to $85 Million not $78 Million .. 183.78.95.155 (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Saying "greater than ₹5 billion" in the article body is fine. —MRD2014 ^Talk 01:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Language

Hi Maestro2016, you added Urdu to the infobox here in December 2017. What percentage of the film would you say is spoken in Urdu? Per the template instructions: "Insert the language primarily used in the film. Databases often give every language spoken within the film, even if they only reflect a few lines in the overall script. The BBFC website is a good resource for the main language used in the film." BBFC indicates the main language is Hindi. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture removed the content. Are we good with the removal, or do we need to discuss this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• • The Censor Certificate shown in the opening of the film too contains the original language of production. Hindi and Urdu are identical languages, being 90% the same colloquially. They are written in different scripts. The classical forms of both languages (Hindi and Urdu) have vocabulary borrowed from Sankrit and Arabic respectively. Since the spoken languages is almost the same, some authors write Urdu in Hindi script and vice-versa. Writers, poets etc. A few writers working in Hindi cinema have been preparing the screenplay drafts in Urdu script, then transcibing it into Hindi before sending to the sets. Maestro2016 has been vandalizing the pages of official Hindi language film productions, calling them 'Hindi-Urdu' films. The Censor Board certificate that appears before the opening credits, have mentioned the official language as Hindi.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your claims, see my response at Talk:Salim-Javed. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally, the Indian characters speak Hindi, and the Pakistani characters speak Urdu. However, I haven't yet found a source for TZH, so I'm fine with just leaving it as Hindi for now. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

English vs. Literal translation

Hi Yashthepunisher re: this edit, why are we pointing out that obvious English is English? Aren't readers able to determine that through their familiarity with the language? The previous version, using {{Literal translation}} makes more sense, because it clarifies the inherent question of whether or not the English is the official title, or a literal translation. If your objection is that the text isn't a literal translation, could we provide a better literal translation? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb You can restore that. But, I feel that literal translation and translations are not the same thing, as the former mostly mistranslate's idiomes or words. Here Tiger Zinda Hai "actually" means Tiger is Alive. Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Ah, good point. What about "Translation:"? Or drop the label entirely? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think "translation" or simply "English" would suffice. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Again, I don't think we need to be told that we are looking at English, so maybe "translation" is the compromise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

182.69.72.240 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Rupee to Dollar Conversion

Getsnoopy, You cannot make changes unilaterally like you did here. Plenty of articles use crore instead of "billion/million" or any conversion templates. You have been informed about that here as well. Pinging @Cyphoidbomb, DRAGON BOOSTER, Kailash29792, Maestro2016, and Sid95Q: for inputs. You can also open a discussion at WP:ICTF. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, personally I'd go with millions for the sake of MOS:COMMONALITY which reads, "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles [...] ten million is preferable to one crore". Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: It seems this consensus is in favour of keeping "crore or lakh". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk and Cyphoidbomb: Sure I can, it's MoS policy, as is WP:BOLD. You reverted my change where it adds in conversions to the dollar. Not having conversions to the dollar (or any common currency, like the euro or pound sterling) is flat out against MoS; see MOS:CURRENCY. As for the Indian numbering system, it's also against MoS to use it without a conversion to the Western numbering system; see WP:COMMONALITY, MOS:INDIA, WP:ICTF, and even the consensus that you cited. WP:ICTF consensus is confined to not using currency conversions in Infoboxes, which necessitates the use of the Western numbering system, since anything else would violate all the other MoS policies I cited otherwise. And all of this is to say that all of the policies/consensuses say that the Indian numbering system is merely allowed; this means any change to a Western numbering system is just as (if not more) valid under grounds of WP:COMMONALITY. I frankly don't know what there is to discuss. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

