Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

New Indian Express

Can we add New Indian Express as a reliable source? Hence it is bifercated from The Indian Express which is considered as a reliable source.

Does usage of {{Bollywoodhungama}} template in external links section of a film is a violation of external links policy. A user had removed the template from the articles My Name is Khan and Kick (2014 film).--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Verdict: Blockbuster

Hi, I'd like to please get some input from this community on the issue of various films adding content like, "This was the first film in 1999 to achieve Blockbuster verdict" and similar statements. Here are some examples where I have seen it occur:

The film was an 'All Time Earner' got highest verdict...Equivalent to All Time Blockbuster Today
The film attained the Blockbuster verdict.
Gunga Jumna grossed around INR70,000,000 with nett gross of INR35,000,000, thus becomes the Highest grossing film of 1961 with verdict blockbuster.
Daur collected around INR 5,40,00,000 thus becoming the second highest grossing film of 1957 behind the critically acclaimed Mother India with the verdict blockbuster.
(A table of verdicts, including "Super-Hit", "Semi-Hit", etc.)

I don't think that merely being sourced is enough of a reason for this content to be included. This strikes me as WP:UNDUE, because presumably it's one entity making these verdicts, (Box Office India?) which means that an "undue weight" is being given to their assessment over the assessments of others. For example, in Western film, we don't state as fact "Showgirls attained the rotten verdict" merely because one site called it rotten. Especially problematic, is that this content is typically stated as though it were a fact, as opposed to being presented as a subjective evaluation attributed to a specific source, presented with the appropriate context, like in a Critical Response section with various other balanced reviews.

Proposal: Remove from Bollywood articles unduly weighted "verdicts" that attempt to state as fact any such subjective determination as to the film's success or failure until the content can be presented in a way that covers various interpretations and presents a neutral point of view.

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose that we don't simply state that the film was a "blockbuster", "super hit" etc. We say, something like "the film was declared a blockbuster by the film trade website Box Office India". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

On floors?

I've run into the phrases "went on floors" and "go on floors" a few times. The only places I find those phrases in Wikipedia or through Google is in the context of Indian cinema. I do not know what the phrases mean and I suspect that most non-Indian users don't know either. What does it mean? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 04:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In the context of films, "went on floors" and "go on floors" refers to the beginning of pre-production. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I too have never heard of this expression. Can we agree that this idiom may not be universally understood, and is perhaps not consistent with proper encyclopedic tone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that was rude. Cyphoidbomb I agree that these phrases aren't encyclopedic, and we should avoid using them. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"went on floors" 2,12,000 results, "go on floors" 23,20,000 results. (Concise is not rude. & WP:NPA.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The point of this discussion was that "most non-Indian users" aren't familiar with the phrases. And yes, if you had previously posted a reasoning for your "no", then it wouldn't have been rude. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The Google hits I get for these phrases are fewer than what Dharmadhyaksha is reporting, and I don't know how many of the "go on floors" hits are referring to floor wax. But regardless of popularity, there is the more important aspect of suitability of tone and universal comprehension which was not addressed by the concise user. The word "doesn't" has 448,000,000 Google hits, but we typically avoid contractions in encyclopedic writing, for example. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, "started production" is more universally understood by English speakers around the world than is "on floors", and should be the preferred usage. BollyJeff | talk 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
We have something like Template:Indian English. We can add that template on all Indian film related articles. That should probably solve the problem of sudden trauma the readers might face by reading about floors. We dedicatedly preserve American and British forms of English but devotedly also try to curb other forms. What's so wrong if some readers don't understand what the term means? They can look it up somewhere. Maybe we can create a redirect of these terms to Filmmaking. Am sure a vast majority of the Indian readers, which is not a small negligible count, today won't understand the Latin term "a priori" used in today's FA blurb. And the case is not such that the phrase is spilling out onto other article. Its common to use it in Indian English media (demonstrated by Google hits) and so it is used likewise in India related articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You are proposing the use of a template that attempts to explain minor writing variations, such as "colour, realise, analyse" from (perhaps America's) "color, realize, analyze". The fact that Indian articles use completely different slang is of no importance to us, because we shouldn't be using slang in articles anyway. I think this is the third time I've expressed this idea. Articles must be accessible universally, so terminology must be universally understood. For example, we do our best at WikiProject Television to avoid usage of the seasons "Summer, Spring, Winter, Fall/Autumn" when announcing new TV series, because, per WP:SEASON Summer in the Southern Hemisphere occurs at a different time from Summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Yeah, we could create a template to explain the disparity, or we could change the usage to something more encyclopedic, and to something more internationally friendly, like by using "July 2014" or "third quarter 2014" instead of "Summer 2014". Likewise, with "go on floors" we could change that to a more encyclopedic statement that is more universally understood and doesn't require additional research, like "began production". I respectfully propose that your option is not a rational solution, as proper encyclopedic English should be the default, be it USA-flavored, UK-flavored, or India-flavored, but I think also that you must first demonstrate that "go on floors" is proper encyclopedic Indian-English. I believe you are at a major disadvantage in this regard, especially with the glaring lack of reliable sources for Indian Cinema.
As for your example with a priori, that is a Latin term, as you likely know, and Latin is universally understood as a root language of all the world's Romance languages from Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese etc, which also heavily influenced English, and is commonly used presently in Medicine and in Law, so its use is not quite as trivial as your argument for the slang usage of "go on floors". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Blockbuster" status

Hi, I've gone through all the "List of Bollywood films of YYYY" articles and removed from the summary tables at the top any mention of "Verdict" or "Blockbuster/Super-Hit/Hit/etc". I have no idea why people keep adding this promotional tripe as if they were facts, but I strongly believe the addition of this nonsense gives undue weight to the opinion of one entity, since it is probably one entity that arrives at these unencylopedic, subjective verdicts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." I believe that the verdicts of Box Office India, if used as a source in Indian Cinema articles, should be allowed because they are considered a prominent source in the field. It is hardly accurate to say that their views are in the minority. Do you think that that they are incorrect to say that some highest-grossing film was a blockbuster and that this goes against the general view of the public majority? Now, if they said that the lowest-grossing film was a blockbuster, that would be a minority view. BollyJeff | talk 15:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bollyjeff, one source does not a majority make, but I understand your point. If we disagree about whether or not WP:UNDUE is the correct governing policy, I hope we can at least agree that these are POV statements. These assertions are almost always presented as facts rather than as opinions, are virtually never attributed to the one source (BOI?) that makes these claims, and are usually prominently placed as if BOI's voice were the only voice. This, to me, is not inconsistent with WP:UNDUE. As a parallel in the world of Western film, we would never say "Brad Pitt's 2014 movie Fury was fresh!" simply because Rotten Tomatoes dubbed it so, and I doubt we would ever include a "Verdict: Fresh/Rotten" column in any well-patrolled article. WikiProject Film is even opposed to summary statements like "The movie received generally positive reviews". So "verdict" is unencyclopedic, inconsistent with WikiProject expectations, it's not attributed to a specific voice, and it serves to elevate the film using inappropriate promotional language. Why would we ever, in a summary column, include the opinion of only one source as the de facto conclusion of a film's success/failure? Further, there are major trust issues with any source that reports box office totals, what with rampant corruption and dubious inflations/deflations of grosses. Less than a year ago, Times of India stopped reporting box office totals for this reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't exactly see that consensuses are discouraged in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response. In fact, it says "...using best judgment to determine consensus." Anyway, I understand your concern, but apparently these "verdicts" are much more important to the Indian readers than for Hollywood films. That is why you keep seeing them added. They appear in some FAs as well, so it can't be that bad. I agree removing them when unsourced, but its gong to be a tough job keeping them out, and I think that they can be useful when properly sourced and used in moderation. BollyJeff | talk 18:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it'll only be a tough job keeping them out if a standard isn't maintained, and if regular editors allow them to remain. As for WT:FILM, most of the discussions about summaries are in the WikiProject archives, for example here and here. Indian readers may find value to the verdicts, but we shouldn't lower standards to cater to their unencylopedic interests. As you know, we are not here to promote films, we are not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are not a replacement for IMDb, but we are here to present objective, neutral content that can be properly sourced, and that has some academic merit. "Verdict: Blockbuster" has no academic merit that I can discern. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If several newspaper/reliable sources call the film "hit" or "superhit", do you think it will be ok to use that?
The reason why the website Box Office India is used (as opposed to any of the other websites) is that during a past discussion (I forgot which one, probably one FAC of an Indian film article), someone asked the validity/reliability of such film trade websites. We were able to show that Box office India has been used as a source in scholarly publications several times. So, we decided to stick to Box Office India.
Also, if a film became hit or super-hit (or unpopular or flop), that is an encyclopedic information about the film. Indeed one of the main reasons producers make films is to make money, so I believe it is not only appropriate, but useful to have the trade info. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain with objective rationale what "hit" means? What about "super-hit"? "Blockbuster"? Flop? At least fluffy, promotional statements like "100 crore club" can be quantified and verified (sometimes, if you believe the source). But "hit" is subjective, and all those other shades of subjective language aren't any more helpful. There are major problems with the way Bollywood film articles are written, and many of those problems come from the fact that there are so few reliable sources. I'm a little confused why this isn't more serious to the Indian cinema task force, and why the task force doesn't seem too interested to bring Bollywood articles up to the level of Western film articles. It seems to me that many of these film articles are simply extensions of the poorly written blogs upon which most of the information is based. These are still films, and they are still subject to MOS:FILM. If it is the aim to write encyclopedic articles about these films, then I think we need to cut the promotional language and start writing articles properly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that there is no definition of hit, superhit, flop etc. These are totally subjective terms. The best solution would have been numerical figures of the film's production cost and revenue earned. Unfortunately, there is hardly any transparent data available on Indian films in these regards (cost and earning).
Since there is lack of objective data, many such films are described as hit, flop etc, sourced to reliable sources (such as newspapers), including the website Box Office India (which, I admit, is a rather arbitrary choice, but backed by the rationale that this website has been used in scholarly publications).
I just read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Box_office. It mentions, " Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why, but editors should avoid drawing their own conclusions about the success or failure of the film." We lack objective sources in Indian films. In that case, isn't it ok to depend on subjective sources (well-circulated newspapers, magazine etc)? If not, I am unable to think about an alternative way (a weak alternative could be the length of theatrical run n first release; again, difficult to get transparent data for Indian films, especially older ones). If we do not mention any such things, the important aspect of the film's popularity/business will be missed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the lack of clear data from problematic sources necessitates, or even allows for, the use of subjective content as an alternative. If data can't reliably be attributed it should be omitted, not replaced with weak subjective content. If the reliable source doesn't explain the meaning of its verdicts, how can anyone determine the academic utility of the verdicts? At best, such subjective content could be included in a film's Reception section as we would do with any reliable reviewer, but we would preface such statements with "Box Office India declared XYZ film as a 'Blockbuster' based on profits of $10,000,000 against a budget of $1,000,000." But as you note, if the data isn't available to explain the review to readers, what good is it? And surely one source's opinion shouldn't be presented in the lead as a fact the way I see it so often. Since Wikipedia is increasingly becoming a venue for companies and ventures to try to promote their products and projects, I think we really need to take a hard look at the flimsy content we allow in articles, especially in the Wild West of Bollywood cinema, where reliable sources are scant, yet so many fly-by-night editors are intent to promote, promote, promote, or cut down the competition. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not aware of any other articles covering national cinema labelling films as "blockbsuters", "hits", flops etc. The problem here is that the labels are being treated as factual data where this doesn't seem to be the case. For example, the criteria for Crystal Films, Golden Films, Platinum Films and Diamond Film are objective and define an actual standard, but this isn't true of the Indian labels. I think it would be acceptable to include these judgments as part of box-office analysis where they can be attributed accordingly, but I agree with removing them from tables which include hard factual data. Betty Logan (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I am okay with that assessment. BollyJeff | talk 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. Those epithets can be removed from tables. In reception/box office section of individual films (and perhaps in the articles of actors etc), those terms can be used with proper attribution.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Assistance request

