Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main page   Discussion   Participants   Alerts   Announcements   Main article   To-do list   Assessment   Notable articles  
Hindi cinema recognised content   Malayalam cinema recognised content   Tamil cinema recognised content   Telugu cinema recognised content
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Welcome to the Indian cinema task force! We're a joint task force run between WikiProject Films and WikiProject India to ensure that Indian cinema-related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style, in a neutral manner using verifiable and reliable sources.

Scope

[edit]

The scope of this task force is to improve the quality and quantity of information on Wikipedia about Indian cinema, and raising the quality of already-existing articles.

Indian cinema may include domestic films, films made by Indian filmmakers abroad, films produced or co-produced by Indian companies, and foreign films shooting in India. However per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Scope, this task force should not include articles about actors, directors and filmmakers. Those articles are covered by adding parameters for the Actors and Filmmakers and Screenwriters projects accordingly.

A category tree can be found here.

Participants

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Participants

Tagging and assessment

[edit]
Indian cinema task force assessment statistics
Indian cinema articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 8 4 9 5 26
FL 1 10 18 72 6 107
A 1 1
GA 4 22 64 99 5 1 195
B 5 14 21 103 18 8 169
C 1 27 147 1,139 308 98 1,720
Start 2 48 344 10,718 1 2,688 890 14,691
Stub 6 94 9,067 597 281 10,045
List 1 180 338 1,330 227 51 2,127
Category 2 1,117 31 1,150
Disambig 1 69 6 76
File 4 55 93 152
Portal 53 53
Project 21 21
Redirect 3 8 364 509 94 978
Template 1 390 6 397
NA 1 1
Other 1 4 18 23
Assessed 22 315 1,046 22,907 2,234 4,079 1,329 31,932
Unassessed 2 1 3
Total 22 315 1,046 22,907 2,234 4,081 1,330 31,935
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 141,648 Ω = 5.27

worklist • log • category

Any article related to this task force should be marked by adding both parameters to the project banners at the top of its talk page:

This will automatically place it into Category:Indian cinema task force articles.

To-do

[edit]
Article alerts

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Templates

[edit]

Cinema of India notice

[edit]

Place this template {{CinemaofIndia}}, at the bottom of core articles or categories about the Indian film industry. Please, do not transclude this template in Indian film and actor articles as it can be too generic, but only those articles/categories appearing in the template itself. Employ this template judiciously and not indiscriminately; if an article is stub-class with little content or if another template is already included, consider whether the addition of {{CinemaofIndia}} will improve and enhance the article. It will produce:

Awards

[edit]
The Bollywood Star

The Bollywood Star is awarded to Wikipedians with great contribution to articles related to Bollywood. To award this barnstar to an editor, paste the following code on their talk-page and include a general message about their contributions to any article or area of Indian cinema:

{{subst:Indian Cinema Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

The South Indian Cinema Award

The South Indian Cinema Award is awarded to Wikipedians who tirelessly foster or contribute to the improvement of articles relating to Indian cinema, particularly South Indian cinema and its music. To award this barnstar to an editor, paste the following code on their talk-page and include a general message about their contributions to any article or area of Wikipedia that deals with South Indian cinema:

{{subst:South Indian Cinema Barnstar|message ~~~~}}



Both awards are listed on WP:WPPA under WikiProject Awards.

General guidelines

[edit]
Shortcut

Films

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

Indian film articles often lack conciseness. This is due sometimes to the over-enthusiasm of editors for the subject matter. It should be understood that such articles are intended to convey straightforward information about films to readers. The plot synopsis should observe a limit of 400-700 words, and it should include a full overview of the plot including the ending. The basic structure of a film article should follow the Manual of Style for films. Articles on films should include a lead paragraph, infobox, and synopsis. See Lage Raho Munna Bhai for an example of a featured Indian film article.

Please do not add hyperbole or subjective phrasing to describe films. Describing films as "super hit", "failure", "flop", or "declared as all-time blockbuster status" should be avoided at all costs. We are not here to gush over films or to mock them, we're here to present a neutral, academic overview. See WP:PEACOCK and our policy on neutral point of view.

Mundane marketing techniques like television and public appearances, the release of first look posters, teasers and trailers are not noteworthy. See WP:TRAILER for guidance.

