Jump to content

Talk:Telugu cinema

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old messages

[edit]

This page seems to have taken the content from Tollywood. Don't quite seem to understand the reason! Maybe the admin/mods can do something Mspraveen 12:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TeluguMovieSuper.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Film Production

[edit]

According to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) figures, the following data for the top three Film Industries in India is as in the table below

Year Hindi Movies Telugu Movies Tamil Movies 1st Position
2005 248 268 136 Telugu
2006 223 245 162 Telugu
2007 257 241 149 Hindi
2008 286 175 Telugu
2009 235 218 190 Hindi
2010 215 181 202 Hindi
2011 206 192 185 Hindi

Trivia

[edit]
  • Chiranjeevi, who is one of the most popular actors of Telugu Cinema announced a grand entry into Andhra Pradesh politics with Prajarajyam.
[edit]

The image File:Daana Veera Soora Karna.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness Book of Records

[edit]

I removed a lot of stuff claiming the Guinness records. They must be cited using the Guinness site as reference. But here except for the film studios no fact was cited using that. --Commander (Ping Me) 15:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbing films issue

[edit]

The Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber has decided to crack down on dubbed films in the state. The Chamber has passed a few resolutions and the most important among them is the ban on dubbed films during festivals. Another key resolution is the increase in surcharge from 20% to 50% on dubbed films.Could anyone mention it with proper reference in article.14.96.81.197 (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Provide a reference if you want it added. There is no restriction for placing references here. Secret of success Talk to me 12:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can provide this info with published source, If i found out one I will include, thankz Nandhakishore (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The whole dubbed films section is biased. This article is using words like Overtaking and Dominated, in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view There is no need to mention the dubbed film information and it should seriously be considered removing of the whole section, expecially because it is in such a biased tone.

The film Enthiran is mentioned to have grossed 60 crore and the authenticity of the source provided is dubious, moreover there are several sources which mention that Enthiran grossed only 30 Crore, see below:

http://cinemitra.com/endhiran-the-robot-breaks-all-box-office-records

http://www.teluguone.com/tmdb/news/Tollywood-Top-5-Films-Collections-en-15128c1.html

12pavan34 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Usage of the word regularly in the first sentence is in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view . The whole section needs to be deleted from the article.

12pavan34 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a POV-section and should be deleted.

Sonofrichard (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the editing pattern it's quite clear to me that all the accounts are socks of Padmal. In what way does the section violate WP:NPOV? It's a fact which was verified by even newspapers published inside Andhra. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that using terms like dominate, overtaking, regularly are in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view RTPking (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a section contains peacock terms, it doesn't mean that we should wholly remove it. That being the case the article itself contains a lot of peacock terms for which we should take this to Afd per your view. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please initiate Afd if you feel the necessity RTPking (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's according to your opinion. Do you have any sources for "Telugu cinema is the second largest in terms of revenue and infrastructure?" Producing large no. of films doesn't make any industry bigger. That being the case, the Telugu industry has produced more no. of films than Bollywood in the past. Does it make Telugu cinema bigger than Bollywood? —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember this edit which was made by you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why do you have this anti Telugu feeling and pro-tamil attitude, it is clear that Telugu Cinema is larger than Tamil, which you claim as second in country and the edit you gave is not done by me it si done by some User:Sreekar akkineni why are you saying I did it ?? It is so clear someone else edited it, It is very dissappointing that editors like you are not blocked and allowed to do all the false editing on wikipedia. You are writing on the talk page some stuff which does not make sense.

Tollywood has produced more films than Bollywood a few times in the past but Bollywood has been consistently producing more films than Telugu cinema lot more times hence Tollywood is second and bollywood is first, please dont argue for the sake of arguing, You are scared of initiating AFD as you also know that Tollywood is greater than Kollywood(tamil) and second in the country, I request you not to vandalise the article like this and hide the truth, You are driving you point of view as truth which is very wrong. RTPking (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vensatry I dare you to initiate an RFC for both second largest film industry and dubbing films issue, we can speak of facts over there. It is painful to see your vandalism not being noticed by Administrators, an established user like you indulging in exclusive POV edits is a very poor choice to make. RTPking (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are a quick learner! —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't waste time in arguing with sockpuppets. Since you have questioned my neutrality, here are a few samples to show your neutrality: Your contributions clearly show that you're against the Tamil language and a Telugu POV pusher. The revert that you made in Chittoor and the reason that you gave for it "Does not need Tamil here, the put Telugu alphabet for chennai first before putting tamil alphabet for chittoor" really makes me laugh aloud. Anyways, nice try. Keep going. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vensatry Why are you not replying and talking something else? I want you to initiate an RFC and the truth shall prevail. Are you worried that the truth shall come out ? RTPking (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question was your nuetrality and your answer was a question posed about mine, and that does not prove your nuetrality. You are missing simple logic here. RTPking (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vensatry It is really worrying and dissappointing how you use your experience to manipulate the truth, I hope some administrator some day realizes this and takes the right action. RTPking (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty of experience in this project than you. I don't have the necessity to initiate an RFC or I'm afraid either. It was you who started talking about going for an RFC. So you can very well do that if you need consensus. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

award names

[edit]

ragupathi venkataratnam naidu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.119.164 (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Out