According to this consensus, While there was some support to phase out the use of crore/lakh in articles, it seems that the consensus is to retain such terms in India-related articles, provided that either crore or lakh is to be linked at the first mention in the article, so it opposes the usage of "million or billion rupees" in the infobox although it talks of using conversion template, which is contradicted in the WP:ICTF. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't fault Getsnoopy for not being aware of that discussion. I participated in it and totally forgot about it! I even dropped a note on Getsnoopy's talk page attempting to dissuade them just on the sheer futility of how the content would ultimately be changed back. But the consensus seems unambiguous that crore and lakh should remain. WP:COMMONALITY also states "Conversions of less-familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies – such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling" But it's ambiguous as to what constitutes a less-familiar currency. There are 1.3 billion Indians doing business every day with Indian rupees. That's 17% of the global population. That said, I don't see currency conversions elsewhere in the article as being problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I realize what it says, but the and in that consensus is important. "Crore" and "lakh" are allowed to be retained if they provide a conversion to a more familiar currency, or a conversion to "regular rupee numbers". Seeing as you can't do conversions in Infoboxes per WP:ICTF, the only way to not violate even that consensus itself is to use "regular rupee numbers", which I was doing. Also, it's very important to note that it doesn't oppose the usage of "million" or "billion" rupees; that would be silly and completely counter to WP:COMMONALITY. We want more COMMONALITY, not less; the consensus merely allows for "crore" and "lakh", but it says nothing about them not being able to be changed for more COMMONALITY. @Cyphoidbomb, I don't see how the likelihood of something being changed is a factor in guiding our Manual or policies (e.g., lots of people think kilograms can be written as Kg, KG, and even kgs; this doesn't mean we allow it just because a lot of people don't know the proper way). I agree that there is a bit of ambiguity in currency conversion policy, but the sheer number of people using a certain currency is not a great way to measure familiarity. Case in point: while there are many people in India, the global familiarity/appeal of the rupee is quite low, as seen by statistics of the most traded currencies or by qualifications of reserve currencies. Getsnoopy (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Both the consensus and the policy at WP:ICTF need to be considered. The consensus supports usage of "lakh/crore" in the infobox, but ICTF is against usage of conversion. So budget/gross in lakhs and crores without any conversion is correct as far as the infobox is concerned. Just because one policy says something, doesn't mean we should not take other things (consensus) into consideration. As an analogy, the basic guideline in a WP:BLP is to use native name of the person with native script in the infobox, but there is WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, which forbids Indian scripts in the infobox and lead. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: "Both the consensus and the policy at WP:ICTF need to be considered." You're arguing in my favour. The consensus (among many others) says that it allows "lakh/crore" usage only if conversions are provided. If they're not, then they're not allowed; saying one says use "lakh/crore" and the other says "don't use conversions", therefore use only "lakh/crore" is cherrypicking. Since the latter consensus (WP:ICTF) disallows conversions of any kind, the former consensus becomes irrelevant if one were to resolve both of the consensuses. And again, COMMONALITY is more important than any of those consensuses, as WP is a global encyclopedia, and using the regular numbering system that every country in the world uses (including India, Pakistan, etc.) achieves that goal while still keeping it accessible to everyone. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I explained the gist of these too (the consensus and ICTF) in my third post. That is, the consensus favors "crore/lakh" but requires conversion but on the other hand ICTF is against this type of conversion in the infobox. Check this discussion as well which is NOT in favor of using conversion templates. I'd like to second what Cyphoidbomb has said, keep the conversion "elsewhere" in the article, but not in the infobox. