Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Project-wide Agreement on Unreliable Sources

Hello. I've been noticing a bad tendency on several pages under WP:INCINE that cite unreliable sources for cited information. By unreliable I am referring to material that is cribbed from websites of questionable veracity and perhaps questionable content too. It is unfortunate that many of our dedicated members here who claim to fans of their movie idols do not take the time to research material from more reliable (and preferably printed) sources such as Stardust, Cineblitz, Filmfare magazines, etc. Instead, we have material from Tripod sites, AOL Member homepages, and other unreliable sources such as Apunkachoice.Com and MusicIndiaOnline.Com. Trying to remove these references is of little use since edits made to improve the article(s) in these respects will be reverted by enthusiastic editors. Therefore I suggest that we have an open discussion about the veracity and reliability of several online sources, agreement that efforts should be made to gain material from printed sources, and hopefully we can all agree to remove unreliable information/references whenever one comes across them. Thank you. Ekantik ^talk 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No takers? Then I'll assume that I'm right! :-) Ekantik ^talk 06:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I agree. Zora 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut Off Those Awards!

I've also noticed a disturbing tendency for several WP:INCINE to resemble crib sheets for each and every "fact" that is come across about that actor on the Net. This is mainly present in the Awards section of every page - why bother listing the awards the star has been nominated for? Isn't it better for an encyclopaedia to list awards that the star has won?

And while I'm on the subject, I think we should all agree to remove references to superficial non-notable awards (such as 'Sexiest Man/Woman of the Year 2006'). Perhaps only references to notable awards should be included, Filmfare Awards, Oscar nominations, and the like. Ekantik ^talk 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No takers? Then I'll assume that I'm right! :-) Ekantik ^talk 06:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. And I'm exhausted. I spent the whole day cooking for my daughter :) Zora 06:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope she appreciated all your hard work. :) Ekantik ^talk 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

She won't appreciate it till I'm dead :( Then she'll be sorry. (Cut to scene from melodramatic Bollywood movie.) I've got a suggestion for a guideline re awards:

• Only list notable awards. Listing noms is OK, I think, it's a distinction.
• An award is notable if it has its own WP article or the organization sponsoring it has a WP article.
• References not needed if the award has a website listing winners and noms; that can easily be checked.
• If no website, then online or print reference required.

Does that work for everyone? Zora 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that seems OK. I'm just wondering about the notability of such awards; how are they seen in India for example? Are the Filmfare awards the Indian version of the Oscars, in that the stars themselves appear to accept their awards? It may be my personal opinion, but I think that awards ceremonies where the stars themselves accept their awards are prestigious enough to be notable, unlike "Maxim Magazine's Sexiest Woman Ever 2006 Award" and stuff like that.

For example the Zee Cine awards has its own WP page but I'm unsure if the awards themselves are notbale enough to be cited? But yes, I agree with your points in general. Ekantik ^talk 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Indian National Awards are roughly equivalent to the Oscars. What do you all think? AppleJuggler 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that too, until I discovered that the NAs are only given to a particular film, actor or director for exceptional work. Consequently there is only one award per year. Sure it is prestigious, but not like the Oscars in which awards are awarded per categories, Best Actor, Best Actress, etc. Ekantik ^talk 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Prods!

Two bollywood actors have been prodded. Zeba Bakhtiar and Sushant Singh. I have not yet deprodded them as both articles are quite badly written and I am a bit out of time this week. Can someone from the project please do a better job? — Lost^(talk) 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections

I'm not a big fan of Trivia sections, especially when uncited, so I'm going to go through a number of articles and put the unsourced tag on them, if they remain unsourced for a fortnight I will delete the trivia. Any objections? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Trivia sections are a blight on many articles. I clear out the unreferenced gossip when I see it, but I can't monitor ALL the Indian cinema articles. Zora 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree about unsourced trivia, but sometimes trivia is too obvious to be sourced. For example, I recently added a trivia about Shah Rukh Khan's nude scene in Maya and stripping down to his boxers in Duplicate, which was a rewrite of an older trivia. That sort of thing doesn't need to be sourced IMO because the source is the movie, right?

On the other hand, trivia which is interesting may be retained for a laugh, but I agree that trivia that is based on gossip should be removed.Ekantik ^talk 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis length

Upset by an 1800 word synopsis in one film article (not one of ours) I went to visit the main film project. Turns out that they have a guideline for synopses, as follows:

The plot section is made self-contained (and is a totally separate section designated by Plot), so plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section are repeated here. Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot.

For those of you who are wondering if the film articles with the loooooong synopses are the ones to imitate: they aren't.

I don't think there's any word count tool inside WP (though I could be wrong) but I've been copying and pasting synopses into Word or OpenOffice and using the word count tools there.

I tend to like even shorter synopses, but if the long-winded writers are willing to aim downwards, towards 400-700, I'm willing to aim upwards, towards at least the minimum bound.

The folks at the main cinema project made another suggestion, which I don't think is being tried anywhere but might work -- if someone insists on a 2000 word synopsis, set up a sub-article for the synopsis and put a shorter version on the main article. It might be interesting to check readership for those long synopses, if we had the tools to measure clickthru. I have a feeling that the long synopses exist more for the egos of the writers than for the convenience of the readers, but I could be wrong.

Happy Gregorian Calendar New Year, everyone! Zora 00:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwise film categories to be deleted

Some film categories that were unwisely created and are about to be deleted contained some Indian films categories by decades and years. A whole similar series on American films was also deleted recently. If there are any objections, please comment in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization#New (Jan.01) undiscussed creations. Hoverfish Talk 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started compiling the entire list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Indian Films feel free to help out. Other missing lists can be created by industry in India.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles

Hello, the use of notable roles is back again. I feel that the notable roles should not be added, because what can we class as "notable". User:Ekantik thinks they are needed (see Shilpa Shetty discussion page) but I really need some opinions on this. Can people please comment on this. -- Pa7 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is important for Wikipedia to maintain consistency (there is precedent for this) and, following discussions held at other film project boards, "notable roles" contains information for infoboxes. Given that it is part of the actor infobox template, there is no real reason why it should not be filled in. Not that there is any real difference but if the infoboxes of certain "Western" actors are filled in (Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, Al Pacino to mention a few examples) then again there is no real reason why that cannot be so for INCINE actors.