Kannada films in need of eyes to add and/or translate sources. If you can help, please look in.

Midida Hrudayagalu] (1993) (ಮಿಡಿದ ಹೃದಯಗಳು)
Mojugara Sogasugara (1995) (ಮೋಜುಗಾರ ಸೊಗಸುಗಾರ)
and a whole series of stubs on the late Vishnuvardhan's films need help.
Seethe Alla Savithri (1973)
Shrimanthana Magalu (1977)
Shani Prabhava (1977)
Chinna Ninna Muddaduve (1977)
Bayasade Banda Bhagya (1977)
Sandharbha (1978)
Sose Tanda Soubhagya (1977)
Nagara Hole (1977)
Hosilu Mettida Hennu (1976)
Nee Thanda Kanike (1985)
Anna Attige (1974)
Onde Roopa Eradu Guna (1975)

I believe that through WP:OEN and WP:INDAFD notability can be established, but I do not have the language skills. Please assist. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Creation of many Kannada film stubs

Hello fans of Indian film! A discussion is taking place at the admin noticeboard where you people may have some useful input: Noyster (talk), 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at PK (film)

Hey guys PK (film) is a pretty high-profile article in need of rational editors, preferably ASAP. I'm currently dealing with a couple of users (one has been indeffed) who are filling up the Critical response section with (in my opinion) excessive accolades from politicians and filmmakers, and it's kinda starting to reek of the usual Bollywood promotional fluff. See this current discussion I don't particularly care if my perspective is right or wrong, only that the article is brought up to normal Wikipedia standards. It would be appreciated if you'd please add the article to your watchlists and participate in the discussions. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I did try removing the excessive quotes from politicians and filmmakers only to be accused of political conspiracy. I gave up to avoid an edit war, but I can try again, given that the user has now been blocked. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oneindia.com

Discussion regarding the reliability of Oneindia.com is going at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oneindia.com. Please voice your opinions.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources and our resources

We all have seen lengthy discussions happening about whether a particular source is reliable or not. If we have a proper resources section on our Project page then there will be no need of these discussions which consume so much time.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What we can include

--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a good list. Remember though, as noted above, verdicts from BOI must be attributed, and not used liberally or taken as fact. BollyJeff | talk 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more:

-- If these are all approved, we should add them somewhere on the project's home page. BollyJeff | talk 00:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

These are all good. I can add some more:

I agree, it will be good to have a consolidated list of these names on the project main page. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Film has a unique Resources page at WP:FILM/R where this info is kept. Not saying that your idea isn't a good one, just pointing out an existing, comparable resource. Since you are all more familiar with these sources than I am, it would be very helpful if task force members might try to guide other users as to which resources are best for what type of information. For example, at WP:TVFAQ there is an attempt to list sources that might be decent for TV viewership information. One thing that is very problematic with Bollywood articles is the box office gross reliability, and as I have pointed out a few times (courtesy of TRPoD) Times of India stopped reporting box office totals because of rampant corruption. So a spotlight kind of needs to be shone on these "reliable sources" and discussion should occur to determine whether they are, in fact, reliable, instead of just unilaterally saying that they are reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot remember exactly why, but in the past the answer has been "no" on these two. BollyJeff | talk 10:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are some potentials for the un-reliable category:

Koimoi is being heavily used at PK (film), which is a pretty high profile film right now. Although many of the Koimoi references have been replaced with Rentrak refs, they seem to come and go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
IndiaGlitz's reliability is being discussed at WP:RSN#IndiaGlitz.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
And, Behindwoods.com's reliability was discussed recently, but the discussion attracted very little attention and had been archived here. -- Sriram speak up 12:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it is unnecessary to list all these. The reliability of all print sources (newspapers, magazines and journals that are available in hard print) are unquestionable. It is the web sources that need to be looked into. -- Sriram speak up 12:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Oneindia.in and Koimoi's reliability should be discussed at WP:RSN.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Shailendra, you can open a discussion there and invite people for comments. The only way to fix this issue once and for all is to consider the views of various editors and arrive at a consensus. -- Sriram speak up 12:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan Peer review

I would appreciate feedeback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive1. BollyJeff | talk 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is closed, but I may open a second one in the future. BollyJeff | talk 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Second PR is open here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive2. BollyJeff | talk 22:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV eyes needed at Badlapur (film)

Hi, I could use some NPOV eyes at Badlapur (film). I'm noticing some odd behavior in the critical response section, for example. I'm trying to present neutral reviews that highlight the good and bad, (the complaint of misogyny has come up a few times) but I have noticed that one recent addition was curiously pushed down with a large block of chatty, essentially irrelevant (and improperly formatted) text. There are other matters that I believe I explain in my recent edit summaries there. Since my biggest interest is that we don't let COI editors promote, I'd like to get more balanced eyes there if you have time. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard: cinechicken.com

Hi there, I've opened a discussion at RSN about whether or not cinechicken.com, a RottenTomatoes copycat review aggregator for Bollywood films, could be considered a reliable source. The link is here and I invite you all to participate! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Common name vs married name

While actresses such as Rani Mukerji and Vidya Balan continue to use their birth name after marriage, others including Kareena Kapoor and Aishwarya Rai use their married names Kareena Kapoor Khan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, respectively. Wikipedia policy tells us to use their common name when naming their articles, but almost all media outlets are now addressing Kapoor and Rai by their married names. Recently, Scalhotrod changed Kapoor's article name back to her birth name. Is that a convention we should follow, or do we continue addressing them by their married names? I believe this calls for a vote to avoid conflicts in the future. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If all media outlets call them by their married name, and it appears that way in recent film credits, then it has become their common name. BollyJeff | talk 12:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no stake in this one way or the other, but I became involved when the Kareena Kapoor article came up on the Special:PendingChanges list. I noticed that it had been moved, but no other care was taken to update the rest of the article. Sloppy editing like this is usually a sign of edit warring, which has been the case on and off on the Kapoor article, again via observation of its appearances on the Pending Changes list. If someone wants to update the entire article and source it properly, not just its title and Infobox, that would be a welcome change. One comment though, if most not just the most recent available sourced refer to her by her maiden name, then her married name is not common yet and this is a case of WP:RECENTISM and patience is prudent. Many actresses do not change their name after marriage because of the name recognition they have earned. As it stands now, the article lists BOTH names and there is a redirect at her married name. Readers will not be mislead nor will they not find the article if searching for it. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Suppose sources indicate that a person wishes to be called by one name vs another. Then what do we do? BollyJeff | talk 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's similar to what happened with the Ayyan (model) article. There is a source that states that she wants to be referred to by Ayyan only and that is stated in the article, but it includes both the single name and her full name. And as per WP:MOS, her surname is used in the body of the content. There was even some short term edit warring to delete any mention of her last name.
In this instance, if there are sources that support your claim and article is to be moved back to Kareena Kapoor Khan, almost every instance of the use of "Kapoor" in the article needs to be changed to "Khan" for consistency with the MOS. As well as the change being cited and explained somewhere in the article body. The associated redirect will still exist and since Kapoor has simply amended her name by adding on "Khan", it will not matter with regard to searching. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
But why refer to her as simply Khan and not Kapoor Khan? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Either way, the article needs to be gone through and corrected for the change. If the article is moved to Kareena Kapoor Khan, then each instance the subject is mentioned needs to be changed to "Kapoor Khan" or just "Khan". I really don't care which, but per the WP:MOS, it needs to be consistent. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Often when people get married they incorporate their maiden name as their middle name. Can we say for sure that Kapoor is part of her last name, or has it become her middle name? This is less ambiguous when people hyphenate, i.e. if she were called Kapoor-Khan like Wendi McLendon-Covey, Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting and Sir Mix-a-Lot (kidding!) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt it's her middle name now. If we agree, then I can change the article name to Kareena Kapoor Khan, and uniformly refer to her as Kapoor Khan. Also, in the Aishwarya Rai Bachchan article, I'll have to change every occurrence to Rai Bachchan. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge at peer review

Please comment at: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dilwale_Dulhania_Le_Jayenge/archive1 BollyJeff | talk 13:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

1987 5th Damascus International Film Festival

There is an Indian actor who shared Best Actor at the 1987 5th Damascus International Film Festival. The actor's name in Arabic is transliterated as ماهو شود هوري (Mhw Shwd Hwry), the film's name is translated as رجل وامرأة (man & woman). I think the surname is probably a variation of Chaudhry, but as I'm unfamiliar with Indian cinema does anyone know which film and actor? If so, please edit the page, tia. Timmyshin (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: Based on your info, I think the film was Aadmi Aur Aurat, a television film. The actress was Mahua Roychoudhury. I don't know if it's the correct spelling but it's what the wikipedia article is called. Hope that helps. Cowlibob (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for your info, I believe it's indeed the film but according to the event website [1] this actor is supposed to be a man, that's very strange. Maybe the awards got the names mixed up. Timmyshin (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this disruptive user sound familiar to you?