[edit]

I have checked every line, unable to see any problems with lay out and grammar, no redundancy also, kindly check it once again Nandhakishore (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Largest Film Industry in India

[edit]

I added information stating Telugu industry is second largest and I added the following citations:

173.39.121.43 (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Adding to the above sources which Say Telugu Film industry is Second largest in India:

RTPking (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Telugu Films have much more fan base than Tamil films overseas, It is not true to say Tamil has more than Telugu. As an example I am I am posting information of the film Dookudu As of 2012, Dookudu had one of the largest worldwide opening for a Telugu film, releasing globally in 1,600 screens, The film was released even in remote country like Botswana Telugu project to release in Botswana by the Telugu Association of Botswana. Dookudu was released over 79 theaters in the United States; the Los Angeles Times quoted Dookudu as "the biggest hit you've never heard of. Please see here to verify my informaton Cinema_of_Andhra_Pradesh

Please see the below information and decide whether Telugu cinema is second or Tamil is ?
The history has to be taken into account; Second spot just because Tamil has produced more films than Telugu in 2010 is silly. Never except 2010 did Tamil industry produce more films than telugu, while Telugu produces more films than Tamil consistently every year, moreover Infrastructure wise Telugu industry is the best in the country,

  • with Andhra Pradesh having the highest number of theaters in India,
  • Hyderabad in the only city in India to have Six functional studio, the highest number for any city in India,
  • Largest film studio in the world -Rmoji is present in Hyderabad,
  • Largest 3D-IMAX theater in the world, which is also the most viewed screen in the world
  • the most guinness records set by any film industry in India.
  • A good chunk of Tamil films are dubbed into Telugu because of the most lucrative market it offers to films, not just Tamil films but many other languages dub films into TeluguList_of_Telugu_films_of_2012, Telugu movies or other movie industries except rarely do not care to dub them into TamilList_of_Tamil_films_of_2012 as it does not offer such a big or attractive market, dubbing into Tamil is more hassle and is not considered a money making event, the shortage of theaters in TN poses a challenge for movies struggling for screens to release.

The Popularity of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh is evident on Wikipedia also, just type cinema in the wikipedia search bar at the top of your page and you will see suggestions of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh a regional cinema among the top suggestions of wherein international country cinemas like cinema's those of india, usa and uk.
Telugu is definitely second largest and Tamil has the Third position

I have not generated this data for the annual film production, I have provided valid citations to speak of the data. In terms of revenue, films produced annually, infrastructure and past record it is clearly evident that Telugu film industry is the second largest. And since this information is not original research, I suggest this information regarding Telugu industry's second position be mentioned in the article.

  • Based on information in regards to Annual film production - current and past record Telugu is greater in size than Tamil.
  • Infrastructure based on the information like studios and Theaters it is clear that Telugu is greater in size than Tamil.
  • Revenue - Larger Annual film production has to be supported by a larger audience, it is far too difficult to ignore the amount of dubbed films from Tamil to Telugu as Telugu is clearly a larger market than Tamil.

Telugu enjoys and affords films dubbed from various languages; unlike Tamil which has very few dubbed films and has small choice of films made mostly in original Tamil. All this speaks of market capacity. Providing all these valid data and valid citations backing the data it can be concluded that Telugu is second in the country and Tamil third. One needs valid citations to back his data and based on it one may derive to logical conclusions, I can provide all the citations for the data I provide and I will conclude accordingly.

I must add that TN govt. levied very high Taxes on dubbed films, to save the Tamil industry, while AP Govt. does not levy such high taxes because The Telugu industry is larger in size and can afford to have dubbed films coming in and still have its own Film industry surviving and running without any problems.
RTPking (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look my friend, I highly appreciate your efforts in finding out which industry is bigger. Take time to read this policy when you get time. There are a lot of contradicting sources which say either way: This one for revenue, This states Tamil Nadu yields more revenue in the south. I can still show many sources which are much more reliable than yours. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a similar point to the DRN page, but Vesantry, the policy you cited actually would be an argument in favor of including this info (along with the opposing perspective). That is, when reliable sources disagree about something, we don't say nothing--rather, we represent both (or more) perspectives, keeping WP:NPOV in mind for appropriate balance. Now I have no idea about the quality of the sources presented, but our policy has never been to simply ignore real-world disputes, but rather to cover them via reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revenues alone do not speak of the size of the Industry, most of Tamil films are dubbed and they earn their revenue from telugu Film market, Hardly any Telugu films are dubbed into Tamil as it is considered not a money making venture. So revenues from Andhra Pradesh are also counted under Tamil film industry and claimed as Second largest industry.
  • A good chunk of Tamil films are dubbed into Telugu because of the most lucrative market it offers to films, not just Tamil films but many other languages dub films into TeluguList_of_Telugu_films_of_2012, Telugu movies or other movie industries except rarely do not care to dub them into TamilList_of_Tamil_films_of_2012 as it does not offer such a big or attractive market, dubbing into Tamil is more hassle and is not considered a money making event, the shortage of theaters in TN poses a challenge for movies struggling for screens to release.