Then the good question arises of how to determine which roles are notable, as a number of editors have opined that "personal opinion" is involved when deeming some roles notable. While I agree that this setup is open to abuse (someone may like a particular role of the actor's and include it as "notable") I do not agree that notable roles should be removed just because of that. IMO it is a weak excuse and such a nomination can be easily removed by any watchful editor. However, the question still remains and there can be a number of solutions for this:

• A recent article on the actor may reference their popular movies. This can be taken as a public indicator of what roles they are best known for.
• My personal rationale is that if the actor has received an award for their role in a particular movie, that role can be deemed "notable".
• I do not think this is any indicator of popularity or notability, but maybe box-office figures can be taken into account.

There is also another problem. The removal of notable roles (and other information from the infobox) makes the infobox look pretty small and stupid. Especially in cases where no picture is present, there really is no need for an infobox at all. So removing notable roles reduces the size of an infobox so as to make it redundant especially when there is a large table of contents next to it. Besides that, I have noticed a trend that whenever someone removes notable roles, someone else will come along and re-insert that information again and this takes place as a repeated cycle. So, in my view, there is no real reason why notable roles should be removed as long as there is some justification for why that role is notable, and not just because "it is personal opinion".

Again in my opinion, efforts should be made to hold discussions at the BLP noticeboard or in conjunction with them since they are the "experts" on biographies. We should remember that actor articles are primarily BLP articles with secondary INCINE authority, so such articles are meant to follow WP:BLP guidelines primarily (and also WP:MOS to some extent. But frankly, I must say that I'm very surprised that this issue should be the subject of much discussion when a negligible level of attention was paid to the discussion about the use of reliable sources, which still hasn't gaind consensus. And that issue is far more important than the inclusion (or not) of notable roles. I think this is an adequate summary of my views on the matter. Thoughts? Ekantik ^talk 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, some people like some films and some like others. Chosing a list of "notable roles" means chosing a list that YOU like. Others may make a different choice. Lists of movies for which the actor has won awards are found in the article, and in many cases are too long to put in an infobox. Critics have different ideas about what's good and bad, so you can't go by "critical reception."

The only thing that is truly objective is receipts. If you want to put in the work to find out the box office (and other) receipts for all the movies in which a certain star has appeared in a leading role, and then list "five most popular movies," that would be objective. Actually, we could use revenue data, whenever obtainable, in as many film articles as possible. Saying that "it did well at the box office" is better than "it was a mega-hit" (which is not encyclopedic language) but neither is as good as saying, "Main Hoon Na earned Rs. 37,98,00,000, according to BoxOfficeIndia." Not clear if that includes revenue other than box-office. Zora 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora, I've already addressed your concerns as well as providing three different ways in which we can seek a rationale for determining which roles are notable. It does not necessarily have to be someone's personal opinion because if that was so, there would be disputes all over Wikipedia on articles about every single actor. There isn't, because the involved editors of those articles are sensible enough to agree on which roles are notable. A child may think Gene Hackman's role in Superman was notable. Maybe so, but no one can deny that his role in French Connection is more notable given that he won an Oscar for it. I still think "Awards won" is more of a determinant about notable roles and I also agree with your point about repetition in the article. In that case I'd say that the whole point of the infobox (and the lead come to that) was to present immediately pertinent information to the reader.

Your box-office idea is interesting and I suggested that too, but on second thoughts I don't think this is enough because a box-office hit may be for different reasons than that of a particular performer. For example, Hrithik Roshan's role in Krrish may be notable because it was a massive hit but the same does not hold true for Priyanka Chopra or Rekha, as kids/viewers will find Hrithik/Krrish more exciting to watch than them. (But if Priyanka and Rekha win an award for their performance in Krrish then that becomes 'notable' I guess.) I agree with your points about revenues though, they will make nice additions to articles. Ekantik ^talk 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, if it's SOOOO easy for everyone to agree on notable roles, you tell me which are Aamir Khan's notable roles. Then we'll argue. Zora 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which brings me neatly to my next point: For very popular stars we can keep it down to a maximum of 4 or 5. This is especially true in Amitabh Bachchan's case whose career has spanned decades and has hundreds of hits, we can add about 4 or 5 but we'd have to include his role in Sholay for example.

To be honest I really don't get why there is such a problem with this, if other actor pages can agree on notable roles then why can't we? I remember reading somewhere that Wikipedia's ultimate goal is to be the ultimate resource of all information, so the proper way to go about things is to put information in rather than taking it out. That's what talk-pages are for, discussion. But again I'd advise holding this discussion at Village Pump or in conjunction with other film-oriented Wikiprojects to get an idea of community consensus, although I personally think it is a non-issue. Ekantik ^talk 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As for Aamir Khan, I'll admit that I'm not up-to-date on his latest works, but I'd say that 'Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak' and 'Raja Hindustani' would/should be among any notable roles list for him. :) I think that it is much easier to decide once an actor's career is over. For example, now that Kirk Douglas is no longer working, everyone can agree that Spartacus was one of his notable roles. Ditto for Yul Brynner and his roles in The King And I, The Ten Commandments, etc (the last one is a notable role for Charlton Heston also), so I understand the problems with current actors. When Shah Rukh Khan throws in the towel, people may look back on DDLJ, KKHH, K3G as some of his greatest hits, but are they necessarily notable roles. Hmmm,...Ekantik ^talk 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, I notice that you couldn't answer my question. Any five of Aamir's films that I like, someone else might dislike.