Hey all, I've opened an ANI report about a disruptive IP editor who tends to curse a lot and leave a lot of really incivil edit summaries. The editor also tends to force POV by deleting sources that he objects to, and he also engages in edit warring. The level of his hostility is somewhat odd, which is why I'm thinking he's been around for a while, maybe as a sock operator. If his behavior sounds familiar, please lemme know here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cyphoidbomb, could you be more specific. You're describing so many Users, I'm really not sure who you are referring to... ;) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, Scalhotrod I appreciate the commiseration. :) Though we have all had trouble with pissy editors, this guy should be recognizable because he *starts* edits with aggressive edit summaries. For instance here where he starts making changes with "who the fucking bastard changes it from 608 to 650 crore?? is this film produced by your father?? bloody assholes...anyone wats to change it again can kiss my ass...middle finger ovation to all.." Like, whooooooaaa, Sport, let's just eaaaase into it... I'm tempted to think that he might be related to Jackthomas321, who made a complete spectacle of himself after he initiated a misogynistic rant about me, without realizing that I'm a dude. But I'm not sure. I was mostly wondering if this specific behavior was memorable, because there are tons of paid editors and sock assholes out there working the Bollywood Wikipedia scene, but I guess not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ohhhhh boy, you got yourself a winner in that one. Makes me appreciate the "relative civility" of the ones I deal with... Hollar if I can lend a hand or be a fresh set of eyeballs. By the way, Admin Drmies particularly enjoys "addressing" Users who use such colorful Edit summaries. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards

Proposal to remove the Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards from all Indian film articles. As it would affect a number of articles, I would like to establish consensus before going forward with it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support as requester. These awards are determined by an internet poll of the viewers of a particular website. The website concerned say that they do lots of checks such as IP, email, cookie verification to make sure it's one person for each vote [[2]] but it's still an internet poll. The awards currently do not have a separate article on wikipedia and I think it will be unlikely to have one as the awards are to my knowledge only discussed on the website which awards them and not in any secondary sources so aren't notable. Cowlibob (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90, Shshshsh, Bollyjeff, Ssven2, Vensatry, and Dr. Blofeld: Pinging some regular contributors to Indian cinema articles. Cowlibob (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I would tend to support on the basis that if there is no article on the award, the award has not yet been determined to be notable. The fact that it is an internet poll also gives me pause. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What about IBN Live movie awards? They are still in Ranaut's FL. If you are saying that other does not talk abouit BHSCA then, how can someone ask me to remove Hello Hall of Fame Awards, which are covered very much by Indian media.—Prashant 16:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This RFC is only about this particular award. The IBN one which I wasn't aware of till now looks to be also an internet poll which is only covered by IBN and not secondary sources so could also potentially be removed as non-notable as well but that's for another discussion. The "Hello" awards are a completely different issue and you should discuss that on your FLC not here.

Anyone can create thatarticle. That's not a big deal. Is it?—Prashant 16:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

For an article to be created, it should really meet WP:GNG so no it's not as simple as just creating it as if you were to, it would most probably be deleted as not notable. Cowlibob (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Prashant It's only part of it. If notability hasn't been established, the award can't be assumed to be notable. The second important aspect (which is lost in my poorly phrased reply above) has to do with the fact that it's an internet poll. We don't, for example, care about IMDb user ratings, because it is an internet poll. We don't care about Rotten Tomatoes user ratings, because it is an internet poll. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support per requester. I have never heard of this Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards. BollyJeff | talk 16:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any problem in removing these awards. I didn't add Chopra's nomination from IBN Live for Mary Kom. But, I didn't think about the BH awards. Now, I know it is same as IBN Live.—Prashant 17:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – Not because I'm hearing it for the first time. While the arguments about the reliability of Bollywood Hungama as a source seems to be a never ending one, I see no point in having these non-notable awards. —Vensatry (ping) 19:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - per above. Shahid • Talk2me 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I support removing it as well, if we unanimously agree to not include internet polls to any awards page. I agree with Cyphoidbomb, the notability of BH or IBN is not the question here, but the fact that online polls, no matter from what source, shouldn't be listed among other notable awards. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to expand the scope of this RFC to cover all such internet polls being barred from being included in awards pages/sections in Indian film articles as this has gained significant backing. Cowlibob (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Support -- Summoned here by bot. I support the removal of it as well, like many have previously said. The award is not a notable subject yet as it does not have an article on Wikipedia. In addition, it is based off of an internet poll, which is questionable. I am in agreement with all suggestions made above. Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Roshan014

FYI for anyone who has worked with Roshan014, he was found to be operating a sock account, Aleena Afrah. He's been blocked for a week and the sock account has been indeffed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Small awards list

I was looking at some of the Bollywood's list of awards and nominations and found so many unnecessary awards list such as of Tabu, Urmila Matondkar, Asin, Anil Kapoor and lots more. These list have few awards listed. I don't think these pages are neccesary. I think they should be merged with their parent article or in the filmography like Kangana Ranaut (awards and role). Lot of western articles are like that, they put all the awards in the biography page itself. @Bollyjeff, Ssven2, Vensatry, Kailash29792, and Cowlibob: What you all have to say about this?—Prashant 11:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a consensus or guideline somewhere saying how big the list should be before it needs its own article? BollyJeff | talk 12:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You should see Reasons for merging.—Prashant 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I looked at some of the lists that you mentioned, and I think they are okay. Having their own article lets them list all of the awards, whereas the main articles are listing only Filmfare and National awards by consensus. It would be nice to have some short introduction text before the awards link for those actors though. BollyJeff | talk 14:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Parineeti Chopra's awards are also listed in the biography page. If you see Emma Watson's page, her awards and nominations are listed in the same page.—Prashant 14:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
We should also consider WP:SPLIT as many of these were probably forked from their parent articles. I don't think we should have a hard and fast limit of how many awards/ nominations would need a separate article but a case by case consideration. Could this particular awards article be reasonably incorporated back into the parent article as one table? Would adding the awards table diminish the parent article's readability significantly? That's what should be considered. Cowlibob (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: I think they should be included in the awards nomination section of parent article much like Parineeti Chopra, Emma Watson.—Prashant 12:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid that if we do this, then all of the junk awards will be put into every main article, which there is currently a consensus against (at least in the filmography tables). Many western actor's articles look bad because of the many minor awards listed there. Do we want to emulate that? I think it would be better to move the awards table from Parineeti Chopra into a separate article. It is becoming the major feature of the article at this point, with close to half of the sources devoted to it. BollyJeff | talk 12:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What about award pages of films. I see films with just a handful of awards (that too most of them being minor ones) are forked-out of the parent articles with the sole intention of being taken to the FLC. @Dr. Blofeld, Bollyjeff, and Dwaipayanc: any thoughts? —Vensatry (ping) 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have any thoughts, except to say that this project sees very little participation lately, which is sad. BollyJeff | talk 01:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1

The 1957 Telugu film Mayabazar is the first Telugu film to be attempted for FA class. Please feel free to post your comments at the article's peer review to make things at FA more smoother. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Arab Indo Bollywood Awards

This year, a UAE-based Bollywood awards show, titled Arab Indo Bollywood Awards, was organised (see this). I'm starting this decision to decipher whether the ceremony is notable enough to warrant inclusion in award lists? Cowlibob, what do you think? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: The standard we have over at Wikiproject Film is that for awards shows they should be notable enough to have their own article and therefore should meet GNG to be mentioned in other articles. I think these awards will meet that however I don't have the sources to hand right now, anything which discusses the ceremony in depth more than just mentioning who won from independent sources would suffice. There's no question that the Middle East is a huge market for Bollywood. Although we do have to be careful. Much of the coverage will be from Middle Eastern sources which are predominantly state controlled and therefore have a conflict of interest. Cowlibob (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Tamil cinema task force

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Tamil cinema task force. Someone please help expand it. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Koimoi.com discussion

I started a discussion at RSN at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Koimoi. Also, we could use some help at List of highest-grossing Indian films in particular in fleshing out the highest grossing films in the smaller markets. Given two current hit films, and massive constant fighting on the pages and at WP:AN and WP:ANI, the page keep getting protected (fully with the talk page semi) to stop the nonsense over the daily reports of box office results. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Boxofficeindia.com

According to this discussion, boxofficeindia.com should be considered a reliable source. However, an editor has brought this up again at WP:RSN (and I've listed Boxofficeindia.com for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India (2nd nomination). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the classification of Indian films

There's an RFC about how to classify the film Baahubali (Tamil and/or Telugu) at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#RfC:_How_should_we_classify_Baahubali. I hope this task force may be able to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging everyone here again. We could use more views there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

RM: The Notebook (2004 film) → The Notebook

An RM that affects this project is currently taking place. Interested editors may wish to discuss here. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Community discussion about how to use "starring" parameter of film infobox.

Hi all, this is a topic that affects anyone who edits in the realm of Indian cinema. There is a community discussion underway for how to use the |starring= parameter of Template:Infobox film. For a while, the WikiProject Film community has been referring to the billing block of theatrical posters for this information. (For example in this poster we would extract Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne and Douglas Booth, and add that to |starring=.) I have pointed out that Indian cinema doesn't typically format their movie posters the way Western films do, for example Drishyam's poster cares about whomever took the still photos, but doesn't care about listing starring roles. I have also heard that Indian films don't always even list starring roles in the credits. So the big issue is: how do we determine who is "starring" in the film? Starring, after all, is a special credit and does not mean the same thing as "appearing in". If you have any opinions or suggestions, I strongly urge you to participate in this discussion as it will affect Indian film articles. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cinechicken revisited

@Ryk72, BollyJeff, Ravensfire, NinjaRobotPirate, Tsavage, TheRedPenOfDoom, and CosmicEmperor:

Hey all, sorry for the obnoxious mass ping, but I wanted to touch base with all of you, since most of you commented at the RSN with regard to whether or not Cinechicken should be considered a reliable source. (Cosmic, I'm pinging you b/c I saw your removal at PK) Based on my interpretation of the discussion here it seems that although many of us "want to believe" in a Bollywood critical response aggregator because it just might make our lives easier, Cinechicken just isn't quite there yet, as they are not yet established as reputable, and there are other oddities about their site that make them a little sketchy, for instance, when you search for a film, you're redirected to Facebook and asked to give Cinechicken permission to access your account.

