Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

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

Reliability of sources listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES

I've observed that many users often refer to WP:ICTFSOURCES when assessing the reliability of sources used in articles related to Indian films/actors. I believe it's time to completely update the current list located at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Many of the sources listed there are involved in press releases, paid branding, and brand posts. The last discussion on this matter took place eight years ago, and within this timeframe, the credibility of many sources has likely changed. Therefore, I'm initiating a new discussion to update the list. I'm pinging @JavaHurricane as they discussed this matter in the NPP discord channel a few months ago. I'm also pinging users who participated in the previous discussion for their input. @Bollyjeff, @Cyphoidbomb. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the sources are biased and paid. A certain concrete guideline must be set and preferably an RfC must be done to single out the actual tracker websites.

Also, I should add that in down South, such tracker websites do not exist. Sites such as Pinkvilla only track the movies only if the movie makes headlines. Hence, that should also be kept in mind. The discrepancies between the actual collections and the publicized collections by the producers have caused multiple edit wars in many pages, especially in Malayalam movie pages. So, if we can get a consensus on that, it would be great. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey all, I am starting this RfC for the abovementioned reason – to analyse the authenticity and reliability of current ICTFSOURCES, and to reassess and update the sources enlisted. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald, I plan to share my detailed thoughts when I have a bit more free time. In the meantime, would you mind listing the sources we typically use and sharing your opinion on each? This would be really helpful for streamlining the process and finding even better sources. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Good plans here to update the list. I think also it should be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ. The table format is more in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, allowing for rationales and links to past discussions on each source. Something I've been meaning to tackle for a while. --Geniac (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer:, shall we revisit this RfC this weekend? Summer box office need a good guideline and pointers. What I was thinking is, let's just pick apart the ones under reliable section and scrutinize every single one and try to reach a consensus. A level 3 heading for each, which will help future editors to link faster and search faster. Savvy? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have started an essay for better source analysis, which when completed, can incorporate this RfC results and can be transcluded into the page, or can even be made as an opinion/guideline essay. I am thinking of a table like WP:RS/P in alphabetical order for faster and easier navigation. Anyone can drop by and help out with suggestions or edits. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Herald, this is EXCELLENT. I think once complete, it will be easier to update in the same manner WP:RS/P is based on any future WP:RSN thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I have created a shortcut WP:ICTFSA (Yes, a pun on essay and Source Analysis as well). More sources can be added onto it from ICTFFAQ or after consensus from here or RSN. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Good work Herald. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Could someone add a section for Indiantelevision.com as well. Please refer this. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 12:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Now please add your views and comments too :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: Please do not edit the verdict line when there is no clear consensus in RS/P, or on RS/N or any talk pages. Only the clear consensus discussions are deemed automatically reliable.

123Telugu

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

I see this being added to pages on the same day the articles come out. Gives me the impression of possible COI. Regardless, there seems to be discussion that it is not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

About us shows that the site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy. This itself makes it unreliable I think. RangersRus (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald:, is there a time period for commenting you are hoping for? Wondering if some of these such as those discussed already at RSN should be added to the list. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a specific time period in my mind. But the ones who's reliability or unreliability is established, we can close the subsection and add it to the list. Ideally, an uninvolved editor should close, so maybe we can ping some admin or someone who's active here for that. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have posted on WP:RSN to get verdict on these sources moviecrow.com, 123telugu.com, Indiaglitz.com, cinejosh.com, behindwoods.com, thesouthfirst.com, latestly.com. Still what you think of these sources? @CNMall41: @The Herald: RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Except for Cinejosh I see the others as usable. But maybe I'm wrong about Cinejosh. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I too have doubt about cinejosh.com but also for moviecrow.com (does not have any information on this site about the company. Maybe a blog or personal site). 123telugu.com has been considered unreliable for boxoffice numbers and as a whole site unreliable but had no final stance to completely put it on the unreliable list. Indiaglitz also has nothing on the company information and the contact us link takes you to homepage. This too seems a personal site or a blog. Others too I have doubts. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

123Telugu can be used for general film-related updates and independent interviews. This site have many articles that are related to smaller Telugu films doesn't have in the mainline media. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Question is reliability. The site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy and this puts the reliability of this source in question adding onto what is said here by an administrator Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_8#Reliability_of_123Telugu.com_-_123telugu. RangersRus (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Bollywood Hungama by Hungama Digital Media Entertainment

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

BOL Network

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Specifically BOLNEWS which is used 400+ times as a reference on Wikipedia. Cannot find editorial standards so unsure if reliable or not. Although the network is out of Pakistan, it has many references for Indian and other non-Pakistani cinema.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a recent RSN discussion which indicates it's generally unreliable. It was also added to WP:NPPSG as unreliable based the discussion. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.com)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