I've been online since 1988, on GEnie, Usenet, blogs, and WP, and I've witnessed hundreds of arguments re the "best" books, films, actors, foods, whatever. One person puts up a list and says, "These are the ten best science fiction novels of all time," and then the arguments start. They never finish. They are never resolved. They just dwindle and die as people get tired of the squabbling. There is NO WAY you are going to get everyone to agree on what are the notable roles and what aren't. Twenty years experience says that's true. What have you got? An assertion that it's easy, plus an inability to answer a test question. Zora 06:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora, I already told you that I'm not familiar with the recent work of Aamir Khan, although I answered to the best of my ability based on what I have seen: His role in QSQT may not necessarily be "notable" although it is stated everywhere in published sources that it was his first movie. Raja Hindustani was certainly a notable role. And now that I think about it, his role in 'Rangeela' could be notable and his role in Lagaan is definitely notable. Beyond that, I don't think you are being very fair "testing" me about an actor whose career I'm not all that familiar with, not to mention being satisfied with what I did say in response. You still haven't got the point; it is not about personal opinions, it is about sensibly determining a notability of a particular role. Do you really have any other points to make about their non-inclusions other than "personal opinion"? That sounds like a very weak case to me.

I personally do not care if you have been online since the history of the world, since I notice that you continually bring up your internet history as a way to intimidate other editors with your alleged expertise. Wikipedia is different: It is your responsibility as an editor (as are all Wikipedians) to edit Wikipedia to be the resource of information that it is supposed to be, and also by way of its overriding WP:NPOV principle. Therefore if any "arguments" start (despite your inability to give any examples of such arguments) it is your responsibility to stop the "squabble" by referring to neutral (NPOV) information/sources. I have noticed that arguments related to articles on WP:INCINE are usually because they are poorly referenced; if proper references were obtained then there would hardly be any problem. Besides that, if you continue to disagree over the notability of actor roles, then we may as well do away with the infoboxes altogether. There is no use in having an infobox when you are not going to put any information in them.

And while I'm on the subject, I don't think that I care very much for your aggressive and challenging tone. You may like to read WP:CIVIL in this regard. After twenty years on the Internet andthree years as a Wikipedian (your claims), you really should know better. Ekantik ^talk 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of renaming this section to "notable roles" since it is not to do with Shilpa Shetty but relevant for all BLP articles also under INCINE. Hope nobody minds. Ekantik ^talk 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Song clips for Ilaiyaraaja

I've made an 'Audio samples' section for this article. Feel free to test-drive and to perhaps comment (I hope you have Winamp or BS.Player to run the files!). I used Audacity 1.2.6 to create the clips. Having only built-in speakers on my laptop I am unable to adequately evaluate the quality of these sound clips, so some external feedback is kindly requested. AppleJuggler 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried uploading them to Commons? Ekantik ^talk 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the clips onto Wikipedia but not at the Commons. I'm a bit slack about going to the Commons as I find that (i) I need to register my ID (again, separately) at the Commons while I feel strongly that with a Wikipedia ID one should be given the option to automatically have an account at the Commons, (ii) it is absurd that files uploaded onto Wikipedia are not automatically pooled at the Commons, thereby eliminating the inefficiency of having to upload items twice (once at Wikipedia and once again at the Commons), and (iii) the requirement that the Commons accepts only 'freely licensed materials' is off-putting; I created these 30-second sound clips but I feel these clips are considered fair use and not free use (a single, authoritative document/one-stop centre for all media licensing matters in Wikipedia is not easily findable, is woefully wordy and unclear that is discourages its reading and encumbers efforts to easily understand licensing matters). But I will consider putting these clips up at the Commons at some stage, when the issues raised above are addressed. Thank you for bringing this up, Ekantik. AppleJuggler 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I was just wondering, :) but fair enough I agree about your issues with Commons. I was under the impression that having an account at WP automatically registered you with Commons and other sister-projects, as I don't remember separately registering at Commons. Why not login to Commons with your WP ID and find out? It might work.

I agree with the problems about licensing, it seems terribly difficult to determine what's allowed and what's not, and makes me feel very lethargic when I think about trying to upload something. :( Ekantik ^talk 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No — your registered username in Wikipedia is not automatically registered with Wikimedia Commons; separate registration is required. I find this inefficiency on the part of the Wiki organisation somewhat puzzling, unless they are trying to conserve hard drive space on their servers by not allowing simultaneous automatic registration for the Commons (because someone registered with Wikipedia may not use the Commons at all and so you'd have an unused Commons account lying around). And I can very well identify with the licensing-induced lethargy you speak about! AppleJuggler 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Very weird, I thought it was automatic, although signing up for an account is not that hard. About images - ugh! Can you believe that some pages advise contacting "official sources" like fan clubs, official websites and the like to obtain permission to use their pictures? Getting images this way really strikes me as trying to touch your nose by winding your arm around the back of your head instead of touching it directly, haha. I remember reading something from Jimbo about how it is a near-hopeless cause to get official sources to release images under a free license, so sometimes I wonder, why bother?

I should talk, I've just sent off an email to Shilpa Shetty's publicity agent requesting him to release some quality promotional images *roll eyes*, for some reason I don't think I'll get very far lol, but worth a try. Ekantik ^talk 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I have gone through the very same in trying to obtain permission from 'official sources' for using some old photographs of Ilaiyaraaja. Often, 'official sources' or official representatives are difficult to get in touch with, and then again one must be careful to be sure that the person who eventually does sanction usage is vested with the sufficient responsibility to give permission. At other times, I've not received any response at all from these 'official sources' with regard to image usage. So it certainly does get a little frustrating. Nevertheless, to empathise with the Wikipedia Organisation, I can see that they are truly trying to keep things free for the public in the broadest ways possible. So sometimes I take the trouble just for this sake. p.s. it seems like you and the rest are doing an impressive job with the Shilpa article. AppleJuggler 06:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) I took a look at the Ilaiyaraja article and I think you are doing a great job too. I'll try to help if I can but I hope it gets FA-status. :)Ekantik ^talk 02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna article

An editor named Jatinram is an extreme Rajesh Khanna fan and periodically visits the article to fill it with badly-written fan worship. We revert him, he goes away for a while, then returns. Lately he's been editing from anonIPs, but it's clearly the same guy, inserting the same fractured prose. I used up my three reverts against him yesterday -- he did four, and now the article is left in fan-gush mode. I would appreciate it if someone else could revert the article to the less-worshipful version.