  • Cinechicken - So is the consensus that Cinechicken, for now, is not a reliable source?
  • Sahi Nahi - Any thoughts about [https://www.sahinahi.com/ Sahi Nahi]?

Thanks to all who have commented and who will comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Cinechicken

Agreed, not reliable. BollyJeff | talk 01:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sahi Nahi

  • The website is more functional than Cinechicken. Looking at [https://www.sahinahi.com/movie/Badlapur/0168ef4c-0d36-4114-8e25-db0350f88617 Badlapur], I notice that the site doesn't really rate each review the way RottenTomatoes does. (ex: Here when you hover over a tomato or a splat, you can see a rating of some kind, be it "C" or "3/5" or "3.5/4", etc.) Like Rotten Tomatoes the site seems to focus on pass/fail, rather than shades in between. Their calculation methodology [https://www.sahinahi.com/Home/About isn't quite clear], but neither is RT's or Metacritics, I believe. It's also not clear from that page who's running the site, so I don't know what their editorial standards might be. Whatever we decide about this site, I hope we're all in agreement that under no circumstances should a film be "declared Sahi!" or "declared Nahi!" in articles, right? We're all on that page? I also notice that this site is using that ridiculous "[https://www.sahinahi.com/movie/PK/cd959375-a2d0-4698-a0ba-ae7f00d222fb Verdict: Super-Hit]" bullshit that is the bane of my existence... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems better than the above, but it should only be used with attribution such as: "On review aggregator Sahi Nahi, this film scored xxx based on yy reviews." BollyJeff | talk 01:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. Agreed with your reasoning. WikiProject Film generally also does not include the cutesy "rotten/fresh" verdicts, so similarly we shouldn't be describing films with that "blockbuster status" stuff. I think we're in agreement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I have used the format for the recently released Piku here. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
How do you determine "expertise" in the field? All this website does is aggregate the reviews. What "expertise" do you expect? Coderzombie (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Coderzombie, that's exactly my point. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. Who are they selecting as representative reviewers? Based on what criteria? How do they decide how much to weight each source? without any of this information or any knowledge of the expertise and background of the people doing it, its merely another non reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If you don't know who the representative reviewers are, how do you come to the conclusion that they are unreliable? Quite a contradictory statement to make. As for the rest of your questions, read Cyphoidbomb's comment above, especially this: "Their calculation methodology [https://www.sahinahi.com/Home/About isn't quite clear], but neither is RT's or Metacritics, I believe". --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

TheReviewMonk

@Cyphoidbomb and Krimuk90:

  • Hi, could you please consider "TheReviewMonk" as a reliable source for providing a critic aggregate score for Indian films? For example, you can take a look at Piku Reviews. We have been around for 2 years now and only consider reviews from reputable publications. We maintain profiles for the critics, cast & crew and finally users (Eg. Rajeev Masand) and recently started expanding into regional films. We also had official media partnership with Indian Film Festivals in Los Angeles and New York this year. We were featured on NextBigWhat, YahooSmallBusiness and TechiBuzz. I am the founder/developer of the website and am open to feedback and suggestions from the community. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphicitis7 (talk • contribs)
Hi there, I'm not clear on what makes your site different from SahiNahi, for instance. Are these reputable publications using your site as a reference themselves? That is, are media outlets referring to this site for information the same way western media refers to Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes? Also, what is different about this site's methodology from that of CineChicken and SahiNahi, or any other start-up aggregator? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for your reply. You ask a very valid question. If your criteria of assessment is 'massive popularity' akin to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, then it is quite apparent that none of the Indian websites, including ours, fit the bill. We are not backed by any big names or associated with any for-profit organizations. If you want to make a qualitative assessment of reliability, then it becomes a different discussion. Answering specifically about the difference in our methodology, you can take a look at the review excerpts on our website as opposed to SahiNahi's. We read each review and hand-pick these excerpts. Our scoring system is also more accurate (it's not merely 'yes' or 'no'), but i don't think that matters here. You can also consider the following:
  • a) We do have citations from reputable institutions/people - IFFLA, Film Critic Aseem Chhabra
    b) Higher Alexa ranking
    c) If you google search any Indian critic, we are ranked pretty high in the results (usually top 2 hits)
    d) We have had no marketing, but have become known in independent film circles, and were recently invited to provide media coverage at Indian film festivals in the US. (Nagesh Kukunoor Interview).
    e) Quality user reviews
    f) Android App with high rating on google store.
Having mass reach and other media outlets quoting us, is a chicken and egg problem, and in my experience, it can take many years to establish that kind of reputation. We can only differentiate ourselves by striving to maintain a high level of quality and accuracy, and provide a good user experience. Graphicitis7 (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
and once that well earned reputation has been established, then we will consider utilizing the site. not before. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Box office totals are estimates

I know that we don't always all agree on everything, but am I safe in assuming that generally speaking, we're all in agreement that box office totals for films are estimates? Anyone who's had the pleasure of editing at Indian film articles knows that there's a lot of shady crap going on, with a lot of IPs, new users, paid editors and sockpuppets going out of their way to find higher and higher box office figures, sometimes on an hourly basis. While I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of these movie companies are using Wikipedia as part of their marketing strategy. What's also a bit troubling to me is that we're using many of these values (which again are estimates) to propagate articles like List of highest-grossing Indian films. I'm starting to think that it might make sense to mark gross values like |gross= with the {{Estimation}} template to make it clear that the values are not to be taken as gospel. (Ex: est. ₹22 crore.) In my mind it's also somewhat of a bold statement against people who are trying to market their films via box office values. As TheRedPenOfDoom once articulated more elegantly than I am about to: the gross values represent each site's proprietary art of estimating box values. Koimoi's estimate is no better than Times of India's estimate, they're just different, and we might want to consider making it clear that they represent guesses. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: I think this is a great idea. We all know that no source, be it Box Office India or Bollywood Hungama or any other reliable newspaper, offers 100% accurate information about a film's earning. By using {{Estimation}}, we will be making it clear to our users/readers that we don't have any accurate information regarding the total gross.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - I fully agree on this. Tolly4bolly 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - I agree with you all. Kaayay (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - Support indeed. I don't agree with TheRedPenOfDoom 99% of the times, but this is 1% Coderzombie (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
support when the major national newspaper specifically drops its box office reporting column because it cannot accurately tally [3] and BOI [4] also states that its figures are estimates ( see their definition of "footfalls" and "adjusted nett gross" for how estimate they are!- they take reports of income to make estimates the number of tickets then use estimates of the number of tickets to calculate the gross we should be clear that we are presenting estimates. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Support. I try to stay away from Indian box office disputes. But if this helps, I'm all for it. I don't think it will do much to end promotion from SPAs, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You're correct that it won't help to end promotion, but it will help readers understand that these numbers are not facts, which may have some lasting effect. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - Box office figures are clearly estimates, and should be presented as such, and attributed to the estimator. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting a "requirement" of in text attribution, not just the name inside the footnote?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi TRPoD, Many thanks for your question. I think a "requirement" is perhaps too strong. I do suggest a guideline or preference for in text attribution where the estimate is in the article text. I think it likely unwieldy to attribute in Infoboxes, but do suggest that the field there should be for "estimated box office" figures. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - I agree with Cyphoidbomb's idea. Similar things happen with the films' budgets as well. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment:I ran into some resistance here with the explanation "All collections in India are estimates." However, the entire world does not know this, and that's who these articles are for. Also, if all collections in India are estimates, why is everybody clamoring to find the newest, highest estimate? The film editing community tends to use Box Office Mojo as the go-to source rather than relying on the speculation of a dozen different news sites (and blogs blogs blogs!) Occasionally we'll see the use of the-numbers.com (which often deviates from BOM's reports) or if BOM hasn't reported yet, maybe some coverage from newspaper websites. But by and large, there's one source and that's Box Office Mojo. I'm almost of the mind that we should pick one (or maybe a few) sites we consider reliable and exclude all others. It's getting a bit ridiculous. Times of India reports one guess, then someone changes that after they find a higher guess at IBT. How are we supposed to determine who among the dozen sites has the most accurate guess? It's still a guess! I'll have to think this through, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Baahubali: The Beginning

Could use some smart editors at Talk:Baahubali: The Beginning. There is a discrepancy about the box values. (Surprise!) One editor kept removing the high 600 crore figure in favor of a 517 crore value supported by BOI, which seems deliberately pernicious. Another side of the dispute involved editors removing the low 517 crore value because they assert that BOI is not an expert in Tollywood film estimates. Admittedly, I'm not a fan of the source in part because they don't attribute the data to any specific writer, but I don't go around unilaterally deciding what is or isn't a reliable source. Anyhow, my solution was to present the gross values in the form of an estimated range, 517 crore - 600 crore, but even that has been met with resistance. I'm interested in making this problematic article stable. If you guys have some ideas for how to remedy this, please comment at the bottom of Talk:Baahubali: The Beginning. And also note that I don't mind being wrong, so long as I am wrong for the right reasons. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a misunderstanding on my part. I was not aware that BOI was not considered a reliable source, considering I've seen it used a ton without contest, and other references cite it as the source. But now I know! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Woman's Era

Hey all, I've noticed a flare-up of activity with users (for instance this one and this one) submitting WomansEra.com as a reference. I know that Arjayay has been encountering this a ton and reverting. I've opened a discussion at WP:RSN. Please participate if you know anything about this magazine. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rather than duplicating/splitting replies, please see my comments at WP:RSN - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ICTF FAQ

Hi all, today I started working on a references FAQ for this task force, which you can find at User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ. There are similar FAQs at WP:TVFAQ and WP:FILM/R, and I find them to be quite valuable, because they give us a list of suitable and unsuitable sources to point to in times of editing grief. :P One thing I think would be helpful is if we could include any Reliable Source Noticeboard discussions that may support the matter, to help other editors understand the rationale for why a source is considered reliable or not. If any of our regulars are reading this, I encourage you to improve this document, and once it gets into decent shape, we can move it into the ICTF edit space. I'll note that I'm not very good at tables, so if you have a better design than mine, feel free to improve it! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I applaud your effort. There is a big list of sources good and bad here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_5#Reliable_Sources_and_our_resources that should be used to expand this table. You may note that in it, BosOfficeIndia.com is considered reliable, which it is not in your list. This source is used everywhere in the project because it has all the numbers in one place. I know there are others who don't like it, but it has been approved over and over in discussions prior. BollyJeff | talk 17:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Bollyjeff I will point out that BOI is listed on the ICTF main page as unreliable, so if this has changed back to reliable, we need to clear up that inconsistency ASAP. I went through a battle with another editor a few weeks ago (look a few discussions earlier) where the BOI unreliability came up, so since then I've been reverting BOI additions. Obviously we need some consistency. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That was added just two months ago by Ricky81682, whoever that is. BOI is used on many GAs and FAs, that have passed scrutiny over the years; it is the best source we have. BollyJeff | talk 18:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It was based on a RSN discussion from 2008. If no further discussion has been held on the matter, it would seem that the old consensus should be held until a new one is developed. I don't particularly care either way as their estimate is no more valid than anybody else's. :) I do, however, need to be consistent since I am issuing warnings about the matter and I have the ability to block people if they're not editing per consensus. I would hate to block someone because they kept adding BOI and it turns out everybody loves BOI. That would suck. I also notice that some good sites (I just saw one today--maybe Times of India?) cite BOI for their box data. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure there is one since 2008, just haven't found it yet. Here is something similar from just a month ago: [5]. If I find any more RSNs, I will post them. BollyJeff | talk 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well now that's interesting—there are two Box Office Indias. www.boxofficeindia.co.in and www.boxofficeindia.com. That presents some ambiguities when a reliable source says "Source: Box Office India". Which do they mean? Yet another stupid problem for an overworked task force to figure out... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com: At the end of this very long discussion from 2008, the last word is "I will concede the point", meaning that it is reliable. BollyJeff | talk 00:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Was Raakh (2010 film) ever released?