RTPking (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only the Govt. of TN had not levied such high taxes to save the TN film industry, Tamil film industry would be no where close to second place both in revenues and Annual Film production. Govt. of TN levies taxes close to 50% on dubbed films where as Govt. of Andhra Pradesh being the more unbiased levies the same taxes on all the films equally. This move of Govt. Of TN was only to save the TN film industry, which could not survive dubs coming from Telugu Film industry in early 1990s.

The Govt. of AP also decided to levy high Taxes on dubbed films to the tune of 30 - 40% in year 2012 but later took back its move, due to agitations from lot of languages which are dubbed into Telugu, and all of the different film industries protested stating their concern. And now Vensatry claims Tamil industry has higher revenue which comes from including Telugu industry. RTPking (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vensatry can you give me a list of movies from Tamil film industry with record revenue collections which were not dubbed in Telugu ? You may really have work hard, only invain. RTPking (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop this unproductive discussion. You're both engaging, or asking the other to engage in, original research and treating this as forum. All we care is what reliable sources say. We are not here to debate the merits of government policy, or the relative quality of different film industries. As has been explained by myself and a DRN volunteer at the DRN, we can either include both POV attributed by multiple sources, or we can provide no information. We cannot engage in personal research to determine which claim is actually true. Qwyrxian (talk)

It is a clearly established fact that Telugu film industry is the second largest Film industry in term of Annual film production, so why is this fact being stopped from presented on the Article ? RTPking (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is currently taking place at WP:DRN. You can't hold the discussion in 2 places simultaneously, it's too difficult. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on use of "second largest"

[edit]
After reading all of the comments from both sides, it is clear that there is no consensus to include the phrase "second largest film industry in India" in this article. It does appear that there may be possible agreement on a more limited phrase that specifies a time period and a specific measurement (something like "From 200X to 200Y, the Telugu film industry had the largest number/amount of Z". Further discussion on that can occur in a new section, but at this point no benefit will come for further discussion on the broader claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should this article state that the Telugu film industry is the "second largest film industry in India"? (see this diff for the original proposed addition). The section above discusses the concerns of currently involved editors in detail, which mainly revolve around the definition of "largest" and the fact that sources present varying (sometimes contradictory) opinions on the matter. A variety of solutions have been proposed:

  • State nothing because the information is contradictory and unclear.
  • State both competing positions, with clear attribution (something like, "According to Source X, the A is the largest, but according to Source Y, B is the largest").
  • Use the already proposed phrase, as in the diff above.
  • Use a word or phrase more specific than "largest" which can be sourced more directly.

Alternative suggestions are welcome as well. Please note that I have no personal opinion on the matter, and am drafting this RfC as a neutral party on behalf of the main disputants. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Are there sources that dispute the main claim? I searched Google Books and found this (page 248): "Telugu cinema is the closest rival to Bollywood among the regional cinemas..." This (page 86) says: "The second largest film industry in India is known as Tollywood due to the language spoken in the filmmaking region of Andhra Pradesh, Telugu." I did not see anything to the contrary so far. Hope that helps. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry has two posted in the section above asserting that other industries (Tamil Nadu, specifically) are larger than Andhra Pradesh's. No comment on whether or not those are good quality or reliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw them. Looks like the largeness is revenue-specific. I do not dispute The Times of India as a reliable source. Perhaps the largeness has more to do with output and reputation? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm generally opposed to using vague terminology. It's not clear what "largest" means in this context: makes the most films? employs the most people? generates the most revenue? The lede says it made the most number of films between 2005 and 2008, but is in second place now in terms of productivity. Personally I think it's best left like that, since the lede quantifies the industry's position exactly in terms of productivity, so "second largest" is redundant if addressing this aspect and too vague if it isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What it used to say in both the Telugu and Tamil sub-sections in Cinema_of_India#Regional_industries was xxxx "is among India's three largest film industries in terms of number of films produced annually." I have noticed that when one is listed as two and the other as three, someone comes along and changes it. Even with this more neutral text, it got changed. The number of films produced by each of the top three does fluctuate from year to year, making a permanent solution for 1,2,3 ranking not possible. Now in terms of revenue, etc, I am not familiar enough to say, but whatever solution is proposed should take into account and be acceptable to all the relevant articles: Cinema of India, Bollywood, Tamil cinema, and Cinema of Andhra Pradesh. BollyJeff | talk 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see the Annual Film Production as far as the Annual film production is considered Cinema of Andhra Pradesh or Telugu Cinema definitely ranks second considering the past record and present annual production, this information is not for an year or two but generated for the last 8 consecutive years.
  • The larger revenues are responsible for larger numbers in film production.
  • Largest film studio in the world -Ramoji is present in Hyderabad.
  • Hyderabad in the only city in India to have Six functional studios, the highest number for any city in India.
  • Andhra Pradesh having the highest number of theaters for any state in India, supports such high number of films to be produced.
  • The close contender Tamil Cinema dubs almost every big budget movie it makes into Telugu and relies on revenue from the Telugu film market generated, where as Telugu films are rarely dubbed into Tamil.