I think that if the actor were asked, he'd prefer a dignified article to Jatinram's version, but I suspect that this is more about Jatinram's ego than it is about memorializing Khanna.

I did the work to document the 3RR violation, then warned Jatinram at the anonIP he was using. I'm not sure that I could get him blocked without a further violation, which I can't do without exposing myself to penalty. Zora 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Zora,

I'll help you with that - reverted it back and maybe, I find some references to get rid of the ""s. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! Zora 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Infobox Backlog

If you're interested in helping add infoboxes to film articles, you can visit here or adopt a letter here. We currently have about 900 articles (with some of these of these being Indian films) that don't have infoboxes and we have so far completed about 200 in the last few weeks. We would appreciate any assistance in eradicating the requests. There are instructions and an example on the template's page and if you need any help or have any questions ask one of the members who are currently working on the infoboxes or at the project's talk page. Thanks, and keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists lacking sources of reference -- List of India's official entries to the Oscars and National Film Awards

Nice lists, but their usefulness is compromised as sources of reference (be it books, newspaper articles, or reliable websites (i.e., not a blog)) are lacking. I've made mention of this on the project page, and I hope this can be addressed. AppleJuggler 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove struck-out to-do items on the project page?

Entries for issues that have been dealt with could be erased perhaps? The project page is getting long and cluttered. AppleJuggler 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Wait a day and if no one objects, do it! Zora 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. AppleJuggler 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sonu_Niigaam?

Is it me or should the name of the article be changed to Sonu Nigam, which is a more commonly used spelling? Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out the artiste's official website (if available), or refer to spelling in recent official press releases made by the artiste. AppleJuggler 04:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable news sources galore!

As a continuation of what I wrote above here, I failed to realise what a great source Google News can be! You'll notice that it is the Entertainment (India) section, which can be used to highly benefit Wikipedia with reliable sources, SantaBanta and GlamSham excepting, of course. Ekantik ^talk 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A tale of two importance ratings

The administering of ratings (such as 'importance' ratings) involves some degree of subjectivity, yet a subject's absolute importance is often roughly assessable (e.g., a Gandhi or an Asoka would be accorded topmost rating for their importance to India). Clearer still would be the issue of relative importance (within a single WikiProject, for instance; say, the importance of a Salman Khan relative to an Amitabh Bachchan in WikiProject Indian Cinema). Given this, I thought I'd share something amusing that I noticed. Aamir Khan and Aishwarya Rai hold the highest rank by the criterion of importance ('top importance') (here the question of the subjects' absolute importance arises). By relative importance, on the other hand, poor old Satyajit (who put Indian cinema on the global map) doesn't seem to be sharing that very tall, very selective (yet presently slightly crowded) pedestal of 'top importance' in WikiProject Indian Cinema (did he slip off?). One can't help but be amused that film personality's level of glamour and popularity influences importance rating in WikiProject Indian Cinema. (For a related discussion, go here). AppleJuggler 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blasphemy! :) And Satyajit Ray is FA-status too. Ekantik ^talk 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct order of filmographies

I've just discovered WP:LOW; it basically means that to create a consistent standard throughout Wikipedia works must be mentioned earliest first. In relation to our INCINE articles, this means that filmographies should be re-arranged to display the actor/producer/director's earliest works first with the recent ones at the bottom.

Don't look at me! :) I personally think it's a bad idea and I prefer it to be recent works at the top, but hey... Ekantik ^talk

Hmmmm, I've just discovered that this is one of those issues where there is an eternal dispute: one group of editors arguing in favour of earliest-to-last chronology and another group arguing for latest-to-earliest chronology. Looks like it'll be some time before this gets sorted out, these disputes can be so irritating sometimes. Ekantik ^talk 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards can now be listed in Infoboxes

Just to let everyone know that I've been instrumental in getting a "Filmfare Awards" field added into the actor infobox template, see Template_talk:Infobox_actor#Golden_Globe_Awards. This means that we no longer have to worry about our actors not winning Oscars, Emmys and the like, but if they've won a Filmfare Award then it can now be listed in the infobox! To find out how to properly list them, see Template:Infobox_actor: Use the same format as academyawards. Ekantik ^talk 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed

Ganayogi Panchakshari Gavayi lacks any sources. I followed Girish Karnad's filmography at the IMDb but couln't find anything close. Can someone please take a look at the article? Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use images in danger

Since a lot of BLP and film articles under the INCINE project employ fair-use images, it looks like there has been some sort of a crackdown on FU images. This apparently comes straight from the top → Wikimedia Foundation board meeting. Even then there sems to be a bit of confusion as Jimbo says he will try and sort it out, but the basic premise is that FU images should not be used unless there is a watertight and cast-iron rationale for doing so.