Hello. I have started a topic in the article talk page but I doubt many people will see it, so posting here as well. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

IndianTelevision.com awards - significant or not?

This is an issue that came up at WP:COIN#Imaginationcolors sockfarm cleanup. Various articles were created for awards given by "IndianTelevision.com". Sockpuppets and SPAs were involved, which is why it came up at WP:COIN. The question is whether "IndianTelevision.com" awards are significant. Is IndianTelevision.com a reliable source? Are those award articles worth keeping, or is this just some web site promoting itself on Wikipedia? Comments? John Nagle (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi John Nagle, I don't have much time at present to look into this, but I notice that the site has been around since at least 2001. As to whether or not they are considered reliable, that we should care about their opinions, I don't know yet. Will look a little closer later, and I hope other community members do as well. (Cricket! Cricket!) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

AFD: Andria D'Souza

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andria D'Souza - Indian cinema actor. May have 2 lead roles in her filmography. Does that qualify for WP:NACTOR? Discuss! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Result - no consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested pages list

Is there a requested pages list for this task force? Something like all winners of the National Film Awards or something? I was wondering because I would have remarked that someone else already started Draft:Waman Bhonsle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I see there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/List of films without article/List of missing Indian Films. Would anyone object to creating an actual requested articles page and adding people? The list of all films alphabetically is ok I guess but I'd rather organize things like missing National Film Award for Best Children's Film and create a drive or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Telugu cinema task force

Was anyone here aware that a Telugu cinema task force was created by a relatively inexperienced editor? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Telugu cinema task force. I'm of the opinion that the page should be deleted, since it was created without discussion and would only serves to de-unify the Indian cinema task force into individual languages. Doesn't seem like a great idea. We need all the unified help we can get. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. BollyJeff | talk 00:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There also exists Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Tamil cinema task force. I had created it with the intention of organising Tamil film articles and to differentiate them from the overrated Bollywood articles, but the task force may be deleted if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't think they're necessary. This task force is barely active enough as it is, I don't see anything in particular that requires a separate task force. As I asked above, all we have is a single list of missing films, I think we could work out the main films from Tamil and Telugu film industries as a way to refocus beyond "all Indian films listed at IMDB." Is there something in particular you think we should focus on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

IndiaGlitz and MSG-2

I'm having a bit of difficulty buying this source as a reliable indication of MSG2's gross take thus far. For starters, there were some shady antics regarding the first MSG's box take, and most of the recent sources I've seen about MSG2 attribute the gross to the producers, making it a primary source by proxy. This article is vague about where the information is coming from. "After 8 weeks, ‘MSG-2 The Messenger’ has reportedly collected Rs.415.30 Crores in gross." Reportedly? By whom? I thought the reliable sources did their own estimates. And while the main ICTF page indicates that IndiaGlitz is considered reliable, there's no information about who runs the site or how they get their information. I think this warrants re-discussion. Anyone have any thoughts on any of these points? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That old RSN was concluded rather abruptly, and I had been told in past article reviews that IndiaGltiz was not reliable. I personally avoid using it. BollyJeff | talk 18:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we should re-evaluate it. I agree that it's questionable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Tamasha: Gross or nett ?

In case of Prem Ratan Dhan Payo , gross figures are being displayed. Should the same case be followed for the Tamasha (film) figures as well where net figures are being reported ? Need to have consistency as only net figures are used to determine how much the film actually made. --ANKMALI (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Gross and budget are typically the most important financial figures that the WikiProject Film community cares about. There are too many variables with Indian films with distributor shares (which few in Western cinema care about) and entertainment taxes, etc. and considering that even gross values are highly questionable estimates, I don't see what long-term value we're getting from all the India-specific micro-accounting, and I would question anyone who is robotically submitting this questionable information. The common argument is that "it's coming from a reliable source" but if all our reliable sources are guessing, or reporting what the production company says, then nothing is more accurate than the other thing. Frankly, I don't understand this change. If there are several estimates on Prem Ratan Dhan Payo's gross, and the estimates are from the same relative number of days, then we should be presenting the disparity of fact as a range. If gross estimates range from ₹300c to 390c, then we should indicate the difference of opinions, not just pick one reference over another because the selected data pleases us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I question whether these are reliable sources in the first place. I agree, no one cares about Hollywood accounting and how the pie is sliced. I'd agree with supporting a range based on all reliable sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nett gross?

Re: this site, I know what "gross" is in finance, i.e. the total amount pulled in, let's say. I know what "net" is in finance, i.e. what you have brought in after you subtract expenses and such. But what is "nett gross"? I see this source says that gross minus entertainment tax is nett gross. Is all we're doing there subtracting the tax and nothing else?

More importantly, we only care about raw gross, right? WikiProject Film tends to focus solely on the raw gross, which doesn't tell you how much of a profit the film made anyway. Some people erroneously think that if your gross is greater than your budget, that you made a profit. This is not true. Typically 2x the budget is considered profit territory for Western cinema because of certain backdoor deals and marketing expenses and crap like that. My point being: We still only care about the gross values for Western films even if they don't tell the whole story. I assume that we have the same attitude about Indian cinema articles, right? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

See the complexity at Bajrangi_Bhaijaan#Box_office for an example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Koimoi

I find that Koimoi is used extensively. However, I listed it as not a reliable source per this statement (not really a discussion) that it is not reliable. I brought this again here in July 2015 and with an empty RSN discussion so I just wanted to see if there's any view finding it a reliable source. In terms of news stories, it's probably easily replaceable but I think it's used quite a bit for box office figures as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

BO of all BW films

Lets keep it simple guys. BOI is the most reliable source. Only BOI accepted in the Wiki community. Lets keep it uniform across board all BW films. Koimoi and TOI and all others dont s*** abou box-office.WikiBriefed (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiBriefed There are two Box Office Indias: boxofficeindia.com and boxofficeindia.co.in, so you should probably specify that you're referring to .com Secondly, your edit summary here is inappropriate. Lets keep it simple guys. BOI is the most reliable source. Only BOI accepted in the Wiki community. Lets keep it uniform across board all BW films I'm not sure where you got the impression that you can issue edicts, but it's not your place to do so. At present, we allow the inclusion of any reliable source's box estimates, and while I think the community needs to be a little more discriminating about what references we use for film numbers, I don't think I'd support any proposal to use just one reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Cross posting this from my comment on WP:ANI. I poked around in the boxofficeindia.com site. This was the site linked in WikiBriefed various edits. I came across this in the disclaimer

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOX OFFICE INDIA AND ITS AFFILIATES DO NOT CONTROL, REPRESENT OR ENDORSE THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE AND OTHER USER AND MEMBER GENERATED PAGES AND THAT ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE, STATEMENTS, SERVICES, OFFERS OR OTHER INFORMATION OR CONTENT PRESENTED OR DISSEMINATED ON THE WEB SITE OR ON ANY OTHER USER OR MEMBER GENERATED PAGES ARE THOSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AUTHORS WHO ARE SOLELY LIABLE FOR THEIR CONTENT

.