Please be circumspect when writing about film financials, as all Indian film financial details are based on trade estimates and should not be taken as gospel. There is significant corruption surrounding these financial details and figures are often inflated and deflated by producers and competitors for various reasons of self-interest. Times of India briefly discontinued their box office coverage for this reason. Keep in mind that an estimate that is a few hours more recent isn't necessarily more accurate, higher numbers aren't necessarily more accurate, and when in doubt, presenting a range is always an option. (Ex: "gross = ₹30–40 million") Related, please stay focused on the big picture--we aren't here to track every aspect of a film's finances, only the most important broad strokes, which typically means budget and gross box office figures. Presenting information about nett gross, nett, and distributor share tend to clutter articles and make film finances difficult to compare to other films. Information about satellite and music rights sales, as well as tangential revenue streams, are not typically noteworthy. See this discussion.

Monetary conversion templates such as INRConvert should not generally be used in list type articles or infoboxes per this consensus and this discussion. The prevailing attitude was: 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.

Biographies

[edit]

Articles on Indian actors and directors should be understood to fall primarily under the control of WikiProject Biography guidelines. More specific guidance can be found at the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup. Articles about living people must strictly adhere to the BLP policy. Biography articles fall into a standard pattern of a lead paragraph, followed by sections dedicated to background, career, personal life, awards, filmography, external links, and references. See Satyajit Ray for an example of a featured article about an Indian film director.

Articles on Indian musicians generally consist of the following sections: lead paragraph, background, career, awards, partial discography, external links and references.

Note also that biographies of living people must be impeccably sourced. Any contentious or potentially contentious information needs to be attributed to a reliable mainstream published source with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And with identity theft a major modern concern, personal information like birth names and birth dates need to be reliably sourced as well, as publishing this information based on personal knowledge, public records, etc., could potentially violate the subject's privacy. See WP:BLPPRIVACY.

Filmographies, discographies, and awards

[edit]

If applicable, a comprehensive filmography, discography, or awards listing can be split off to a new article. These pages are expected to link into one another upon creation.

Images

[edit]

It should be noted that Wikipedia's rules on Image uploads are extremely strict, and all uploads must be accompanied by a comprehensive fair-use rationale. Help:Image is a good guideline that explains the process of uploading images and what needs to be completed.

Copyrighted images of actors, actresses and directors from websites all over the Internet are disallowed and will be deleted. An easy rule-of-thumb to remember is: "If you don't know where it comes from, don't upload it."

Several editors have worked hard to make sure that all pictures used are acceptable for Wikipedia. One such strategy is to search for images of living people on an image-sharing site such as Flickr, where only images released under a Creative Commons 2.0 license are acceptable. In other words, the image must be released under a license that allows sharing and remixing of the work.

[edit]

External links should follow the Wikipedia guideline on external links. Official websites of films or film actors are preferred over non-official websites. Fansites are often of low quality and feature commercial links. There are many sites for popular actors and linking to one makes it fair to link to all. Therefore a consensus is emerging that only links to the actor's official site and IMDB article are allowable, as well as content on reputable sites (BBC news interviews, etc.).

List of films

[edit]

A list of feature films released in a particular year is separately maintained for each language. Do not add dubbed versions in these pages as the list is intended for original productions only. Mentioning notable deaths and award ceremonies should be avoided which instead may be added in the [YYYY] in film article. Web series / television series debuts are also excluded in the list of films article. A separate article for series meeting the WP:NLIST criteria may be created for this purpose. See this discussion.

Guidelines on sources

[edit]
Shortcut
Legend
  •   Generally reliable Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements.
  •   No consensus No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
  •   Generally unreliable Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
  •   Blacklisted Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is registered on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.