It's bonkers if you ask me. Fair Use is used almost everywhere in all sorts of media except Wikipedia now. I appreciate that Wikipedia suffers a high level of vandalism/irresponsibility but that's no reason to go around willy-nilly deleting images with good FU rationales. I guess the only way to be on the safe side is to do our best to gain copyright permission from whoever owns it. It's not impossible; that thing I mentioned above about Shilpa Shetty and her PETA advertisement image, I managaed to get copyright permission for that and license it under the GFDL. I also got the lead picture at Shilpa Shetty approved by the photographer. so it's not that hard to gain copyright if you make the effort and hopefully you are dealing with nice people. Ekantik ^talk 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning FU in the case of movies is particularly silly, Bollywood or not. Not all FU is the same; some of the photos deleted in the last little while clearly came from promotional stills. Promoters and distributors, with full permission and cooperation of the copyright owners, encourage the use of stills from their moviews. That's how they keep them in the public eye. Has somebody been sued, so that the Wikilawyers suddenly don't want to be bothered with even the remote chance of a case? Ratufa 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards

Hey, I think we should change the year dates for the Filmfare Awards. We should make it one year up for each section. It shows dates of film release not when the award ceremony was held or when the recipient won. It's confusing for some because all other awards are managed how they're supposed to be with years ceremony held not for which year the awards are given. - shez_15

Sorry but I'm even more confused with your proposal, what exactly are you proposing? I agree that dates should be set for when the award was given and not listed for when the film was released certainly, is this what you are suggesting? Have I understood you correctly? Ekantik ^talk 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films backlog discussion

Thank you to all who has assisted in the current backlog. I have currently posted a proposal about splitting the infoboxes requests for WP:Films, WP:Persian cinema, and WP:Indian cinema so that each project would so that each project could focus on the film in its realm. Please comment at WP:Films talk page about the idea. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 04:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Indian cinema template

Hi there I'm from WikiProject Films! I have created a template for Indian cinema as is standard with all other countries. If you have any ideas for improvement let me know -the template should go at the bottom of all India cinema pages/ films and people to try to connect a vast project together. I've tried to keep it as smal as possible .Let me know if you like it

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is fantastic work from a great contributor. Perhaps we need to discuss on what types of articles this template can be tacked onto? I would have thought it would be suitable for director-only or genre-only articles, but the small size of the template would render it suitable for being tacked onto all articles including those of actors because of its huge scope. What say, everyone? Ekantik ^talk 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing Indian Films

Blofeld has also informed me about his other INCINE-relevant work: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/List_of_films_without_article/List_of_missing_Indian_Films. Whew! We certainly have our work cut out for us! :-) Ekantik ^talk 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Polls section

Hello. I haven't edited on wikipedia for a bit. I was skimming through today and saw that Rani Mukherjee's page had a polls section! I've removed it but I'd really appreciate some opinions. Are we allowed to include polls on articles? I mean is that not a form of advertising? -- Pa7 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Shenaz Treasurywala article

Hello. Just wanted to let the members of this project know that I created an article on Shenaz Treasurywala, and subsequently nominated it for DYK. I also went ahead and tagged the article with the {{WP India}} WikiProject notice. As experts on this topic, I would greatly appreciate it if you would look over the article and make corrections or additions. The article could especially use some assistance from a Hindi reader who could help complete the {{Infobox actor}}. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the article was selected as a WP:DYK for 2007-04-14. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai in Peer review

Please visit the peer review entry of Lage Raho Munna Bhai, and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai is in FAC

The FAC of Lage Raho... has started. Please do visit. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It's a featured article. The first Bollywood-related FA.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji opinions

Hello. Just wanted some opinions from the members. On the Mukerji article there is info on her make-up person, hair stylist, new look etc. I have deleted all these facts once but they have been reverted. Can somebody please state their opinions on these things. Should they be in an encyclopedia because personally I feel the stuff is just gossip and not needed. Any opinions would be helpful. Best regards. -- Pa7 17:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article tagging

I have requested User:WatchlistBot's help with tagging article talk pages with the project template for assessment purposes. We need your input on including sub-categories of Category:Indian films as part of the tagging. Please comment here. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the categories and put the list here. Let me know if there are any problems. I have to update the bot before I can tag articles, and I'm not sure when I'll have time, but I'll let you know when it's done. Ingrid 03:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I found Category:Cinema of India which seems like the real top-level category. Subcategories are now tagged. I need someone to check the list before I'll begin tagging articles. Ingrid 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Omkara (film) article

i could not find the page where requests for assesments can be put down. so i m using this talk page to ask everyone to go n have a look at Omkara and make a decision about what category it should be in Quork 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Film credits

Hi all! Until now we were using IMDB entry as the format for film casting, since users like Zora and Plumcouch opposed to use film credits. It was in the page of Veer Zaara. User:Shez 15 wanted to credit Rani Mukerji (the supporting actress) before Preity Zinta (the leading) as it was credited in the film. Users like Zora, Pa7, Haphar, Plumcouch, Grenavitar (and now even me) refused to use film format. Their explanation was that Zinta is the heroine and she has to be credited first. Shez didn't accept that and it was decided by all to credit actors to IMDB, see here. Now, there is a big problem. IMDB is not suitable anymore. There are lots of users on IMDB who change these credits everyday. Every page is updated and the cast changes.

I got into conclution that IMDB is no longer suitable for wikipedia. Users endlessly mess with cast. IMDB became popular and now everybody is logged there. There are certain important films which are in advanced production statuses and IMDB hasn't yet added them. The IMDB format was the way of users like Plumcouch and Zora to make Shez understand that we can't credit according to the film credits.

Filmmakers play games with cast order. They cast as per seniority, as per appearances order etc. Here on Wikipedia we have to write about a film and give always the credits for the main characters and then the supporting (unless the supporting actress\actor is senior to the main actress\actor in more than 10 years like in case of Devdas). We can't go as per film credits, most of them make people confused. Here on Wikipedia we introduce information for readers, not directors' commitments for their actors.

Take Veer-Zaara for example. Shahrukh Khan is Veer, Preity Zinta is Zaara, and Rani Mukerji is Saamiya. Appropriately, we have to credit first SRK, Preity and then Rani. Mukerji is senior to Zinta in two years. I don't thing it's a good reason to do that.

Furthermore, all of us here have not seen all the films, so someone could get confused, how to credit? And the logical way is to credit main characters first. In other words, we have to use another reliable source for credit listing apart from IMDB, because we have to go according to something, that's for sure, to prevent edit wars. I think we have to find another reliable site which has entries for all the Bollywood films.