I'd be very wary of using BOI as "most reliable source" when they don't do any fact checking of their own. This needs some examination at WP:RSN Blackmane (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiBriefed should start by reading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources where it's clear that Boxofficeindia isn't necessarily a reliable source. There have been numerous prior discussions regarding BoxofficeIndia.com. The discussions at RSN in 2008 here and in July here. Do we really need a third discussion about it? I suspect it'll be the same issue of "there's nothing we got better" (which is false) versus "we have literally no idea what's going on there" (which is true). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And frankly, the level of fanboy silliness over the website makes me wonder if it's a WP:NOTHERE problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb, Blackmane, and WikiBriefed: I've added some details to the front page about sourcing. If anyone disagrees on my interpretation of the results, feel free to edit. I think Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_5#Reliable_Sources_and_our_resources was the more useful discussion was clearly that newspapers are going to be more reliable than boxofficeindia.com which should be patently obvious but in case it's not, I'm reiterating it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't so much about whether it was reliable or not. Consensus from the 2014 discussion indicates that BOI is reliable enough. The issue that was taken up was WikiBriefed insistence that BOI was the most reliable source and their rather impolite edits pushing that opinion which resulted in a thread at ANI. Blackmane (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Good enough for me. - Ricky81682 (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion, which you cited: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com appears to show at its conclusion that this source is reliable. In the material that you just added to the front page, you show it on both the 'reliable' and 'not' lists. I think you should take it off the 'not' list. Also, at User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ there is a list in the works that should be consulted. BollyJeff | talk 13:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved to reliable list. Should we create a separate resources page like WP Films has? That may help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think so. Let's help finish the Cyphoidbomb list and then port it over to here on a separate tab. @Cyphoidbomb:, see how it was done at: WP:FILM. I would keep the rationale and discussion links though, in case people question the reliability in the future it will be easy to find the discussions. BollyJeff | talk 01:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I would love all the help I can get, since it ultimately benefits all who edit here. The list is at User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ.
There was some ambiguity about BOI (.com) for me, since the 2008 discussion was a mile long and it was not closed with any clear consensus. (My ADD makes it very tedious for me to try to read all that stuff.) So I don't know--maybe we need to rediscuss it. If we all know that Indian cinema box values are estimates, then why wouldn't BOI be just as suitable as any other site's estimate, especially if other news sites are quoting it? The one thing that BOI has going for it is that they say on their 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." This seems better to me than using a source that relies on content that the producers are sending to them, because we don't want primary sources for this info. On the other hand, there have been strong arguments that we don't know who is doing the estimating, or what their process is, but the same could be said about any of the other sources from Times of India to the Hindustani Times.
On the other hand, if they are all estimates, then why are we devoting so much real estate to the opening weekend, week one, week two, 100 day values? How do we know what's accurate? How can we ever know? The constant box updates are a huge irritant, largely because of the endless race to replace one estimate with another estimate that's a half crore higher and a few hours newer. They're all estimates! An estimate from this morning is no better than an estimate from last night. If we never get reliable hard data, then we don't have any margins of error to consider. Per MOS:LARGENUM, that suggests we should err on the side of generality rather than specifics, and perhaps it's worth a serious discussion about whether or not the box office focus in Indian cinema articles is worth it at all. "It made 100 crore club and was declared blockbuster verdict status!" Blecch. What an academic waste. And almost every day there's a new request to update List of highest-grossing Indian films based on a new slideshow, or a new Q&A post at BoxOfficeIndia.com, or some other source that is highly questionable. We really need to figure this out and I really think it means bringing WikiProject Film closer into the mix. While there are so many strong editors working hard to keep the corruption out of Indian cinema articles, it's just not tolerable that this under-monitored world should be allowed to pollute the integrity of the encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think if we cull out and remove all the blogs and the barely reliable sites like BOI to me, we'd have less fighting as there would be a flat "no, get a reliable source from the list" and telling them you may have to wait. For all the craziness, we do have legitimate or semi-legitimate sources for films on many smaller languages there which is good to see (I doubt the articles have those sources). It takes a lot of work but if we're serious, it will happen. I was there when we moved all the highest films together and as two films started competing together and you'd have 25-50 crore differences which is huge between websites that updated "instantly" and newspapers which would provide something. The problem is there isn't really a push here to do anything other than the celebrity gossip stuff on stars to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
My main opposition is not to BOI, but to users as Wikibriefed and Semanti Paul, who had a suspicious IP supporter in ANI; who removes reliable sources from other better sources and insert BOI. They simply don't know about identifying Reliable source. BOI can be added if we don't have references from other sites. DUE to BOI's mention in many Bollywood articles, users are visiting that website, this is increasing the sites'popularity and more and more users are pushing for BOI, even if they are unrelated to the site. The Avengers 05:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If more and more users come here to insert BOI links, by replacing all other reliable links, then administrators can blacklist the site. BOI's traffic is due to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has helped BOI to increase it's popularity. The Avengers 05:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not going to be blacklisted until it's no longer considered a reliable source. Of course, I have a minority view here as I don't find it a giant amount better than a WP:BLOG or koimoi or the other variety of sources considered reliable by this task force. I think having higher standards (more akin to what's demanded of films overall) would do us better but others are more concerned about getting their favorite box office numbers updated the quickest. Have any article here come up for GA analysis? Has outside reviewers considered these sources reliable (I'd guess they have)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
How about Taran Adarsh's tweets? Tamasha's page includes figures by him as well as Koimoi. I have tried to include BOI, DNA and IBT in the list and removed Koimoi, but I'm not sure about Taran Adarsh. And the users keep reverting the edits.-- Semanti Paul (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Generally, Tweets are not considered a reliable source except for information about him by him. According to Taran Adarsh, he publishes for Bollywood Hungama which I believe qualifies as a reliable source. Wait until it publishes something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

www.boxofficeindia.com geolocates to United Kingdom

Two domain Ip results showed that the websites'IP is 31.172.248.224 which is located in United Kingdom. First - second. Now everything is more suspicious. As siting in UK without having any staff strength like other UK based reputed media: BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail, they pretend to know everything about Indian box-office. The Avengers 05:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

According to Box Office India, its servers are based in Houston. This still tells us nothing about who is behind the website. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ashwini Bhave

Hello. It would be good if some of you could add Ashwini Bhave in their watchlist, cause since 2 December there is one user (or maybe two) who has been repetitively trying to turn the article into an unsourced hagiography and I will soon lose interest in reverting them. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Try WP:RFPP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3F13:1D00:3D58:C0EA:E259:1351 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Legit filmography?

Hey all, Pawan Singh is a curious article. The bulk of his filmography is made up of redlinks. Is that because Bhojpuri films aren't heavily written about here? Some other reason? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I added the link to his page at IMDb. I'm constantly amazed at how much they have. It seems somewhat legitimate but IMDb can't be used as a reference but it does support his claim. He seems like he'd barely pass GNG on the broadest of interpretations to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Tellychakkar

Many sites uses Tellychakkar as their reliable source though some opposes it. Whether this site is a reliable source or not? D'SuperHero (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems like it would qualify as a reliable source. It's been referenced by the International Business Times here and here, by India Today and by others, particularly when quoting interviews done by Tellychakkar. The About Us page references the people who run it. What exactly is it being a reference for? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources issues

There is a edit sparring going on Airlift (film) page about actor Inaamulhaq's existence in the film. Sources used were the following sites of Fansofcinema.com and Edumolive.com. The sources didn't seems to be reliable at all. Does still it may used? Ping for the issue ASAP. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 08:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wish I'd seen this sooner. I would have said that those sites are insufficient for referencing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nett revisited

Hey all, any possibility we could all band together to establish consensus on the inclusion of "nett gross" and "nett" values in Indian cinema articles? I'm seeing a lot of stuff like this which seems way off the mark for the level of detail appropriate for a film article.

On its second day the film saw growth in its collection as it collected ₹5.25 crore (US$630,000) nett.[6]Third Day the film gross ₹6.00 crore (US$720,000) nett. The film grossed ₹17.75 crore (US$2.1 million) nett over its first weekend in india.[7]

And despite problematic grammar and the odd "grossed NN nett" phrasing that would confuse any non-Indian, it seems to make Indian box information really hard to follow, because we're tracking two, and sometimes three different metrics: gross, nett and nett gross. So I'm proposing one of three options:

  • Option 1: Maintain the status quo.
  • Option 2: Focus solely on the gross, like we would for any other cinema article.
  • Option 3: Focus on the gross during the film's run, then summarize/subtract entertainment tax/distributor share at the end of the film's run.

Frankly, I'm unclear on why the entertainment tax and distributor share is tracked at all. As noted in an earlier discussion on the matter, in Hollywood film articles nobody cares what the studio's net take was minus actor fees, marketing, catering, electric fees are subtracted. It seems completely arbitrary.

As a secondary point of discussion, how many milestones should we track? I understand people writing about the first, second and third day gross values, and maybe even the total at the end of the first week, but how much more of that do we need? 2 week total? 3 week total? Every bit of data until the film completes 100 days? Seems like we'd be fine with opening weekend and final gross, which is pretty much how BoxOfficeMojo does it.[8] The day-by-day updates seem a bit crufty to me, especially since we're talking about estimates anyway.

Feedback is solicited! Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Option 2. I don't see this kind of breakdown in other types of films and no one has shown that reliable sources report on this nor care in reality. Further, when people talk about films overall, they don't distinguish between a film's "run" whatever the run is defined as. As to milestone, I don't see much past the weekend but the problem is the absolutely terrible sourcing that's done just so people can get in there and cheer on the film's release. I have no idea where the move to do that is coming from. People should take that kind of stuff into separate weekly totals like at Template:Lists of box office number-one films for other countries if they want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ricky81682, I just want to clarify for this discussion based on my interpretation: in response to the milestone, when you say "As to milestone, I don't see much past the weekend", are you saying that the opening weekend is all that matters, or do we care about the opening weekend plus the final gross? Just a matter of clarity. Thx Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see the point of much. It could be relevant if it was the highest one day in actuality or something but it gets inane when you have 10-day grosses and other craziness, especially how much junk and lies there are out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bombay Talkies and Raj Narayan Dube: Hoax?

Cross-posting from WT:INB: In the 2010s, one Abhay Dube launched a company called "The Bombay Talkies Limited". He claims that this is a continuation of the historic Bombay Talkies. He also claims that his grandfather Raj Narayan Dube was one of the founders of the original Bombay Talkies along with Himanshu Rai and Devika Rani. Since then, several press-release like newspaper stories have appeared talking about this "revival of Bombay Talkies" and how Raj Narayan Dube was a "pillar" of Indian cinema.

This article from 2013 mentions that "the idea to revive the production house took shape three years ago" i.e. in 2010. That year, the name "Raj Narayan Dube" was added to the Bombay Talkies article on Wikipedia, by an anon, without any source. In 2015, a new article on Raj Narayan Dube was created. Recently, the article Bombay Talkies was re-written using these sources, by BT0912 (talk · contribs), who claims to the Digital Head of the new company. Also,

MelAntipam (talk · contribs) has raised some concerns at Talk:Bombay Talkies, which caught my eye. I tried searching for this name and its variations: Raj Narayan / RN Dubey / Rajnarayan Dubey(y). But I cannot find any mention of this guy in even a single source before 2010, which is surprising if he was indeed, one of the founders of a famous studio like Bombay Talkies. There is only one book (Spot Girl, 2014) which mentions Raj Narayan Dube and Bombay Talkies - it's not a scholarly work, and is obviously based on information from the Wikipedia article or other articles that sprung after the "revival" press release in 2013.