The Tamil Nadu Govt. has levied very high taxes to the tune of 40% - 50% on films dubbed into Tamil to save the Tamil industry.
It is simple logic that larger number of films have to be supported by larger revenue; more films cost more money.
Telugu film industry is the second largest. I have got good sound knowledge on this matter. RTPking (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not include since it is a disputed fact. It also is a time sensitive fact since the size of various "film industries" change over time. I think it is best we avoid the whole mess which has a lot to do with regional influence positioning which leads to reporting biases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can consistent past record of little less than a decade be discarded as disputed fact ? Please see Annual Film Production, it must be mentioned with all information included. Things do not change every year, the positions are attaining constancy, the number of films produced fluctuates marginally in small number (~10) which does not alter which industry comes second each year except rarely, hence a past record of multiple years has to be considered. By the way the dispute is about which is second largest Telugu or Tamil and not for the first position. RTPking (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither, the parameters for "largest" are unclear. KillerChihuahua 20:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even though I'm not familiarized with the scope of the article, I'm opposed to use generalization and vague vocabulary on articles, the best? the bigger? The best of what? The bigger of what? If the Telugu film industry is big, better or best on something it should be contextualized and well sourced. Such a fact is disputable and vary from perspective to perspective. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annual Film production output of a particular industry determines a lot of things, firstly if there is revenue to support a large number of films only then its possible, more films - more market - larger audience - more revenue all synonymous, if films do not make money they would not be made at the expense of the film producer. Most number of film studios for any industry in India please see above, Largest film studio in the world(Guinness record awarded). Large number of film studios are supported by large number of films which are supported by a large revenue which comes from large audience reach, with a byproduct of the most number of Guinness records set by any film industry.

All my claims are recorded with proper citation above in this same page.

The easiest way to measure an industry's size is annual film output. RTPking (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is ridiculous. If the easiest way to measure an industry's size is annual film output, Telugu film industry must have been bigger than Bollywood during the period 2005–08. Quoting claims such as Guinness record, largest film studio in the world and highest number of theaters for any state in India, doesn't necessarily mean that an industry is bigger or prospective. We shouldn't make conclusions based on personal opinion. What we need is quality third-party sources verifying the claim. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting to maintain restrain and not call any comments ridiculous. Yes Telugu industry had produced the highest number of films for any Film industry in India, during a span of few years, yet it is not considered first but only second because this film output was not consistent. When considered over a period of several year for instance a decade, Hindi (bollywood) produced the highest number of films for more years than Telugu Industry did. And that is the reason why the RFC is made for Telugu industry's being second largest and not first. Please see above in this same page which have quality third party sources mentioning Cinema of Andhra Pradesh as second largest.

RTPking (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can producing the highest number of films for a period of 4-5 years make an industry consistent. Your case being the argument, there are chances that the Tamil film industry had produced more no. of films for a certain period in it's 80 year history. All the sources you've quoted only mention the size in terms of film output and not on revenue or world-wide distribution. As I already said, we can say "As of year" XX industry was largest in terms of "films produced annually". —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Annual film production section above in this same page, consistently Telugu film industry has been in either first or second positions for a decade, for which there is very sound recorded evidence provided. As per Tamil films producing large number of films in 80s, I have never come across such information because annual film production numbers were not available then, as per my knowledge only recently in the past decade has this information started being compiled and hence being available. Please provide if you have good sources to back your claim and also please explain how Tamil films, if produced in large numbers in 1980s affects Telugu film industries position from being second. And It is not true, none of the sources specifically mention that the Telugu Film industry is second largest in terms of film output alone. RTPking (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my point above. I never said that the Tamil film industry produced more no. of films than others. Likewise none of the sources say that the Telugu film industry is larger in terms of revenue or worldwide distribution. We cannot go with POV pushing by taking into account some vague statements provided by the so called reliable sources. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like How there was no data available in past for Annual film production earlier to this decade there is currently no good source which compiles data for revenue or worldwide distribution like CBFC, whatever little is available is not reliable. Moreover a lot of Film Producers in India try not to declare the revenue earned, be it in India or Overseas to evade Tax being paid to Govt. of India. CBFC is not a so called reliable source it is in fact a reliable source compiled by Govt. Of India.