Please comment, thanks and best regards, --Shshshsh 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer the film's casting as in the movie since it's the official way to put the cast. But I know it's hard to classify an order with a particular movie since not everyone has seen every movie. Plus, there's no proof. And if we have to change to another source, then it's silly since IMDB is Earth's Biggest Movie Database and most films are already updated to its version. I think let's just keep IMDB and move on with our lives. It's no big deal. Main characters are listed in the synopsis. So, there's no problem there. People can figure out who is the lead or supporting. These days, in some films, the supporting cast are given more scope than the lead roles. Like in the case of Lage Raho Munnabhai. Arshad Warsi (the supporting actor) has a more impactful role than Vidya Balan's (the lead actress). And again, Madhuri Dixit was part of the supporting cast in Devdas, yet she comes before Aishwarya Rai. I don't think it makes a big difference. Let's just follow IMDB. --User:shez_15 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But we can't do that. IMDB changes its credits every week. It is not matching anymore. We have to find another good source. Apart from it, Mukerji was not more notable than Zinta in Veer Zaara. Best regards, --Shshshsh 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Rani left with a more impactful performance than Zinta. She even won more accolades for her role in Veer-Zaara than Preity. In any case, we can't possibly change the rule just for one exception. I don't think it changes weekly. Yes, sometimes people go overboard with popular movies but the rest remains the same forever. --User:shez_15 23:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and that's why I'm here. I saw for myself. Very much of pages change weekly. We can't use it. IMDB contains users who mess with cast everytime, and now they changed Veer Zaara. The fact is that if we must use IMDB, Veer-Zaara must be an exeption. And sorry to say, your opinion who was better in the film does not matter. The matter is that Zinta was the heroine and here on Wikipedia the heroes come first. IMDB was the way of users to make YOU understand that film credits are impossible, cause you were reverting the page everytime. Apart from it, very much of users discussed that on the film talk page and opposed to credit Rani first, exept of you of course. IMDB or not, we have discussions and decisions by users on the movie talk page. they're not worthless. Best regards. --Shshshsh 05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The IMDb is not perfect or 100% reliable, and makes no claims in that regard to begin with. Which is not the same thing as wholly unusable. IMDb is also under much tighter controls and editing privileges than Wikipedia. If there is a problem with an IMDb entry, I suggest that you contact them first, much as you'd deal with a wiki problem by either changing it or notifying someone who can.

As far as cast sections go, IMDb has never had a standard formatting order for cast, and it varies from credited to alphabetical order to order in which the information was submitted to the IMDb. It doesn't change the movie, nor the prominence of the leads. WP is not IMDb, but we do use it as a qualified information source. Girolamo Savonarola 07:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The problem is that IMDB has comletely unfair credits. There are some credits which are pathetic. For example see the Karan Arjun ehre all the supporting cast is before the leading, the Farz page. Filmmakers have their commitments to actors and cast senior actors before, even if they are supporting. On wikipedia we can't do that. We have to give information about a film and credit as it should be. Very much of users opposed to use film credits, and IMDB was the only way to look for. We have to find another site to use as a format. If not, there might be certain films digress as an exception. Rules are important. Best regards, --Shshshsh 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but Farz and Karan Arjun are old movies. Now, IMDB is more reliant with Indian movies. And these are only two exceptions. - shez_15

Old movies. SO WHAT? BTW, Bunty Aur Babli yesterday credited Amitabh Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan and Rani Mukerji. Why should Mukerji be credited before Abhishek? He is the hero. He is Bunty while she is Babli. Best regards, --Shshshsh 07:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

...IMDB has completely unfair credits. Unfair? There's only one type of unfair credit, and that's when you are uncredited for a film you're in (or vice versa). Take a step back and remember the situation - the IMDb is a database. Given the hundreds of thousands of titles it contains, the chances are fairly high that whatever editor adds a film will not have personal knowledge of it. The cast list may have been added to piecemeal over the course of ten or more separate submissions. This in no way affects the reliability of the page - it's only function is to provide the cast list accurately. While it may also order this by the way the film's credits are ordered or through something objective like alphabetically, those are not necessary to get the information right.

The point is, if you don't like the order, then make certain that you rectify those errors for the Wikipedia article. We're not slave-tied to IMDb. Girolamo Savonarola 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It also changes its credits oftenly. That's unbearable. Why should Preity Zinta being credited before Mukerji. Filmmakers have commitments for their actors and they use seniority as one of their crediting aspects. And we are not filmmakers. We have to introduce the film by giving the leading actors always. IMDb is no longer reliable, and I don't know how we can turn to it regarding this issue. We have to find a site which has entries for every Bollywood film, which gives fair casting (leading and then supporting) and which doesn't change cast credits every day. See Bunty aur Babli. Yesterday it was credited: big B, AB jr. and then Mukerji and now Mukerji is ahead of Abhishek which is comltely unfair. And BTW, you said "then make certain that you rectify those errors for the Wikipedia article" the problem is that if we use mixed crediting templates it will cause a speculation.

My questions are:

• Do you know any reliable site?
• How can we connect with IMDb?

Best regards, --Shshshsh 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any problems with false credits? (Not credit ordering, but actual credits which should not exist for the film.) Girolamo Savonarola 09:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What? I didn't really understand what you are asking me.

I do have a problem with movie credits because A)We don't have a source for all the movie credits B)Film credits use different reasons (as I said hundred times). Here is an encyclopedia, not a film. We don't have any reason to credit as per these reasons. C) Very much of users agreed unanimously that it's not suitable for Wikipedia.

The problem now is to find a source which will be a crediting template, sice IMDb has a problem.