Generally used sources

[edit]
Sources
Source Status Comments
123Telugu Generally unreliable Discussed here and here
Allindiansite.com Generally unreliable
Andhra Box Office Generally unreliable
Andhra Cafe Generally unreliable
Andhrakaburlu.com Generally unreliable
Assamtimes.org Generally unreliable Discussed here
auditionform.in Generally unreliable
Behindwoods Generally unreliable Discussed here and here
Bengal Planet Generally unreliable Discussed here
Bestoftheyear.con Generally unreliable Discussed here
Bollymoviereviewz.com Generally unreliable
Bollyspice.com Generally unreliable
Bollywoodbubble.com Generally unreliable
Bollywoodlife.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Bollywoodsociety.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Bollywood Hungama by Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Generally reliable
Box Office India (.com) Generally reliable Also Discussed here – Note that film budget figures at BoxOfficeIndia.com include print and advertising costs, so we should note that if we can't find a better source. Ex: {{small|Note: figure contains print and advertising costs}}[a]
Boxofficeindia.co.in Generally unreliable Site is down, but still referenced by many articles. Discussed here
Boxofficeworldwide.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Business Standard Generally reliable
Business Today (business magazine) by Living Media Generally reliable
Catch Generally unreliable
Catchnews.com Generally reliable
Cinechicken Generally unreliable Discussed here
Cinegoer.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Cinejosh Generally unreliable Discussed here and here
Cinema Express Generally reliable Subsidiary of Indian Express
CNN-IBN's IBN Live Generally reliable
Cineserie.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Dailyhunt.com Blacklisted Generally unreliable Discussed here
Dailymovieupdates.com Generally unreliable
Daily News and Analysis by Zee Media Corporation Generally reliable
Deccan Chronicle Generally reliable
Deccan Herald Generally reliable
Dina Thanthi Generally reliable
Dinakaran by Sun Group Generally reliable
Dreamdth.com Generally unreliable
Filmfare Generally reliable
Film Companion Generally reliable Discussed here
Filmibeat.com Generally unreliable Oneindia's movie imprint was renamed FilmiBeat in 2014. Discussions: 1, 2
Firstpost Generally reliable
Fullhyderabad.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Glamsham Generally unreliable Discussed here
Greatandhra.com Generally unreliable
Gulte Generally unreliable Discussed here
Hindustan Times by HT Media Generally reliable
India.com by Zee Media Corporation Generally unreliable Discussed here. However, Zee News (zeenews.india.com) is a reliable source; see seperate entry below.
Indiablooms.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Indiaforums.com Generally unreliable
Indiaglitz Generally unreliable Discussed here and here
India Today by Living Media Generally reliable The Impact Feature section is sponsored content (see WP:RSNOI) and DailyO is an opinion-orientated site run by India Today.
Indiatimes by The Times Group Generally reliable
Indiglamour.com Generally unreliable
Indo-Asian News Service Generally reliable Use parameter "agency=", Discussed here
International Business Times by IBT Media Generally unreliable See WP:IBTIMES
Iwmbuzz.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Jan Bharat Times Generally unreliable Discussed here
kelopravah Generally unreliable Discussed here
KeralaDaily.com Generally unreliable
Koimoi Generally unreliable
Latestly Generally unreliable Discussed here and here
Magna Publications Generally reliable
Mensxp Generally unreliable Discussed here
Mid Day Generally reliable
Mint (newspaper) by HT Media Generally reliable
Movie Crow Generally unreliable Discussed here and here
Movienewz.in Generally unreliable Discussed here
Mumbai Mirror by The Times Group; Generally reliable
NDTV Generally reliable
News18 India by Network18 Group Generally reliable
Nettv4u.com Generally unreliable
Nowrunning.com Generally unreliable
Oneindia.in Generally unreliable Oneindia's movie imprint was renamed FilmiBeat in 2014.
Onlykollywood.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Quicklookfilms.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Outlook (Indian magazine) by Outlook Publishing India Generally reliable
Pinkvilla.com Generally reliable Generally reliable for film-related content; avoid celebrity gossip)
Planetbollywood.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Press Trust of India Generally reliable
Radio Sargam Generally unreliable
Ragalahari.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Rediff.com Generally reliable
Republic TV Generally unreliable See WP:REPUBLICTV
Sacnilk.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
Sahi Nahi Generally unreliable Discussed here
Screen (magazine) Generally reliable
Serialupdates.me Generally unreliable
Sify Generally reliable
Spicyonion.com Generally unreliable
Streamingdue.com Generally unreliable
Televisionpost.com Generally unreliable
TellyChakkar Generally unreliable Discussed here
Tellydhamaal.com Generally unreliable
Tellytadka.com Generally unreliable
Tellyupdates.com Generally unreliable
telugu.way2movies.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
The Economic Times by The Times Group Generally reliable
The Express Tribune by Lakson Group Generally reliable
The Financial Express Generally reliable
The Hindu Business Line by The Hindu Group Generally reliable
The Indian Express by Indian Express Group Generally reliable
The Kolkata Mail Generally unreliable Discussed here
The News Minute Generally reliable
The Review Monk Generally unreliable Discussed here
The Rural Press Generally unreliable Discussed here
The Statesman Generally reliable
The Telegraph (India) by ABP Group Generally reliable
The Times of India by The Times Group No consensus See WP:TOI. Note that WP:RSN considers Times of India to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable (2024 RfC). Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. See WP:RSP. Do not use Times of India bio pages for details like birthdate and box office figures as many of them were found to be inaccurate and promotional.
Tracktollywood.com Generally unreliable Discussed here
The Tribune Generally reliable
Tollywood.net Generally unreliable Discussed here
Tupaki Generally unreliable Discussed here
Upperstall.com Generally unreliable
Zee News (zeenews.india.com) owned by Essel Group & Zee Entertainment Enterprises Generally reliable However, www.india.com isn't a reliable source; see seperate entry above.