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll second Fylindfotberserk comments - conversions are good in the article body, but should not be in the infobox or the lead section. That's a pretty clear consensus and I still agree with the reasoning behind the arguments raised. We should be consistent within the article about the units of measure chosen though, so using crore throughout the entire article makes more sense that using it some places and millions in others. From long experience, trying to get newer or IP editors on Indian film articles to use millions/billions over crore is a rather Sisyphusian endeavor. I think I once told someone in a film project discussion they were welcome to have 20+ new articles on their watch list every month to keep as m/b. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I've to agree with your point that we should be consistent within the article and that using crore throughout the article is much more sensible. Quoting from WP:ICTF, 1) Converting to US dollars is arbitrary. 2) Default conversion templates create problems with inflation, Ex: where the gross from a 2008 film is converted to the present year's US$ rate. 3) The inflation adjustment option in the template results in infobox clutter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, If used right, the conversion templates would be good to include in the box office section. As for inflation, yes, that's a valid concern but given non-Indian readers (who on this Wikipedia tend to be more familiar with US Dollars) some frame of reference is helpful. I wish there was a way to have the INRConvert template convert for a specific year, without any adjustment for inflation. That said, the default (without a year) adjusts at the most recent number which helps give context to readers more familiar with US Dollarys. Ravensfire (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk and Ravensfire: I agree there shouldn't be conversions in Infoboxes; it looks too cluttered. That isn't my point, however. @Fylindfotberserk: Consensus doesn't favour crore/lakh, it merely favours allowing it. The point of that consensus was to establish whether using crore/lakh was allowed, not whether it was preferred. In that context, it's only allowed if conversions are present; not otherwise, which would preclude Infobox usage of crore/lakh. And again, Ravensfire, difficulty of doing something (I think you mean Sisyphean, btw) is never a strong argument, since that would preclude policies like using en dashes instead of hyphens for date ranges, or using "km" as the symbol for kilometres instead of "KM", "Km", "kms", etc. All of that notwithstanding, WP:COMMONALITY is always in force, which favours million/billion. This means that while articles using crore/lakh are allowed to exist, there's nothing stopping someone from editing them to use million/billion instead, which is more common by at least an order of magnitude. Everyone from the subcontinent (who speaks English) knows what a million and a billion are, but very few who are not from the subcontinent know what a crore and a lakh are. It would also be worth mentioning that an article is basically not eligible for Good Article or Featured Article status if it uses crore/lakh, which suggests that there is something inherently problematic with using those terms. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Getsnoopy, The consensus specifically writes ..consensus is to retain such terms in India-related articles... Besides, read arguments in favour of using crore/lakh including WP:WORLDWIDE. I suggest you move the discussion to WP:ICTF or/and keep it here instead of changing few articles cherry-picked by you e.g this and do not do this as per WP:BRD. There are literally hundreds of articles using crore/lakh and you have been informed by Cyphoidbomb and Ravensfire on the sheer futility of this kind of change. Pinging @Arjayay and Amakuru: for suggestions - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: And that terminal ellipsis expands to ...provided that either crore or lakh is to be linked at the first mention in the article, and that a conversion to either US$ or regular Rupee numbers is provided. Why you keep choosing to ignore this part of the provision is beyond me. WP:ICTF clearly is only against currency conversions, and that too only in Infoboxes. My change on this page (the whole reason this discussion even started) merely added currency conversions in the body of the article, and use "regular rupee numbers" in the Infobox to satisfy both policies' requirements, to uphold WP:COMMONALITY, and to keep the Infobox decluttered (from having to provide "regular rupee numbers" on top of crore/lakh numbers). Again, this satisfies all policies, yet you reverted it.