Best regards, --Shshshsh 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Koffee with Karan

Hello, I have re-written the Koffee with Karan article as it needed to be in prose. It needs some referencing which I sort out asap. Anyone is free to read and check it out. Best regards. -- Pa7 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging List of Indian Actors and List of Indian film actors

There appears to be much similarity between List of Indian Actors and List of Indian film actors. Since List of Indian film actors is 3 years old, and List of Indian Actors is only 2 months old, it would make more sense to merge any names to List of Indian film actors. I'm no expert on Indian cinema, so I'll leave it to the editors here to decide. Masaruemoto 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hindi film stub sub-types proposed

Category:Hindi-language film stubs is oversized; I've proposed that it be split either by genre, or by date of release. Please comment if you have a preference either way, or some other view on the subject. Alai 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Gross uneveness in INdian films

I've just been browsing and cleaning up the telugu list a bit and in seeing some of the articles they are shockingly terrible!!! It amazes me how many contemporary Bollywood articles on actors and films have the golden seal!! yet most of the tamil. telugu and malayalam articles are diabolical!!!!!! I know Bollywood is the main and most popular industry but the Indian cinema work group shouldn't neglect the other articles. They are either polished articles or completely unclear stubs which aren't even written in proper english!!! I really think the Indian cinema work group or some of us should try to start developing the other articles. The film articles on Tamil. Telugu, Malayalam films are the worst on wikipedia. They are a shambles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary reason is the lack of information in the English language on non-Bollywood films. IMDb covers Bollywood pretty well but not any other area of Indian cinema. The same goes for finding film posters, and verifiable information from other sources. Very few editors are using printed material for Indian movies so we need to find information online. Find some good sources for information and I will try to correct some of that uneveness. Even if I could find books in my library I would, but very few of the Indian cinema books are non-Bollywood and the ones that are don't go through individual films. gren グレン 00:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai

One of her loyal fans keeps on adding WP:UNDUE weight to the article, citing one interview where she was called the "Most beautiful person in the world." I revert it, warn her and show the fan the poilcies, but he/she still adds it. What do you think I should do? Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You may want to ask at the admin noticeboard what they advise as the best course of action - while it's not vandalism per se, it is arguably bad-faith editing if she's been warned multiple times. Other options may include a Wikiquette alert, which would begin a dispute mediation (this is probably a good place to start), and perhaps requesting full protection in the meantime, if mediation is not working. Girolamo Savonarola 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian cinema task force

About merging Indian cinema woth WP Films for greater coordination:

Moving the page will not remove any of the privileges that it currently enjoys - the only major change would be the article name. However, it does have distinct advantages of removing the need to spend extensive time on project administration overhead, as well as incorporating the WP Films project directly - which means more potential contributors from the WP Films project and full access to their already-developed departments, such as Peer review, Assessment, Requests, Style guidelines, templates, etc. In any case, the Films project already claims scope over all Film articles, so it makes little sense to have a separate WikiProject which is a subset of WP Films, especially when Films has developed a maturing task force hierarchy. And all Indian cinema members would become Films members, so it's less of an annex and more of a merge in that sense. But otherwise, the day to day operations of the project will not change much - it will still have a large degree of autonomy, and be able to spend more of its time working on the articles within the project scope and less time on the WikiProject structure, while having more resources and users at its fingertips. Girolamo Savonarola 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

100 percent for it. Count me in. Universal Hero 17:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a good suggestion. As long as more participants are willing to help out and get the time to better the articles, then I support your motion. -- Pa7 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course! Like you said, there are not many participants taking part, but if this allows more people to take interest then you've got my support. So yes, count me in -- Pa7 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Quiero darte las gracias otra vez por el premio que me diste... Esas cosas me emocionan mucho!

La organizasion de Wiki project Indian cinema es estopenda mi querido amigo! Gracias por procuparte por nuestras peliculas de India. Sos el unico quien de verdad se procupa por eso y esta travajando y quire alludarnos. Yo no tengo las indicadas palavras decirte quanto te aprecio por tus enfuersos.

So, what do you think about my Spanish? I meant everything I wrote. Thanks really! Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I need to do some code parsing first before I can give you an exact answer, but don't worry - I haven't forgotten about it. Girolamo Savonarola 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would very highly recommend NOT doing any moves until we've resolved the banner issues. I don't want any issues dangling - it could potentially cause a project war. Girolamo Savonarola 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the proposed plan? Universal Hero 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes count me in! You have all my support for that! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Of one moment. You want to move it? Mmm but I think there is no need to move. I think there would be no problem if we just copied the same version. Bcoz I don't want to lose out project's uniqueness... --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it wouldn't be a project for itself: "Wikiperoject Indian Cunema. I thought, we can we can move it and redirect, and then the page will remain as Wikiproject Indian Cinema and there will be another page under Wikiproject films. What do you say? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead! I'm fine with the changes you've done on Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema and I support them. Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with the recent changes on the Indian cinema project page. I do object to a page move. Since this project has two parent projects, India and Films, it would not be appropriate to move this project to a sub-page of the Films project. The project can still act as taskforce of both the projects, utilizing the resources of both of them as needed. I feel the Indian cinema project is as much related to the India project as it is to the Films project. The India project can provide the local expertise and knowledge. All taskforces in the India project are designed to be independent projects as well as act as taskforces for assessment purposes and additional services that the parent project can provide. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ample time has passed and consensus exists for the move, so I've gone ahead and enacted it and most of the infrastructure tweaks needed. Just to note that this move in absolutely no way divorces the group from WP India in any way, nor should it be construed to; all India-side processes should be otherwise intact. Much like the Indian military history task force. Girolamo Savonarola 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Bollywood films: 2007

I have created separate page(Main) for 2007 released films: List of Bollywood films: 2007. This need to be updated for month of october, help please. Regards, Lara_bran 06:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources?