It is clear that Tamil Film industry is smaller than Telugu Film industry in terms of Annual Film production. It is clear that Telugu Film Industry is second largest in terms of Annual Film production in India, why is this fact being prevented from represented on the article ? Please provide some sources which say that Telugu is not the Second in the country in terms of Revenue and Film distribution. RTPking (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vensatry Why do you use terms like "POV pushing", everyone here is presenting their point of view (comment), thats is what an RFC is meant for. Previously you commented my comments as ridiculous, using such words does not add any extra force, please restrain yourself. RTPking (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on mate. I guess you pretend not to get my point. As I said earlier I never disputed the fact that the Telugu film industry has churned out more no. of films than Tamil in the recent years. But that does not necessarily mean that it's bigger than Tamil in every other aspect. Your conclusions are definitely POV-pushing. Before I provide sources, can you please provide sources which say that Telugu is Second in the country in terms of Revenue and Film distribution. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a look at this edit. Are you sure that the Telugu film industry will continue producing more no. of films in the future. The facts needs dates per WP:DATED. I included this long back which you constantly reverted. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your dubbed films issue read this. You removed that section saying that it violates NPOV. Infact, adding that gives more neutrality to the article as currently I can see only some flowery phrases about the subject in the article. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going by this source http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-11-18/news/27638208_1_film-industry-small-budget-movies-farokh-balsara both Tamil and Telugu generate same film revenues per year. But what's more interesting is that by calculation both industries would be at 33% at an all India level. So the true question would be, which is Nr 1 and 2 in India, not 2 and 3? -- Dravidian  Hero  13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A good chunk of Tamil films are dubbed into Telugu because of the most lucrative market it offers to films, not just Tamil films but many other languages dub films into Telugu please see this link:List_of_Telugu_films_of_2012, Telugu movies or other movie industries except rarely do not care to dub them into Tamil, please see this link:[List_of_Tamil_films_of_2012] as it does not offer such a big or attractive market, dubbing into Tamil is not considered a money making event, the shortage of theaters in TN poses a challenge for movies struggling for screens to release, please see this link : shortage of theaters in TN.
    If only the Govt. of TN had not levied such high taxes to save the TN film industry, Tamil film industry would be no where close to Third place both in revenues and Annual Film production. Govt. of TN levies taxes flatly equal to 50% on dubbed films, please see this linkTamil govt entertainment tax where as Govt. of Andhra Pradesh being the more unbiased levies the same taxes on all the films equally, in 2012 there was a proposition to increase taxes of dubbed films into Telugu but a lot of other film industries in India panicked the loss of revenue and one of the producer from the Hindi industry moved the SUPREME court of india and stopped the raise of Taxes. This move of Govt. Of TN was only to save the TN film industry, which could not survive dubs coming in from Telugu Film industry in 1990s.
    User:Vensatry can you give me a list of movies from Tamil film industry with record revenue collections which were not dubbed in Telugu ? You may really have work hard, only invain.
    Giving the above details I hereby establish that Tamil film industry depends on Telugu film industry for its revenue. RTPking (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your extensive research. But I feel sorry to say that you haven't understood our policies. We cannot take this into consideration as it seems to violate WP:OR. We always go by sources and not OR. Do you think Telugu films run only inside the Telugu territory. They have a decent market in Karnataka and more recently in Kerala also. "Idlebrain" is a Pro-Telugu website and is not considered a reliable source. Making statements like "This move of Govt. Of TN was only to save the TN film industry, which could not survive dubs coming in from Telugu Film industry in 1990s" makes me only laugh because you completely ignore the fact that films like Geethanjali, Shiva (Dubbed into Telugu as Udhayam) made it big inside TN in the past. What's your say on such films? You talk only about Tamil films being released in Andhra and not Telugu films in other territories. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vensatry:As far as dubbed film section on the article is considered, yes you yourself agreed that your edits were violating WP:NPOV and stopped adding the content further, I had given you multiple Vandalism warnings, but now you say you want to add that content again? Please see your [diff] wherein you used terms like Overtaking, Dominated among others which clearly violate WP:NPOV.
Now coming to my violation of WP:OR, are you accusing me - I am in violation of WP:OR then I would suggest you go read the article again, it is not considered violation of WP:OR with my providing of sources like:

RTPking (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never admitted that my edits violated WP:NPOV at any point of time in my WP life. Presence of weasel words doesn't mean that the whole section has to be done away with. We can always re-write the section using words that present the fact in a neutral manner. I reverted you to maintain the status quo as you were removing it without consensus. Now coming to your sources, I'm afraid Wikipedia articles cannot be taken into consideration as they constitute circular sourcing and I've given enough explanations about the "idlebrain" source. I'm going to go ahead and restore the dubbed films section since that was removed without consensus. Start an RFC for that too if you want. —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See you have not admitted your edits violated WP:NPOV, and you still are not willing, but the fact remains as it is that your edits did violate WPNPOV, you have refrained from adding those contents upon my warnings of Vandalism to you, that's what I mean to say here. Now the consensus has been that there was no information on this dubbing films section for several months now. You are the one making changes by adding it, so if you need to add it you please open a new RFC for it. Also I must say that You have again violated the WP:NPOV in re-writing the the section, i do not see a nuetral tone so I have removed it. We are digressing from the topic of discussion - whether Telugu film industry is Second largest or not. Please stick to this discussion alone out here. RTPking (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Dravidian Hero's comments in the below section also RTPking (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote some genuine examples of myself violating WP:NPOV. It's clear that apart from NPOV and WP:V you don't know any of our policies and you haven't read the mentioned ones either. So take time to read WP:VANDNOT too. This RFC is going nowhere in a constructive way and am sick of making you understand things better. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Dubbed films section

[edit]

Vensatry, imho this section belongs in the Tamil cinema section, since this is about Tamil films, not Telugu? -- Dravidian  Hero  22:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be added in both the articles, since it's directly connected with Tamil films and Telugu territory. A source from Hindu says that in 2005 the Telugu box-office was completely dominated by dubbed films from Tamil. It shows how those films had an impact in Andhra. Even after I re-wrote the section in a highly neutral manner User:RTPking keeps removing that saying vandalism. He removed the section by himself without any consensus. So even if this section seems irrelevant here it shouldn't be removed until a consensus is reached. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Forgot to sign[reply]
I think, there is a valid argument, when we say Telugu cinema was affected by dubbed Tamil films in a historical perspective, but there needs to be reliable sources, which exactly state that. Otherwise this should be transfered to the Tamil article.-- Dravidian  Hero  17:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:RTPking is edit-warring with two users. They have made additions (phrase like "to save their own film industries", "not fearing the loss of revenue" for instance) which was not mentioned in the source to suit their POV. One more revert you do I'm going to report you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RTPking has moved to Tamil cinema with similar edits as here: diff -- Dravidian  Hero  18:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide proper sources which speak of that speific information.RTPking (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the article you will not. Any of you who starts edit warring there gets blocked. Period. I started a section there recommending we remove the sentence entirely, as it's only logical that if the term "largest" is ambiguous here, it's ambiguous over there, too. But go discuss it on the talk page first. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss here before making any changes. RTPking (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? You don't get to make changes and then declare that others have to discuss them before reverting you. Yes, discussion is good, but you cannot state that your edits automatically get to stay. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Either remove all information in relation to Tamil film industry from the dubbing films section or allow all information in the dubbing film section allowing partial information in regards to Tamil film industry here gives wrong idea. RTPking (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits (cats and Music)

[edit]

Just to clarify why those links were removed. First, you cannot add a category in "Further info" template. This is because, quite simply, a category doesn't provide any further information--it just lists a bunch of WP articles. If we had a "list" article of AP cinema crew, we could certainly link to that in the See Also section.

As for the Music, it simply doesn't belong here. That is an article about music that is commonly found in AP. However, I would be willing to have a link to the specific section of that article in the See Also, and I'll add it now as a compromise. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have opposed this one had the section about cinema in Music of Andhra Pradesh been larger. The information about cinema in the article is way too less. Thanks, TheStrikeΣagle 14:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kailash29792 (talk · contribs) 13:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet checked the whole article, but from what I saw, here are a few suggestions for improvement. More will be arriving later:

  • Film names should be italicised, many of the film names here like Vishwa Mohini, Malliswari and Patala Bhairavi are not.
  • "Raghupathi Venkaiah Naidu is the father of Telugu Cinema" - sounds too metaphorical, try to be literal.
  • Is the section "Guinness records" necessary? Sounds trivial, either section be renamed or content be shifted to other sections.
Furthermore, "Telugu actor Brahmanandam holds the Guinness World Record for acting in the most number of films in a single language" and "Playback singer S. P. Balasubramanyam holds the Guinness World Record of having sung the most number of songs for any male playback singer in the world" - both how many?