Can anyone else find a pre-2010 source about this Dube-Bombay Talkies link? Any comments are appreciated at Talk:Bombay_Talkies#Errors_in_the_current_version. utcursch | talk 19:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

New articles

Hi, I am importing on Commons all Indian movies which are in the public domain. So I created some articles where I found the film. Help needed to complete them. ;o Regards, Yann (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Subjects need to be notable under WP:Notability (films). BollyJeff | talk 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Marathi sockpuppet

Hi all, FYI, there has been a flare-up of Marathi-language sockpuppetry. Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishika.dhanawade/Archive User tends to create sloppy articles related to Marathi film and television, including actors. Some of the articles created recently can be found here and here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User Ajaystarrer

Hello. Does anyone know what "the lolo sock" refers to? Should this user be blocked on sight? Thanks, Biwom (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Biwom, looking through that diff and more appropriately, the one before it, I notice that Ajaystarrer added "Karisma Kapoor (born 25 June 1974), often informally referred to as Lolo". (Emphasis mine.) This content was also added by editor Bollywoodcrazy, who was blocked by SpacemanSpiff for long-term disruption at BLPs along with copyright violations. So it's possible that Ajaystarrer is a sockpuppet of Bollywoodcrazy, but you'd have to perform due diligence and find behavioral similarities before any admin could act on it. In the interim, so long as user's edits are not in violation of established guidelines and policies, there's no real reason to revert them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, based on the Karisma Kapoor revision history I am also inclined to think that Bollywoodcrazy, Ajaystarrer and Mohamed Séfir are the same person. Initially I was thinking there may be a link to a known banned user named "Lolo" but I guess your explanation of what "Lolo" refers to is correct. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Real world example: Reliable sources copying/plagiarizing Wikipedia's plot summary of Raees (film)

Something interesting happened recently surrounding Raees (film)--reliable sources appear to have plagiarized the plot summary of Raees, and parroted what may be inaccurate information about the plot. In a nutshell, the Raees article contained a statement that the film criticized the prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution in Gujarat. This spawned a brief back-and-forth [9][10] between another user and myself, and I wound up removing the content because the details were not adequately substantiated. Here's my detailed comment copy/pasted from Talk:Raees (film)

In these edits I removed content about the film addressing the prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution as the content wasn't found in the source that followed the statement. Further, the original version on 16 July 2015 didn't say anything specific about what type of prohibition the film criticizes, and further details were added a day later without an improvement of the reference.

Complicating issues, recent news articles dated 16-17 February 2016 [11][12][13][14] appear to have copied the same language in this 3 February 2016 version of the article. (Note the change of "criticizes" to "criticises" and the removal of "cruel and clever":

"The film is set in 1980s Gujarat. It tells the story of the eponymous bootlegger Raees Khan (Shah Rukh Khan) whose business is highly challenged and eventually thwarted by a police officer (Nawazuddin Siddiqui). The film criticises the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution, and drugs in Gujarat."

This highly suggests that some of the trades are copying from Wikipedia without proper attribution (plagiarism!) and haven't done any actual research or proper reporting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The very specific wording that the trades were using, especially after the tweaks made by Kailash29792 implies very strongly that they copied Wikipedia after 3 February 2016. The specifics of alcohol, drugs and prostitution were added without references 17 July 2015, so there's no faith that "criticizes the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution, and drugs in Gujarat" is an accurate statement. In the same edit, the IP said that the film also criticized movie piracy, which we don't know to be accurate. Just wanted to bring this up in a central location so that we have at our disposal a real-world example of the trades copying from Wikipedia instead of doing proper research. It's obviously problematic, because if they copy from us, and we cite them, we get a feedback loop of sketchy information. Not good. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do. I wish we had the power to sue people for plagiarising us. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Kailash29792, well, Wikipedia licenses its content for free with proper attribution, but more importantly, this situation demonstrates shitty journalism and shitty integrity from our so-called "reliable sources". At least when a site says "Source: Wikipedia" you know that there's a strong chance the information is not accurate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ishq Vich: You Never Know

Anyone know if Ishq Vich: You Never Know was ever released? I had to remove the only reference from the article because it was another cruddy blog. Can't tell if the film was ever released and/or if the article should be considered for deletion. WP:NFF was not satisfied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Action Hero Biju

Anyone seen this film? There's a discussion that could use more input from folks familiar with it. The issues are: 1) How should genre be presented (also, anyone got any sources for genre?) 2) How should the plot be presented? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New vandalism technique?

I've seen a new vandalism technique flare-up recently--An example here. The user changes the article subject's birthdate to a value that is not supported by the reference, then rearranges the template parameters perhaps in an effort to disguise the change. Just mentioning as a heads-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Manipuri films of 1981

The article List of Manipuri films of 1981 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stand-alone list of which does not seem to satisfy WP:LISTN. Three entries does not seem to be enough to justify an entire article, and this information is basically covered in Manipuri cinema

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

nowrunning.com

Anyone know anything about nowrunning.com? It looks like a standard cookie-cutter blog like I see all day long being added to Indian cinema articles for spam purposes. There are about 1900 uses of this domain across Wikipedia, so it's somewhat popular, though I see nothing on their site (For instance their Contact Us page) that would clearly indicate they are a reliable source run by journalists, or that the site has an established reputation for fact-checking. Anybody have any thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Xuanzang (film)

Just FYI: A Chinese film is being released today in China, a lot of Indian actors in it. I typed all their names as they appeared in Chinese press to the article, but please correct typos if there are any. Is Sishir Sharma = Shishir Sharma? Suhasini Mule = Suhasini Mulay? I'm not sure so I don't want to link the wrong people. Not sure how much coverage the film has in India. Timmyshin (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Catch News?

Anyone have any thoughts about Catch News as a reference? I keep seeing it pop up lately, but I don't think I've ever seen it prior to about 2 months ago. I'll be posting at the Indian Noticeboard for other opinions. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Filmibeat

I notice Oneindia.in on the list of unacceptable sources here -- do we consider Filmibeat an extension of this, and if so, should we add it to the list? It would take a huge load off a lot of our plates if we'd start talking about some of these sources and get them added to the XLinkBot list so that they're automatically removed when added. My query here is inspired by this edit at Kabali (film) from an Austrian IP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pandagala Vachadu

If the movie exists - please write about it.
If the movie doesn't exist - let's delete the page.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Indic titles

Wasn't there a discussion or guideline about not including the indic script in actors and film titles? I cannot find it, but someone is once again adding them everywhere. BollyJeff | talk 17:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, well they are adding them in the info boxes, which I suppose is not the lead, right? See Contributions/AKS2000. BollyJeff | talk 08:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Same policy should be extended to the infobox as well, as its in the same space as the lead. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. The infobox does not occupy the same space as the lead. More importantly though, the discussion here suggests that the issue was about the lead itself and consensus per DeltaQuad was to remove the indic script from the lead and replace it with IPA. That sort of thing typically only happens in the lead sentence like at Indira Gandhi's article. Template:Infobox film on the other hand, has a parameter, |film_name= which says "for non-English films: film's name in its native language". That would intuitively include Indian films, so if the film was released with an Indic title (as opposed to something like PK) that would go in the infobox. Similarly Template:Infobox person contain |native_name= for "The person's name in their own language, if different". This would be an appropriate place for Indic script. I don't think the point of the discussion was to suppress all Indic script, rather to remove clutter from the lead sentence. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I am sure that most editors do not know about these parameters. I just re-added the script at Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge using the film_name parameter. It placed the name in a different location, below the poster, and with less emphasis than what most editors do by adding it onto the name parameter itself. BollyJeff | talk 01:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Even so, I don't see the purpose of this at all. This is the English Wikipedia, and to add to that, most Bollywood films don't use Indic scripts in their credits or posters either. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of having it below the name, which is why I typically convert if I notice it. Or move the Indic script from the lead to the infobox. Indira Gandhi's should probably be converted. I'd do it, but I'm not sure what language it is. Hindi? If the person has a native name, I think that's useful to someone even though it is the English Wikipdia. I mean, we include people's French names. There's nothing inherently better about French than <insert Indian language here>. What does come up occasionally, as Krimuk has observed, is that we sometimes get people making up Indic versions of film names that are using Roman lettering. That doesn't seem as useful to me. If the film is marketed as Baahubali, then let's not start making up stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Well there you go then. Most of these movies are marketed mainly with their Romanized titles, as far as I know. BollyJeff | talk 12:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Another argument for including Indic script in the infobox (provided it's not just made-up by a user, like if a user were to Hindi-cize "PK") is that it might offer more opportunities to find references. If a film was released under its Tamil name, users might be able to find a few more resources that way. Anarkali's poster uses Indic script. Articles like Spirited Away and Hayao Miyazaki and Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong use native scripts. There are so many ways to transliterate a word in one language to English, that having the native name/title (if authentic) is an academic must. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
How will we know if it's authentic? BollyJeff | talk 16:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know that we need to spend a lot of time vetting native names, they're typically not controversial. My personal rule of thumb is: Does the Indic script appear in the film poster? If yes, keep. If no, then delete. If someone adds the script to someone's biographical article, I don't even bother checking it. Not worth the time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the reasons for the Indic script consensus, was because some article leads were becoming cluttered with numerous different scripts. As I recall one article (It may have been the Taj Mahal ?) had at least 9, possibly more, different scripts - some of which did not render, as people did not have those scripts loaded up, so they saw rows of empty squares.
I don't see a problem with using the pre-agreed and defined infobox parameters, but I particularly like User:Bollyjeff's putting the indic script name under the poster, rather than above. Some towns and cities have multiple names above the image and these can line up awkwardly, e.g. Hyderabad where the descending "y" crashes into the name in Telugu - Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Using the film_name parameter automatically places it there. BollyJeff | talk 18:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of {{INRConvert}} in infobox