Per BOI's About us page, "The figures on the website are not taken from producers or distributors of the respective films but independent estimates from our sources and then cross checked through cinema collections." If true, this suggests that they're not acting as mouthpieces for the production companies (i.e. acting as a primary source by proxy). Archive

In mid-2019 we discovered that BOI's budget figures included print and advertising costs. (See this discussion) Worldwide, when people reference a film's budget, they mean the production budget, i.e. the cost of making the film, not the cost of marketing it. So we should try to find a better source for budget than Box Office India. If we have no choice but to use BOI, then we should include notes that clarify that the budget figure is not consistent with other figures. Ex: "(Note: this figure includes print and advertising costs.)" or similar.

— WP:ICTFFAQ table

Now, this is still true because we still have no other proper tracker website for Indian movies, especially Bollywood. Biased or not, the BO figures are almost close to the reported verified amount. So I'll put this one as a reliable source. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald I completely agree with the above. There was also a discussion in which the credibility of BoxOfficeIndia.com was questioned for South films. However, since the user was identified as a sockpuppet, it can only be seen as an attempt to discredit BoxOfficeIndia.com rather than the other way around. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.co.in)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Business Standard

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Paid articles are published by Business Standard here. Articles which's URL contain "content/specials/" are sponsored. Grabup (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

All articles in the Content/specials/ doesn't contain disclaimers, some contains, same like India Today. Here are some examples:

1. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/pioneering-thoughts-with-dipen-bhuva-a-fusion-of-healthcare-cybersecurity-and-ai-124040900630_1.html
2. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/hutech-solutions-announces-sanjeev-kulkarni-as-new-chief-product-officer-cpo-124040900662_1.html

Grabup (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Business Today

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

CNN-IBN's IBN Live

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Daily News and Analysis

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Deccan Chronicle

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

One thing to watch for (and maybe we just need a disclaimer if the overall source is found to be reliable) is anything marked as written by "DC Correspondent." These are contributor posts and often have a disclaimer that they have not been vetted by editorial staff. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Deccan Herald

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Dina Thanthi

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Dinakaran by Sun Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

EastMojo

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

I brought this up at RSN a while back but only had one comment. It is being used a few hundred times as a reference but do not see it as being reliable. Bringing it here since it seems to have a lot of film references and we are addressing many of them now. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Filmfare

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

It is used over 2000 times as a reference on Wikipedia. Here is their about page. I do not see editorial oversight and sounds more like TMZ in my opinion. Just at first glance I think it could be used maybe to verify basic information such as film roles but nothing for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Film Companion

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Film Information

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

run by Komal Nahta; see here, for example

Verdict

Firstpost

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Forbes India

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1 ("Branded Content" discussion), 2

Comments

Used 800+ times in Wikipedia. Note that it is NOT overseen by Forbes editorial staff. It is (what I believe) branded as Forbes (likely from licensing agreement). It is actually owned by Network 18. It is used as a reference in many film and actor pages.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Hindustan Times

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

In my experience with press release work, Hindustan Times stands out as a prominent website for publishing paid brand posts. It's crucial to note that any article lacking a specific author shouldn't be relied upon. Furthermore, it's advisable to avoid using articles with a disclaimer or those tagged as brand posts. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Help us to remove these 42 Sponsored Hindustan Times articles cited on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been cleaning some of these up. I am also finding there are quite a few paid posts from other sites on those Wikipedia pages and sent three to AfD already. I would actually lean towards saying only using HT with staff written articles for verification of basic facts (release dates, etc.) and NOT for notability. And NEVER using anything that is paid, branded, no-byline, or otherwise falling under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

India Today by Living Media

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

India Today has published paid articles within its "Impact Feature" section, with 50 articles currently cited. It's important to note that sponsored content should not be used as a citation. I encourage anyone to help remove them; I'm actively working on it as well. Grabup (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

They haven't included disclaimers in all of their Impact Feature articles, but there are some instances where disclaimers have been added to articles. "Disclaimer: The contents herein are for informational purposes only. If you have any queries, you should directly reach out to the advertiser. India Today Group does not guarantee, vouch for, endorse any of its contents and hereby disclaims all warranties, express or implied, relating to the same."