Comment This article is nowhere close to GA stuff and needs a lot of work. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: What is worse, the nominator (User:Murrallli) is not even responding. If he does not respond within a week, this article will be failed. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

what do I respond??? when ever I find time, I will respond,

my goal of life is not to deal or argue with u whether to nominate some article as good or bad.

no one is paying me money, if the article gets nominated or not nominated.

as far as I am concerned, I am interested in history of this particular cinematic culture.

but i will not respond to non sense and deliberate attempt to fail an article based on pont of view, favoritism, nativity, culture etc, and illogical arguments like not included nagarjuna, or mahesh babu.

example: user kailash's review sounds

Raghupathi venkaih naidu is father of telugu cinema is not metaphorical??? It is the same as the statement dada saheb phalke is father of indian cinema in the cinema of india article.

the article has almost covered the important events or issues Murrallli (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user kailash 29792:

[edit]

both how many? Guinness records

if u find u add, I did not add that section guinness book of records,

dont give blanket terms, as If I am responsible, think before u write,

ur my colleague not my boss or my reviewer or professor or head and I am not ur employee Murrallli (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final verdict

[edit]

Bcoz the nominator did not behave well with me and does not look ready for improvements, I have to fail this article. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand what user Kailash29792 is suggesting, with one more blanket term, I have to fail because nominator is not behaving??? nominations are assessed voluntarily based on content. I am not concerned about failing an article, I am only concerned about contributions, and improving article, whether u fail or not fail is not my job. My behavior is trivial and unimportant, I am not an advocate to reason with fellow editors, wikipedia is not my employer or the fellow editors is not by boss Murrallli (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready for improvements, provided the editor comes beyond trivial arguments and time wastage Kailash29792 Murrallli (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on an advice from a senior editor here, I had to fail the article, also bcoz u yelled at me bcoz I gave u some suggestions to improve the article instead of doing them myself, like a typical GA reviewer. U do not seem to understand the concept of good articles well enough, so pls read this article to know all abt good articles and don't nominate any article till u know abt GA's. As for me, I've done my job fair and square ---- Kailash29792 (talk)

Senior editor, has not discussed anything with me. On the other hand, user Kailash29792, has posted on user: Vensatry's talk page, and is conspiring against me, and has guided me to Vensatry's talk page. I am not interested in failing an article good or bad. It is not the job of the nominator to fail or pass an article. I am only interested in going through fellow editor's non abusive suggestions. It is not the job of User:Vensatry, to abuse edtors, also stop rubbing all other competent editors the wrong way, by conspiring with other editors.Murrallli (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop your blanket terms, who is that senior editor??? let him provide his views in this review, so that which would allow for improvements in the article, I understand the concept of GA article, better than you, what u knew is only stating baselsss blanket terms, stop representing your self as a wikipedia owner, I am here to include appropriate suggestions to improve the articleMurrallli (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Pending

[edit]

also kindly stop getting aggravated, and abusing fellow editors is a very bad approach, provide time for the editors to expand on the article, also it appears that u do not want wish the article to be nominated, based on nativity and Pov reasons, wikipedia is not a place for this, u please be patient, while the article is being improved Murrallli (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about my edits

[edit]

User:Muralli raised concerns about my recent clean-up (more still needs to be done, but I went as far as I had the energy for last night) on my talk page. I'll respond to those here.

First, Muralli was concerned about the change to the lead. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article and provide introductory material. Before, the lead included some broad info like how "big" the industry it is--that's good. It also established when the industry started--that's also good. But then, there were just discussions of 3 or 4 random movies--that's bad. So, I moved the list of movies into the History section. The lead could be expanded, but it should be expanded based on a what is in the rest of the article.

Second, Muralli was concerned about the times that I removed individual movies or people. I did this because the Cinema of Andhra Pradesh article should not contain a large list of movies and how they performed. It should note only those that are particularly important for the broad, historical picture of the industry. In this case, we should really be using books or academic journals or other long-term reference works to decide what belongs in the History section. This helps ensure that we're getting an accurate picture of the history, instead of just picking out movies we like. We should not be mentioning each monetary milestone, and every movie included there has to be justified (first X, biggest Y, caused lasting change Z, etc.). It's possible that some of the movies/people I removed are somehow important, but it wasn't explained well; if so, feel free to reintroduce them and we can discuss.

And this gets to teh more general point. Some of the edits I made are actually mandatory per policy--moving the specific details out of the lead, removing sources that don't meet WP:RS, removing puffery, removing unsourced information, and fixing grammar problems. Some of them, though, are discretionary. I'm more than happy to discuss the details, and I don't even mind if you re-add the things you think I took out unreasonably. But if you do so, don't re-add the problems. That means that a blanket revert of my work is a bad plan, because it leaves the article in a much worse state. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to reintroduce some info back to the lead...but the article is full-protected...is it possible to semi-protect it so that I can edit it? Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwyrxian I would like to add that idlebrain is a reliable source, this is not a blog website and it is the most popular Tollywood website followed by couple of millions of people. RTPking (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm willing to believe you on idlebrain. As for the lead, what sort of info do you think needs to be re-added? I'm pretty opposed to mentioning all but the smallest number of movies in the lead. I do think that the "second largest # of films" comments should be returned to the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support you that list of films should not be added to the lead, they should be present else where in the article, but the second largest # of films is published every year by "CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION Annual Report" by Govt. of India, this information may be mentioned here along with the specific year as per the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTPking (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that should be in the lead (I had moved it there in my version). Absent any opposition, we can move it back after the protection expires (it looks fairly likely the person who was objecting is a long time sockpupeteer, and thus not allowed to have a voice in the discussion). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Murrallli was confirmed to be a sock, once the protection is lifted, I'm going to go back in and make the changes I made before; I'll do them by hand, because the article's in a different place than before, but this is actually a better starting point than the version filled with excessive detail. I'll be open to suggestions and reverts from any person who's actually allowed to edit Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lifted before I saw this. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Could an admin (I mean, and admin not involved in the content dispute) please make "1915 to 2013" a level three heading? It's clearly intended to be part of the broader "History" section. I doubt there's anything controversial about this request. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does make it consistent with the two subsections of History, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End of early development section