As for WP:WORLDWIDE, nowhere does it argue for crore/lakh (at least not anywhere that I can find it). It talks about the bias of information representation and user representation; insofar as that it concerned, while there is more to be done, the fact that articles about crore/lakh exist satisfy this point. WP is a global encyclopedia, so seeing as we need contributions and perspectives from a wide variety of people, we cater to them via policies such as ENGVAR, etc. At the same time, we're (again) a global encyclopedia, so we have policies such as COMMONALITY so that the encyclopedia doesn't become for a specific subset of our readership. To that end, we avoid using terms which are not in common use such as crore/lakh. This is especially a pointed case since it's asymmetric: almost every subcontinental reader understands what millions/billions are, as evidenced, by, many, sources, whereas almost no one non-subcontinental understands them. Without getting into linguistic minutiae, crore/lakh are not in common use in English as a whole in much the same way "pucca/pukka", "jugaad", "tiffin" are not nor are "cheonman", "eok", and "jal" (Korean terms for large numbers), as opposed to "guru", "jungle", "juggernaut", etc. which are. While some dictionaries might list them, WP follows common use. The day when they do fall into common use, I (and I'm sure many others on WP) would be happy to use them throughout articles.

And all of this, frankly, is irrelevant considering the consensus you keep citing, in evidently an attempt toward improving on WP:WORLDWIDE, allows for crore/lakh in articles, provided they provide conversions. Cherry-picking parts of it to suit your preferences serves no one, especially not the readership of WP. And as I've stated before, "futility of a change" is a non-argument (since that would preclude much of MoS), let alone grounds for reverting a change. I've also stated on your talk page that there have been discussions of this on WP:ICTF before without a preference either way; I don't want to keep beating this very dead horse. Feel free to start a discussion there and cite this one, as you are the one who seems to have a problem with my change. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not only me having a problem, other users also made it clear that the usage of dollar over crore/lakh isn't a great idea. Hate to reiterate, but the consensus is in support of "using crores/lakhs" but with conversion and ICTF is against usage of conversion templates. I've been talking about this "middle ground". That is, use crore/lakh with linking in the lead/infobox without any conversion. You can add conversion 'elsewhere' in the article as suggested by Cyphoidbomb. Also there's Status Quo, that's the reason I did not change the Arjun Reddy article (watched by me) which was already in millions/billions. Secondly, guidelines can have exceptions, for example as per MOS:LEAD, the foreign language equivalent name of a subject can be added in the lead, but according to MOS:INDICSCRIPT, we can't have it in Indian article. Another RL example, the punishment for murder according to IPC is death or life imprisonment, but obviously that's not common because of other clauses and amendments. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I feel like we're going around in circles. There are two types of conversion: currency conversion and number system conversion. WP:ICTF is only against the former; it says nothing about the latter. The consensus you cited, however, does say something about the latter, which is that it should be done where currency conversions are not used. So whenever one is to use crore/lakh, they have 2 options: either use USD, EUR, or GBP conversions (when dealing with money), or use Western numbering system conversions. Since you can't do the former in Infoboxes per WP:ICTF, the only option left is doing a Western numbering system conversion. Alternatively, one could use the Western numbering system outright without any conversions. I chose the latter because it also satisfies WP:COMMONALITY, which is just as valid a policy (if not, arguably, more valid) than the other policies, and because it declutters the Infobox. I understand you're saying that you're "compromising" between the consensus and WP:ICTF by only using crore/lakh, but this is not a compromise. The compromise was in the consensus itself which is to provide some sort of conversion, monetary or numeric. Providing neither violates the very consensus you're citing; it's a simple boolean expression really. If you were to say the compromise is to have a numbering system conversion [e.g., "₹8 crore (₹80 million)"], then I'd agree with you. But what you're proposing is neither here nor there, which is what I'm against. Furthermore, it seems like you're misinterpreting what the consensus is calling for. Remember that the person who started that discussion which led to the consensus was initially proposing removing the use of crore/lakh entirely from WP, and so the consensus was to allow those terms to exist given that conversions are provided, not to endorse them exclusively in every India-related article. There is a huge difference between the two. I should also mention that MOS:NUMS, which was cited at the beginning of the consensus, also discourages crore/lakh except in exceptional cases for "contexually important reasons". Someone in the consensus even clarified what those reasons could be, but movie budgets and revenues are absolutely not one of them. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, you can add crore with conversion as per the consensus if you like. It is getting boring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Commenting here following the discussion at Template talk:INRConvert#Crore and Lakh instead of million and billion. Adding "million" and "billion" to rupee amounts is very strange and is not helping anyone under the amounts better - someone who is familiar with rupee amounts will also be familiar with how they are denominated. No-one ever talks about a film that grossed ₹1.5 billion, or a company that sold ₹12 billion of products. In fact, this type of usage is not usual in any variety of English, since American or British English would be using dollars or pounds, for example, whereas Indian English would use lakhs and crores. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I have also just noticed this ICTF decision against having US dollar amounts in infoboxes and lists. The primary reason, from what I understand, is that the INRConvert template adds useless verbiage to places where concise figures are needed, and adding the conversion manually is a maintenance nightmare. Am I reading that right? It is not that difficult to add historical conversions to INRConvert, e.g. to make {{INRConvert|100|c|year=2005|fmt=historic}} output ₹100 crore (US$29 million). --Joshua Issac (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There were several arguments made, but conversions tend to clutter the infobox. Since most of the people who might be interested in Indian film are interested in the raw figures, that's what was decided to be added. The historic switch is interesting and this is the first time I'm hearing about it, but I don't think it was the entirety of the issue. I don't think the historic flag does anything differently from the normal formatting. See below:

• ₹100 crore (equivalent to ₹340 crore or US$41 million in 2023)
• ₹100 crore (equivalent to ₹340 crore or US$41 million in 2023)

The infobox is intended to summarise general points about the film, not every aspect. Anybody who wants more detail about what the box office conversions are or what crore and lakh mean can get that info in the body of the article, is what methinks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Issac: No-one ever talks about...—That's simply not true, as I've already pointed out in the INRConvert discussion. Business Standard and the Reserve Bank of India itself are among some of the entities that use millions and billions of rupees.

The point about using fmt=historic is a good one though. This is my first time hearing about it as well, and it's likely because the parameter is not documented in the template's documentation. I think the clutter that the template generates currently when one uses the year parameter was one of the issues brought up previously, so using the new parameter would help in that regard. But as Cyphoidbomb pointed out, it doesn't seem to do anything; is it a new feature / in beta? Getsnoopy (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

1. Conversion from INR to USD or EUR: This is done so that when someone reads an article and sees a monetary amount in a non-USD/EUR currency, they should be able to have a rough understanding of it, even if they are unfamiliar with the currency. The USD is used often because it is widely used and traded (so people are likely to be familiar with it), and the EUR because it is also widely used and traded (and conveniently roughly equal to the USD). In an article that uses the Hungarian forint, for example, a reader from Angola or Sri Lanka will likely be able to look at the USD or EUR amount in the brackets and understand the sum better than if it were just in forints.
2. Conversion from lakh/crore to million/billion for rupee amounts: I cannot see any good reason to do this. For a reader unfamiliar with the INR and how it is denominated, telling them that a film made "₹15 crore (₹150 million)" at the box office will not give them any more information than "₹15 crore" (if they are going to convert that figure into another currency, search engines will accept lakhs and crores anyway), and it will look very strange to someone who is familiar with the INR (while adding no additional value to their understanding). Having it as just "₹150 million" is the worst of both worlds, because it hampers the understanding of readers using South Asian English varieties, while adding very little to aid users of other varieties of English. The correct way to address the unfamiliarity is (as the Reserve Bank of India does, for example, at [1]), to display the rupees as they are usually denominated, and to display a converted amount in another currency (i.e., point 1).

The reason the template did not work earlier is that I had not written the feature at the time. I wanted to know if it would be worth writing. I have now added it to the sandbox, {{INRConvert/sandbox}}. You can use it like this:

{{INRConvert/sandbox|100|c|to=EUR|year=2002|fmt=historical}} displays ₹100 crore (€21,792,522.11) for me.

As you can see, it still needs some work (the converted amount shows too much precision). Please test this template with other amounts and arguments to see if you can find other bugs, so that I can fix them. Once we are confident that it is reasonably bug-free, it can be merged into the main template, and it can then be used in articles (and a discussion can be started at ICTF to see whether the previous decision can now be overturned).