Examples:

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/piramal-finance-offers-home-loans-with-seamless-process-and-competitive-terms-2510232-2024-03-04

2. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/could-2024-be-the-year-gold-has-been-waiting-for-a-long-time-2503014-2024-02-16

3. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/breaking-barriers-celebrating-women-achievers-across-industries-2490394-2024-01-18

Grabup (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly the case; also note that the people in the byline at the bottom of the page will typically come back with marketing positions in the company. I've updated my entry here and will be happy to help remove these. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kuru, thanks for User:Kuru/fakesources; it's really helpful. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, this is gold. Thanks Kuru :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Indiatimes by The Times Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Indiantelevision.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

There are currently 1000+ uses of Indiantelevision.com, the same owner as TellyChakkar.com. And this raises concerns on its reliability. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Magna Publications

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mid Day

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mint (newspaper) by HT Media

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mumbai Mirror by The Times Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

NDTV

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

News18 India

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Outlook

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

There are currently 17 uses of Outlook India "business spotlight." I believe the publication would be reliable OUTSIDE of that but these are paid-for articles. I would support reliability but maybe a note in the box that says those marked as "business spotlight" or sponsored should not be used as a reference (in the process of removing the 17 I linked to above once I get the time). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The paid-for shall not be considered as reliable at all. Reliable outside the paid-for articles. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Pinkvilla.com

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

Website editorial guidelines for reference.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

With an editorial team and a published editorial policy, as well as an affiliate disclosure, Pinkvilla.com can be deemed reliable due to their reportings to be very close to the actual BO figures and other film related news. But, I'll still stay clear of the gossip section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

How'd one determine an actual BO figure? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What I do is go through the established RS. Most of the time, all of them stick to a particular figure (lets say X). Sometimes, they have discrepancies, and I use the figures as a range (est. ₹ X - Y crores). Pinkvilla almost always give the same figures as other RS and it is always less than the promotional figures tweeted by filmmakers and other primary sources. Hence, I use them as RS. (As they say, if it looks like a RS and posts like a RS, it is most probably is a RS , lol.) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think pinkvilla is a reliable source. They underreport south india movies collections a lot. I think for better reporting. Need to rethink about pinkvilla as reliable source for south indian movies. NithishSagi (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)— NithishSagi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Verdict

Rediff.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Reviewit.pk

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

I brought this up at RSN a few months back. Looks like auto generated content from Twitter and also possibly paid. I would suggest adding this as an unreliable source.

Verdict

Screen (magazine)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Sify

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

Verdict

The Economic Times

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Express Tribune

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Financial Express

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Similar to the note on Outlook India above, First Post has sponsored content marked as "brand wagon" (often included in the URL as well). I have no comment on the reliability of the overall publication but will say the branded posts should not be used in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Hindu Business Line

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Subsidiary of The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU)

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Hindu

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:THEHINDU

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Indian Express

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:INDIANEXP

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The News Minute

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Statesman

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Telegraph

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Tribune

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Similar to Outlook, The Tribune has paid articles "Impact Feature". Grabup (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Wire

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:RS/P

Verdict

Y Reliable source

Zee News

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

Zee News is owned by Zee Media Corporation. They also have other publications such as Daily News and Analysis. Not sure if we should address any of these individual or JUST Zee News for the purpose of the RfC. Just throwing it out there. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

DNA is already added in the RfC above. I'd say while we are at it, let's review all the sources. India.com is deemed unreliable per this discussion. So, that's out. I don't know other publications under them. If there are any that are used frequently, by all means add them to the miscellaneous category below. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

• In addition to the aforementioned sources, the following references are also brought up multiple times and are used in various pages.

Koimoi

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

OTTPlay.com

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

N

Comments

According to their website (About us page), they apparently use 4 sources; Hindustan Times, Film Companion, Live Mint and Desi Martini, of which HT and Mint are reliable per RSP and RSN. Desi Martini is a partner site for HT. Film Companion, I'm not so sure cuz the page doesn't mention anywhere about their sources or their origin or history, hence sounds dubious. But other than that, OTTPlay.com should belong in the reliable side of the spectrum. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am coming across this one quite a bit when sourcing filmographies. I think the main issue I have is that it is a commercial website and they benefit from aggregating news. A lot of the articles are bylined "Team OTTplay" so not sure if these are coming from the reliable sources or if they are original content from that site. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Times of India

Included in RS/P?

WP:TOI

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

• Per RS/P The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. That puts TOI in either unreliable or no consensus region. It is generally unreliable for box office figures since I have seen them using Sacnilk.com and promotional figures a lot. They may be reliable for news articles, but IMO it all should be taken with a pinch of salt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Help us to remove these sponsored articles published by Times of India, (1), (2). Grabup (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I found another subsection with containing Lifesyle/Spotlight on The Times of India, this subsection is cited 185 times without drafts and 193 times with drafts. I found a article on the same subsection which contain a disclaimer “ The article has been produced on behalf of Globsyn Business” but other articles majorly does not contain any disclaimer.