Is there any project-wide agreement on which external sites can be taken as reliable sources? Sites that satisfy WP:RS, and provide believable data about Bollywood? A listing would be appreciated by all editors working on the Indian cinema articles. Best regards,xC | ☎ 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

how can i be a part of this project ?

i want join this project and help . how do i apply for membership ? - i am a noob eatpepsi @ Wiki Project ! (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You should add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Participants and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force/Participants if you are interested. There are no special privileges or rights conferred by joining per se - ultimately your editing work is what's important. However, we do like to have an idea of who the interested editors are, and how big the project is (roughly). Welcome! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Redirecting discussion

The page was moved, but there wasn't concensus. Bollywood Dreamz, Ganeshk and myself opposed to move the page. And it wasn't an organized voting; peaces of text from Blofeld's page were collected here. It just lost its uniqueness and right to have its own Wikiproject. Why should this project be a sub-page of the Films project? And it didn't really help the project in terms of progress. Since the move, it hasn't evolved. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Another note, this redirect doesn't affect any related work. It is still automatically implies to every other page which links to the previous task force title of this project. As said by Ganeshk, "The project can still act as taskforce of both the projects, utilizing the resources of both of them as needed." It is still a task force, and its link still appears on WP:Films, only that the title was changed. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A consensus is needed here -however trivial a page move seems. I don't really mind although I believed merging was the best way to go about assessing articles. As long as other people start to realise there are more than ten articles to the Indian cinema project and start to improve them I don't mind. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This directly contravenes both the original consensus as well as the overall consensus on the matter that was also established after the fact at WP:COUNCIL. And furthermore, reverting something of this magnitude without any discussion prior is completely improper regardless of which side is right. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation to move the page was "concensus". Which one???? Ganeshk said "I do object to a page move", I also said, and bollywood dreamz also said it. You had collected some peaces from Blofeld's talk page, shifted it here, and presented that as a voting, which is completely wrong. Our project was always independent and active, without being a sub-page of your project. It doesn't have to be part of your project, just to show how superior your project is. I'm gonna redirect. And I repeat, there was no concensus. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved some of the discussion because Blofeld was collecting it on his page instead of in the proper place, which I moved it to in order for it to be public to all interested parties. As Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Indian_cinema_task_force#Indian_cinema_task_force above shows, only Ganeshk objected. After the move occurred, Ganeshk brought the matter up in Council, which also took on the matter. The matter seems quite clear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? The only? And what with me? And what with Bollywood Dreamz? He also opposed to move, but you chose to copy here another message of him, which is not related to the move at all, and this is not permitted and unacceptable. So there is no concensus. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Prabhu Deva

Can he be the project of the month. OoYVNP (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Shifted here by Mspraveen (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

South Indian Cinema Barnstar template

I've finally got around to fulfilling an old promise. I've just created a barnstar template to award contributors for their input to articles dealing with South Indian cinema. For a long time there was only an image, and people awarded this image in a long and complicated way. Now I have made it easy and created a new template with a subst code that can just be cut'n'pasted. Check it out on the main project page. Ekantik ^talk 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Telugu films

About 50 to 100 telugu films release every year, So i was thinking why not create a seperate article for list of telugu films every year instead of every decade?--Ajay ijn (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. When I created the Tollywood films template, I was hoping to find lists of films on a yearly basis at least of the past decade. Since, I have had my hands full with many articles, I did not attempt this. If you are willing, I can contribute to your efforts whenever I can. Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tamils films list has Telugu language films?

Its true that in early decades many telugu films were made in tamil film industry. So in which list those films must be included. There is no clear difference between Tamil language films and Tamil Film Industry in the list articles. for example this Tamil films of the 1930s list has some telugu language films too but may have been in produced in Tamil film industry. --Ajay ijn (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Blofeld to look in at this discussion since he has contributed a lot of those lists and may have some interesting views. Ekantik ^talk 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have done a lot of work on Indian films and lists but predominantly Bollywood which I have split by year. Due the fact that the original Tamil and Telugu list were so incomprehendable I only split them by decade and haven't cleaned them up because I have no knowledge of the films and imdb is very poor for tamil and telugu. I had strongly hoped that somebody from Indian cinema would come along and beautify them like the Bollywood films which I split by year and are now linked in Template:Bollywood. I strongly urge somebody to do the same with Tamil and Telegu films - a detailed guide by year (given the sheer amount of films) and have the Template:Tamilcinema linked with the years in Tamil film at the bottom of every article like bollywood. i'd like to see cleaned up and developed pages like Tamil films of 1972 like Bollywood films of 1972etc. Unfortunately it never seems like anybody except Shahid, Bollywood dreamz and universal hero are consistently active in this group aside from myself, let alone in Tamil or telugu cinema. pLease can somebody clean up the tamil and telegu lists and perhaps from 1950 onwards split by year like Bollywood. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 15:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood is in the middle of development. Ideally I want tamil and telugu to have pages like :

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

i will try to create the bollywood like template. BTW the article Lage Raho Munnabhai is so comprehensive and also the article on telugu film anand is excellent.--Ajay ijn (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is actually quite easy to make templates. Just copy Blofeld's template and modify it with Tamil/Telugu details and save it. :) Ekantik ^talk 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan: in decrepitude.

For an article about a key contemporary figure in Indian cinema, I am surprised at the woeful condition of and scant attention paid to it. Diligent volunteers, roll up your sleeves and dig into this one. AppleJuggler (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have provided easy-to-follow guidelines to improving the Kamal Haasan article in its talk page. See the outline I provided (here), and all the other interesting tips I have given. Hope these guidelines make editing and improving this article easier and more straightforward for interested editors. Cheers, AppleJuggler (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinmay purohit filmography

Could you please take a look at Chinmay purohit filmography? Chinmay is from theater and he has directed lots of theater plays like Helen - it was based on 2nd world war... He has done wonderful play on Rashomon... then he has achieved lots of awards of best director... he has directed one wonderful play called striptease... he has done different kind of theater and then he was associate of Kundan Shah in Kya kahena feature film, Hum to mohabaat karega, Loveria of ABCL and others... He has some powerful scripts and he is going to make all of them very soon... one is Raaju ka dil bolta hai, other is Love Tadka, third one is Plot and he is going to make Nimboo Pani very soon.

Chinmay is busy in scripting of Rashomon - he is going to make bollywood hindi film of Rashomon. Means, Chinmay will rock very soon... I wish him good success... Corvus cornix_talk 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)