Dadasaheb Phalke Award copycats

[edit]
see discussion at ICTF board
Shortcuts

Named after a legendary Indian filmmaker, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is a sub-award of the Indian government's National Film Awards. It is essentially a lifetime achievement award honouring a person's "outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema".[1] This is a coveted award for filmmakers, and there is only one award issued each year. To capitalise on the Phalke name, some small organisations have adopted their own Dadasaheb Phalke awards, and when media outlets don't ask questions and just reprint press releases, we often see the "Dadasaheb Phalke" award erroneously attributed to actors/directors/composers and others who might not deserve the national prize. Some news organisations fail to make this distinction. Examples:

  • In 2016, Mid-Day reported that Sooraj Pancholi won a best debut award at a Dadasaheb Phalke award organised by 90bids.com.
  • In 2018, Times of India reported that 34-year-old Ranvir Singh was going to win the Dadasaheb Phalke award, when what he was presented with was the Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award, an award issued by some other institution.
  • In 2019, TimesNowNews, who in this slideshow included a write-up of how the Phalke award is "India's highest honour in the entertainment sector", apparently did not notice that the event was an award handout for a two-year-old film festival named after Phalke, not for the actual national award.
  • In 2019, ABPLive.in ran a headline here that a Bigg Boss 12 contestant was being given the award for "Best Entertainer – Reality Show".
  • In 2019, International Business Times reported "Ram Charan's wife Upasana Konidela has been honoured with the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for the Philanthropist of the Year ... India's highest award in cinema presented at the National Film Awards ceremony." Clearly this is not the same award. Times of India this time clarifies Charan's award as the "Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award".
  • By 2020, ABPLive.in still hadn't figured out what this award is, writing here about the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards, "Presented annually at the 'National Film Awards' ceremony by the Directorate of Film Festivals, the 'Dadasaheb Phalke Award' is our country’s highest civilian award in the field of entertainment."
  • In 2021, The Hindu's Businessline reported that Dhanush won "prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award (South)" for Best Actor. Gulf News said "South Indian stars Dhanush, Mohanlal win Dadasaheb Phalke Awards". Free Press Journal wrote "Dadasaheb Phalke Award 2020 ... The award honoured the individuals from the Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada film industries for their outstanding contribution towards the growth and development of cinema." None of these sources mention explicitly that this is related to the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival (DPIFF), which it apparently is, and Free Press Journal really makes it sound like the winners are taking home that government prize, in part because they're using virtually the same phrasing found at India's Directorate of Film Festivals.

So when adding this award to articles, we must be double, even triple-certain that we are talking about the actual National Film Awards' Dadasaheb Phalke Award. Some clues: A film can't win this award; a person wins the award. Winners are typically older, because to make "outstanding contribution[s] to the growth and development of Indian cinema", you have to work hard for many years, not just be young, handsome, or pretty. You don't win the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for Philanthropy or for Most Popular Actor or Extraordinary Work to Reform the Society via a Movie or "for the song 'God Your Lady' in the film Vishwadi" or Most Iconic Jodi. You win it plainly, with no classifications. There is only one, and they worked hard to get it.

Some similar-sounding awards that are not the real award:

  • Dadasaheb Phalke Academy Awards – see this TOI article
  • Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards – see official website
    • Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South – launching in 2019
    • Dadasaheb Phalke Icon Award - Possibly related to the International Film Festival Awards?[2]
  • Dada Saheb Phalke Film Festival Awards – see official website
  • Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award – see example
  • Dadasaheb Phalke Film Foundation Awards – see Facebook page
  • Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festial Awards South - see example
  • Legends Dadasaheb Phalke Award - see example
  • Dadasaheb Phalke icon Awards film - see example

See also this Hindustan Times article describing the confusion about these knock-off awards.

Annotated bibliography

[edit]

Please use the following format when adding works: 

* <!-- bibliographical information -->
** Content:
*** <!-- optional content summary -->
** Reviews: 
*** <!-- commentary on work by historians & other reputable sources -->
** Editor comments: 
*** <!-- personal commentary by editors -->

Footnotes

[edit]
  1. ^ Per MOS:SMALL, 'small' tags ({{small}}, {{smalldiv}} or <small>...</small>) should be avoided in an infobox. Instead, consider use of a footnote (e.g., {{efn|Budget figure includes print and advertising costs}}) in an infobox, although that also requires the presence of {{notelist}} or equivalent in the appendices).

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

WikiProject India
This project is a workgroup of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India and India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force&oldid=1255173904#Dadasaheb_Phalke_Award_copycats"