*193 cited list

Article containing disclaimer Grabup (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The New Indian Express

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

IndiaGlitz

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

cinejosh.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

behindwoods.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

thesouthfirst.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

latestly.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Music review websites

So there is consensus that Planet Bollywood is generally considered an unreliable source and thus can’t be used for movie and music reviews. But what about other music review websites such as Milliblog, Musicperk and Music Aloud? Are they considered generally reliable? Or are these websites self-published and lack an editorial team? Vipin Nair who reviews for the latter website also reviews for The Hindu. Should his reviews from that website be used instead of Music Aloud? @Sid95Q, @CNMall41, @Shshshsh, @Kailash29792, what’s your opinion? We are the Great (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless anyone clarifies on this topic, I’d like to give the benefit of doubt to these music websites considering WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:SELFPUB. We are the Great (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @RangersRus as well. We are the Great (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Milliblog stays, I'm not sure about the rest. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Milliblog is not reliable and Musicaloud is not reliable. They are both personal blogs. RangersRus (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Milliblog is run by Karthik Srinivasan. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not expert in the field and himself revealed he has no formal training in music or music reviewing. He is "a communications professional with 2 decades' experience in creating, building and managing perceptions of brands across agency and client environments." The page on him Karthik Srinivasan lacks notability. RangersRus (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@RangersRus so, judging by what you’re saying, only a person that has formal training in music or music reviewing can be generally considered reliable enough for us to put sources of his music reviews in Bollywood film articles? We are the Great (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 does Karthik himself manage the website? Since almost all of the music reviews are written by him, and no staff is listed, I would consider it a personal blog and generally unreliable. I suppose the same would be for Music Aloud. We are the Great (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between Karthik and Baradwaj Rangan, neither of whom where trained in their fields before becoming professionals in them. And BR runs a wordpress site. KS has written for Film Companion. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 @RangersRus But is it fair only that Karthik’s reviews from Film Companion and Vipin Nair’s reviews from The Hindu can be used for music reviews? Since @Benison gave his opinion on the use of DesiMartini and Amar Ujala as reliable sources, I’d like to know from him whether Milliblog, Music Aloud, and less importantly, Musicperk.com, and Apunkachoice (forgot to mention initially) can be used as reliable sources for music reviews. We are the Great (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Writers writing for a reliable news media or magazines is different than writing on personal blog. We had same discussion before here. Note that Kathik wrote articles for Film Companion mostly in 2018 and 2019 and only one article in 2021. He has not written anything since. Musicperk.com is not reliable and it was a site started by group of college students. RangersRus (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Apunkachoice is not reliable and the domain does not exist anymore. It was an extension for Google Chrome and Search Engines & Internet Portals, and Media & Internet company with 0 employees. RangersRus (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Will remove these websites you’ve mentioned. So as of now, Kailash29792 argues Milliblog is reliable, RangersRus opines it is not, and I seem to be siding with the latter on this one, considering that it is powered by WordPress, has no staff listed, and jokes apart, has the word “blog” in its title. In the meantime, I’m waiting for @Benison’s views, and I’m also pinging @Geniac as well to see his response. We are the Great (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with RangersRus. Writers writing for a reliable news media or magazines is different than writing on personal blog. Geniac (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Milliblog may not be perfect, but no one is in any rush to purge it from articles. Unless they are attempting GA or FA. If not music reviews, it is still needed for other claims such as song details (whether the song is original or a remix, etc). Kailash29792 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We are the Great, I echo RangersRus' opinion. Personal blog is WP:BLOG nonetheless. PS: I am not exactly an expert in music reviews, in contrast to Films. But in terms of RS, I'd go with RangersRus and Geniac's comments. If you still require more clarity, WP:RSN awaits you. Thanks and happy editing. — Benison (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

So most of us agree that the website is considered unreliable. However, even though I’m siding with them over this, I will agree with Kailash29792 on the point that it isn’t necessary right now to remove this source from the articles unless for GA or FA. Same should go for Music Aloud, while for other sources they pretty much have to be removed. We are the Great (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────┘
We are the Great, Yes, you don't have to remove it. But if tomorrow, someone removes it, you CANNOT revert it or you yourself shouldn't use a source whose unreliability is established. But a cleanup and removal of the same source won't hurt anyone. Just sayin'. Thanks. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing clarity. We are the Great (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Benison, @RangersRus, @Geniac, @Kailash29792 So it isn’t necessary to list the music websites such as Milliblog as unreliable in WP:ICTFSOURCES? We are the Great (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

i say stall judgement on Milliblog. Maybe it needs more assessment. At no point does it need mass removal. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Then should we list Musicperk, Apunkachoice, and Music Aloud unreliable in WP:ICTFSOURCES? We are the Great (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Desimartini and Amar Ujala