You can use the following currencies with the template in historical mode: special drawing rights unit (XDR), US dollar (USD), pound sterling (GBP), Japanese yen (JPY), Deutsche mark (DEM, until 1998), euro (EUR, from 1999), and any year between 1970 and 2018.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The template will now accept a round parameter that controls how many decimal places to which the target currency should be rounded. The argument can be negative, e.g. -2 to round to the nearest 100. Here is an example:

Code: {{INRConvert/sandbox|100|c|to=EUR|year=2002|fmt=historical|round=-2}}

Expected output: ₹100 crore (€21,792,500)

Actual output: ₹100 crore (equivalent to ₹382 crore or €47 million in 2023)

It cannot yet turn €500,000,000 into €500 million, but it is an improvement from before. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

--Joshua Issac (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It supports condensing figures like €500,000,000 into €500 million now. Example:

Code: {{INRConvert/sandbox|100|c|to=EUR|year=2002|fmt=historical}}

Expected output: ₹100 crore (€21.79 million)

Actual output: ₹100 crore (equivalent to ₹382 crore or €47 million in 2023)

The round parameter can still be used to change from the default 2 decimal places, but now it will operate on just the numerical part of the output. This is why the example in my previous comment turned to €0, because it rounded €21.79 to the nearest €100.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Issac: Thank you for working on that feature. I'll take a look and let you know.

As for point #2 from your reply, I think you're missing important points. Firstly, assuming that the Indian rupee is inherently denominated in lakhs and crores, which it isn't; using lakhs and crores is a feature of the Indian numbering system being popular in India, not an inherent feature of the Indian rupee. So a Western numbering system is just as valid.

Secondly, saying that adding a numbering system conversion adds no value than not doing so is completely ignoring the point that you yourself made which is that conversions and numbering systems are two different things. I could not be familiar with the currency conversions (which I could learn), but still be familiar with the Western numbering system (as every speaker of English is). Only providing local currencies denominated in the Western numbering system in Infoboxes is the standard format that is used all over Wikipedia (see Toyota, for example). In the Toyota example, the article doesn't, for example, list their income statement figures in juuman, hyakuman, and senman despite their popularity in Japan. It could've easily used those terms with the same logic of "if people don't understand Yen to begin with, then we might as well use all the local terms we can and let readers unfamiliar with them Google the conversions". WP is for a global, proficient English-speaking audience; using traffic/page view figures to justify using local terminology usage is not in the spirit of WP. It's the same reason that, according to MOS:NUMS, crore/lakh is discouraged and if in the exceptional circumstances that it is required, conversions need to be provided.

Furthermore, it doesn't allow writing things like 10,00,000 at all, in the same way that we don't allow South African English articles to use commas as the decimal separator. ENGVAR is primarily about spelling and vocabulary, but it only goes so far, and is primarily concerning editors of an article, not an article's audience. COMMONALITY, however, is about an article's audience. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The Indian rupee is denominated in lakhs and crores because that what is in use where the rupee is used. If the rupee were used in sufficiently many English-speaking countries denominated the currency in millions and billions, then it would be valid, but this is not the case. The Japanese terms you mentioned are not used on Wikipedia because Japan is not an English-speaking country with its own established variety of English. Your example with South Africa is better, because South Africa is an English-speaking country. However, there is consensus on banning 10'000'000 and 1,00,00,000 in favour of 10,000,000. If you look at the edit that discourages the use of crores and lakhs, the edit summary cites as rationale the same RfC that condoned it, where consensus was found to retain these terms and provide conversions. There is no consensus to require exceptional circumstances. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The same edit summary says that parent MoS pages trump subpages. And that's not to say that they're incompatible. MOS:COMMONALITY says crore/lakh terminology shouldn't be used, but the subpage (MOS:NUMS) says if it is used, it has to be for contextually important reasons, and in those narrow cases, conversions have to be provided. The RfC merely states that the same thing (conversions have to be provided), but in the context of the terms being allowed to exist, but in no way endorsing them to be used in all Indian articles (considering the RfC was predicated on the proposal to ban those terms entirely). I.e., if crore/lakh already exist with conversions, retain them; otherwise, one can either change them to the Western system or add in conversions. And surely, not every India-related article can be a "contextually important reason" to use crore/lakh, as that would defeat the purpose of that narrowing qualifier. All of these are in MoS (in one way or another), which means they all have consensus. Unless you're suggesting otherwise? Getsnoopy (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)