[edit]

While the article is protected, let's have some discussion on some of the specific edits I made. One example: The end of the "early development" section has the following:

They established a long-lasting precedent of focusing exclusively on religious themes; Nandanar, Gajendra Moksham, and Matsyavatar, three of their most noted productions, centred on religious figures, parables, and morals. Good film industry.

The last three pretty obviously need to go, because they're grammatically incorrect, and if I guess at the meaning, POV. But I actually think the rest should go because it isn't sourced; I mean, yes, it's self-evident (doesn't need a source) to state that those three movies centre on religious figures, etc., as that can be determined simply by watching the movies. But the half setence before it is an interpretive one that requires a source. We could just tag it as needing a citation, but my preference is usually to remove any sort of interpretation first, and then if someone later finds a citation, they can re-add it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathi Bhakti

[edit]

An abandoned Articles for creation draft for Pathi Bhakti has just been deleted. Pathi Bhakti is listed at List of Telugu films of the 1940s as a 1943 film. A 1958 Tamil film with the same title also exists: http://www.nthwall.com/ta/8321903055

If you think that either or both are notable, you may want to create articles for them. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh → Telugu cinema – Now that the state of AP is being divided into 2 states, it makes sense to rename the article to Telugu cinema. Cheers, --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC) ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 08:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.


Hardly any participation from others and the move is already made ? Thats unfortunate. Marchoctober (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please!

[edit]

I have started creating the article List of Indian film series. I need your help in adding the film series in Telugu language (if any). Since there might be a lot of them consisting of 2 films, my opinion is that only those film series with 3 or more films should be added (all of which have been released only). Please feel free to come and add more and do the required corrections. Once fully created, this list will be highly informative. All future opinions and comments should be posted here or on my talk page only please since I would not be watching this talk page. - Jayadevp13 17:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution section

[edit]

The distribution section needs to be rewritten. It needs to be written as: what is distribution structure in Telugu films? Currently it says some film has been collected highest openings. This information will change frequently, today one film in the future other films. It needs to be written in historical perspective and finally add the records if you think they are important.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Telugu cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Telugu cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Telugu cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Telugu cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Telugu cinema. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Telugu cinema. 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:

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) 19:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2017

[edit]

We need to add more Templates such as "Indian Cinema" where all the other film industries are based so that navigation from this Page to those pages would be easier and maintainable. We also need to add History, Budget, Rankings and Influences from this Film Industry to others. JayadevK (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I would suggest posting this somewhere like Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics rather than at article level. Alternatively you could always have a go yourself and then suggest it in the IND portal. — IVORK Discuss 02:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Indian cinema template in this edit, but the article looks a bit messy with an Infobox, Indian cinema template and a table of contents. I don't understand the other additions JayadevK is suggesting. Are you talking about templates? Prose? Where do you suppose this information would come from, if it were to be added? If you have specific content additions to suggest, that'd be helpful. And we'll need ample references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Telugu cinema. 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:

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) 00:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

[edit]

Annapurna pictures is not a distributor of Telugu cinema. Annapurna pictures is a movie distributor in the USA. The name and link needs to be changed to Annapurna Studios Kirrugot (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Telugu cinema. 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:

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) 10:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sai Srujan Pelluri" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sai Srujan Pelluri. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Sai Srujan Pelluri until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ab207 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Crrush" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Crrush has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 18 § Crrush until a consensus is reached. gobonobo + c 22:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Telugu films of 2030" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect List of Telugu films of 2030 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § List of Telugu films of 2030 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Telugu films of 2029" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect List of Telugu films of 2029 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § List of Telugu films of 2029 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Telugu films of 2028" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect List of Telugu films of 2028 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § List of Telugu films of 2028 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Telugu films of 2027" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect List of Telugu films of 2027 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § List of Telugu films of 2027 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Telugu films of 2026" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect List of Telugu films of 2026 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § List of Telugu films of 2026 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Telugu_cinema&oldid=1254592011"