Desimartini is owned by the Hindustan Times group (HMVL) and operated by its HT Digital stream (HTDS) division. Amar Ujala is one of India’s leading Hindi newspapers with 22 editions in 179 districts in 6 states and 2 union territories. Please give consensus if you find these sources reliable or unreliable for film articles. RangersRus (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ever since DM was acquired by HT Media in 2007, their journalism standard has only improved. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Need to ping in ictf regulars as not everyone has the talk page on watch list and need some more brains here. @Benison: @Geniac: @DreamRimmer: @Sid95Q:. More brains are welcome to give consensus. RangersRus (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

RangersRus, I'll go with Kailash on this one. HT and Amar Ujala are both RS and since it's the same editorial team heading this, no red flags for DM. — Benison (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I too agree. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Indiantelevision.com

In the section Reliability of sources listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES, @User:C1K98V made an important point considering the reliability of Indiantelevision.com, which is that it is the parent company of TellyChakkar. TellyChakkar has been considered unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, so should Indiantelevison.com be also considered unreliable or not? Prior to this, has there been any consensus on the usage of the website as a reliable source? Awaiting consensus from @RangersRus:,@Benison:, @Geniac:, @CNMall41:, and @Kailash29792:. We are the Great (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable. Their About page makes it clear they are primarily interested in promoting their paying clients. "Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution." Geniac (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

not reliable and my evaluation is same as Geniac's and agree with the analysis. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And this is a problem because most Bollywood movie articles use this source. I’d suggest that we hold off on it until others chime in into this discussion. We are the Great (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Idlebrain.com

Has there been any consensus regarding the reliability of the website? It has been used in many Tamil and Telugu movie articles. We are the Great (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It is reliable per consensus. RangersRus (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comments at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

There is discussion going on regarding the use of "crore" in Indian articles at MOS/Dates and numbers. Sid95Q (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Youlin Magazine

This website has come up in a few deletion discussions in the past and I thought it was already discussed but cannot find anything here. Checking on the reliability of Youlin Magazine. Their about page has no mention of editorial guidelines. Their FAQ page says they accept guest posts and that contributors are reviewed by the editorial board but no information about what the "editorial board" is. Gmail address is the main point of contact. WOndering about it being used to verify non controversial information and/or use for notability purposes. CNMall41 (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This magazine is currently cited in 239 articles, but I would still be cautious about using it as a reliable source. The lack of clear editorial guidelines and transparency about the review process make it difficult to assess its credibility. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable. Bylines lead simply to lists of articles written; no info on the supposed various authors. No physical address listed anywhere. Geniac (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable. I saw this source during one of the AFC review but did not check for its reliability. It does not show anything about the "the editorial board". It also accepts one time submission from guests. Now after evaluation, I find the source with no credibility. RangersRus (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion has also been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Pakistani cinema task force#Youlin Magazine.-Mushy Yank. 22:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Viggy.com

Is Viggy.com reliable? It was first dismissed at the Teahouse reportedly as not reliable as per Talk:Katthegalu Saar Katthegalu#Source. But when I dug and found out who wrote for Viggy.com (since the website says Roopa and me), it turned out me was journalist B. N. Subramanya (who didn't have an article but won a sub category at the National Film Awards, Viggy.com now redirects there). See User_talk:Kataariveera#Viggy.com.

As a test to see if Viggy.com is reliable, I half-heartedly created Draft:Y2K (2004 film), but it was rejected twice. Does that mean a film without reviews is inherently not notable? DareshMohan (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

As a progressive minded leftie, I vote for Viggy being reliable. Created by a National Award winning critic, it's not just a blog. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable. The site allows to post materials submitted by users and says "Certain elements of The Site will contain material submitted by users. viggy.com accepts no responsibility for the content, accuracy, conformity to applicable laws of such material." No editorial insight. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

On the right hand side below the guy with sunglasses, that refers to the discussion forum, which I'm not talking about. I'm talking about reviews and press releases from the site. If doubtful, at least anything that explictly mentions Roopa Hegde or B. N. Subramanya as authors should be considered reliable. DareshMohan (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not see where in disclaimer that that the material submitted by users points to discussion forum. We had two or three other sources that were personal sites or blogs of critics and said to be unreliable such as Bobbytalkscinema.com, milliblog and this site falls in same criteria of unreliability. RangersRus (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)