In this edit IndianCinemaRasigan makes an interesting point in his edit summary, "Removed dollar conversion. The existing conversion is done w.r.t the dollar value in 2016. The conversion rate in 2016 is not the same as it was in 2009." Over the last few months I've seen an increase in people adding year switches to the INRConvert template in the infobox, for instance changing {{INRConvert|123|c}} to {{INRConvert|123|c|year=1990}}. This creates a data clusterfuck in the infobox, when we wind up with:

est. ₹123 crore (equivalent
to ₹844 crore or
US$130 million in 2016)[1][2]

depending on your screen size. So, the point is a good one that if a film in 2009 was made for Rs. 50 crore, converting it to 2016 US dollars doesn't really paint a clear picture of the cost. However, I also think it's a misuse of space in the infobox to do the inflation calculations. So what options do we have here? One option is to establish consensus to eliminate the use of {{INRConvert}} in the infobox entirely. Why are we converting to US dollars anyway, especially if the data is only going to be useful for the current year? I feel like there might be a guideline about this somewhere, i.e. why we use the conversion template, I just can't recall where. And now I'm wondering if there's any scenario where the INRConvert template would be useful without the inflation calculations. Thoughts anyone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that its bad to use convert if it always defaults to the current rate, yet the year value= setting gives too much info. It would be nice if it could give the old conversion rate only. I think there is a consensus somewhere to not use inflated figures in infobox. In my FAs I used either the original figures only, as in Sholay, or a manual conversion using a reliable source, as in DDLJ. The later is not seen in the infobox itself, but in the text with a note. See the first entry in the Notes section and where it is used. BollyJeff | talk 14:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of being annoying, I'm pinging some users to get more opinions on this. Krimuk90, Marchjuly, Kailash29792, Biwom, Ricky81682, Pavanjandhyala, Arjayay, Ssven2, Cowlibob, Vensatry, Coderzombie, Krish!, Skr15081997, Dharmadhyaksha, SpacemanSpiff, got any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that conversion to dollars at a different exchange rate to that appertaining at the time, is ever relevant.
Moreover, like User:Bollyjeff, I think there is a consensus not to use the inflation template in infoboxes - but I can't find that agreement. I always remove the inflation converter from articles on recent events/subjects, including films. The inflation conversion has some (limited) use when discussing genuinely historical subjects, but it only seems to be added to films by people trying to claim their favourite film grossed more than another film "in real terms".
I would support any proposal to exclude both templates from film infoboxes - Arjayay (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Arjayay. Why are we converting rupees to US dollars at all? What is the point of that? That's not going to be useful to a Russian reader, or a reader from the UK. Materialscientist once argued for the use of a reference currency. I know that MOS:CURRENCY#Conversions reads:
"Conversions of less-familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies – such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling – using an appropriate rate (which is often not the current exchange rate)."
But the question I have is, does the Indian Rupee qualify as a less-familiar currency? 1.2 billion people are probably familiar with it. By contrast, there are about 508 million people living in the European Union and about 318 million people in the US. Granted, if you work in a hotel, you're more likely to get tipped a few US dollars than a handful of rupees, but... Anyway, an example further up on that page uses Mongolian tögrögs as an example of a lesser-known currency. Mongolia has about 2.8 million residents. (Somewhat related: MOS:COMMONALITY doesn't like "crore", but that's a battle that's not likely to be won...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's best to only show a film's box office gross in its own currency and the inflation figure should only be for their own currency if the film is older. No need to convert into U.S. Dollars. American and Indian films can't be compared like for like, no one is going to argue that Independence Day: Resurgence was a bigger commercial success than PK. Cowlibob (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Bangladesh joint film production article

Please see: Talk:Indo-Bangladesh joint production#The state of this article in July 2016

Thank you, all.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama

Is Bollywood Hungama is good source for box office numbers? It gives day-wise figures in the domestic as well overseas box office, and the earnings are supported by most of India's leading newspapers. Semanti Paul (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Kabali stress at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films and Talk:Kabali (film)

Hey all, boy, Kabali has been causing me a headache over the last week with all the requests that we take the producer's word on box office gross, etc. Anyhow...

Anyone got any thoughts on this? An edit request came in requesting we boost the gross for Kabali to 600+ crore based on this reference. Seems odd to me. Many media outlets were reporting that the film brought in 200 crore before the film even opened (from music rights and such) so I wonder if that 200 is being included in the 650 crore estimate. Also, according to the source PK grossed 625 in 24 days, whereas Kabali allegedly grossed 650 crore in 10 days? Seems like hype to me. If anyone is so compelled, some comments at on the talk page would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Of course I've had to open a similar discussion at Talk:Kabali (film) for the same reason. In a different post, Financial Express was more transparent about their inclusion of the 200 crore pre-release income in their total. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation: Moving Kabali (film) to Kabali

As it is, Kabali redirects to Kabali (film). Should the page be moved to Kabali? Coderzombie (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussions of interest

Hi all, should it be of interest, there are two discussions about whether or not to merge Tollywood Highest grossing movies and List of highest-grossing Tamil movies into List of highest-grossing Indian films.

The discussions can be found at:

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Golden Hollywood contest

If you like old Hollywood films and actors and want to win something daily for editing them, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest. If it's a success we can run one for Indian cinema too, so I need names and support on this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Swapping out Koimoi for other sources at WP:ICTF

I know I'm pretty much just talking to myself these days here, but an editor is planning to swap out the Koimoi-supported content at List of highest-grossing Indian films soon. I've suggested that he open a discussion on that article's talk page. If this is something you'd object to, you might weigh in if/when he does that. While Koimoi is on the WP:ICTF list of sites not to use, I'm not sure how much discussion was actually held on the matter. I didn't see much at RSN. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Almost all films listed in the highest grossing Bollywood movies are manipulated, as different sources say diff values. Koimoi is been in for so many discussions whether its a reliable source or not. Boxoffice India is lot more accurate among all of these. There are huge difference between the collections which are mentioned in koimoi and boxoffice india. Almost 20-50crs. Need OPINIONS about this problem. As its an important page which states the highest grossing movies, we should do our best to improve and show more of a reliable source. Here is what i got. [15]. Its mentiones all highest grossing movies. Shall we replace koimoi sources which are unreliable with these above mentioned boxoffice india source. Expert Opinions and suggestions pls.......... Ambeinghari (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ambeinghari: For note, WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources has a list of sources for grosses that are considered reliable or unreliable. Koimoi is not considered reliable. Box Office India is considered reliable. Use that instead of Koimoi. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)"

This was the conversation I had on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films few minutes back and I got an expert reply about this issue. Opinions and yours point of view regarding this issue is needed. pls do check. shall we replace koimoi with boxoffice india source????? with that the list will completely change and it will look this.

*
Rank Movie Year Studio(s) / Producers Language Worldwide gross
1 PK 2014 Vinod Chopra Films Hindi ₹742.97 crore (US$89 million)[16]
2 Bajrangi Bhaijaan 2015 Salman Khan Films/Kabir Khan Films Hindi ₹603.99 crore (US$72 million)[17]
3 Baahubali: The Beginning 2015 Arka Media Works Telugu and Tamil ₹600 crore (US$72 million)[18][19]
4 * Sultan 2016 Yash Raj Films Hindi ₹580 crore (US$69 million)[20]
5 Dhoom 3 2013 Yash Raj Films Hindi ₹539.87 crore (US$65 million)[21]
6 Chennai Express 2013 Red Chillies Entertainment Hindi ₹395.92 crore (US$47 million)[22]
7 3 Idiots 2009 Vinod Chopra Films Hindi ₹390.90 crore (US$47 million)[23]
8 Dilwale 2015 Red Chillies Entertainment Hindi ₹372.23 crore (US$45 million)[24]
9 Prem Ratan Dhan Payo 2015 Rajshri Productions Hindi ₹365.45 crore (US$44 million)[25]
10 Bajirao Mastani 2015 SLB Films Hindi ₹358.20 crore (US$43 million)[26]
11 Kick 2014 Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Hindi ₹351.80 crore (US$42 million)[27]
12 Happy New Year 2014 Red Chillies Entertainment Hindi ₹345.26 crore (US$41 million)[28]
13 Ek Tha Tiger 2012 Yash Raj Films Hindi ₹308.31 crore (US$37 million)[29]
14 Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani 2013 Dharma Productions Hindi ₹295.61 crore (US$35 million)[30]
15 Krrish 3 2013 Filmkraft Productions Pvt. Ltd Hindi ₹291.52 crore (US$35 million)[31]

You all are also invited to discuss about it on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. valuable comments pls....Ambeinghari (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Be aware that Ambeinghari is a sock. All of his edits are based on "fanship". Inside the Valley (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

First of allInside the Valley am not a sock. who are you to call me a sock? Investigation going on right, and not yet proven. so pls don't call me a sock. I don't know why u r against me?? and secondly this is not the place. here an important discussion is going on. so pls. if you have any opinion about this matter you are welcome. again pls don't call me a sock. thanks ....Ambeinghari (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support the removal of all Koimoi citations. If someone believes them to be anymore than an anonymous blog then they can discuss them. The discussion here is minimal but I don't really see any argument that Koimoi from anyone that it's actually a reliable source, just people ignoring all our discussions about. I don't know why we need to discuss this further on that talk page since it's pretty obvious what at least the prior discussions resulted in. RSN and other places have pretty been circular since most of this discussions are ignored anyways. There really isn't any push here to clean up citations on these film articles. Otherwise, I agree with Ambeinghari. Do not accuse other people of being socks for no reason. WP:SPI is that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I support the removal of Koimoi, but to EvergreenFir's point, I don't support the blanket replacement with BoxOfficeIndia content. Though we tend to consider it a reliable source, we need to remember that we don't have to indiscriminately swallow what a "reliable source" says, and there are a couple of problems with BOI that I've noticed that make it problematic over time. 1) Their data tends to stop getting updated after a while. We don't know if this is because they just get tired of updating the information, or if the last reported figures represent the totality of the box office gross in their opinion. Take Mary Kom. On their box office breakdown, BOI says that the film grossed 86.2 crore. India.com apparently felt it crossed 100 crore as does Forbes India. Who knows. 2) They don't publish "as of" dates, so we don't know when they stopped updating the figures, or if their figures represent the latest estimates. It's not uncommon for other sources to have updated box office values a year after film airs, for instance. 3) BOI's references sometimes go stale and you wind up with having to scour archive.org for archives of the data. This presents a problem similar to #2, when we might be pulling a gross value from the middle of the film's run, or before "final" figures came in. Archive.org doesn't always take daily snapshots. So I tend to think that finding more balanced sources, or presenting totals as ranges, might be the way to go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Identify telugu actors and actress

Sorry for the SPAM. I've put this message in some Discussion Pages, but maybe I should have begun with this from the very beggining. Please Check this petition. We have a lot of pictures of a relevant Telugu film shooting, but I'm European and I can't recognise a single one. Here the Commons Category.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gack Hollywood

News from gackhollywood.com can be used as reliable refrence? —Júnior N 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

N Júnior - I would never use that source. It's a faceless blog. We don't know who runs it or what makes them experts in the field. Has anyone ever heard of it? We only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say. That typically means sources you've heard of before, like The Hindu, Times of India, International Business Times, Deccan Chronicle, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.—Júnior N 12:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Kabali continued

There's a discussion at WP:RSN#Kabali (film) and List of highest-grossing Indian films related to inconsistent grosses reported by Indian Express vs. IBT. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Any way

Is there any way to recover references from Deccan Chronicle. —Júnior N 13:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wayback Machine. BollyJeff | talk 15:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Indiaglitz a reliable source? (Revisited)

In this edit, an editor rejected my statement that IndiaGlitz is not considered a reliable source by the ICTF. Needless to say, I'm a bit confused here. The guidelines on sources at WP:ICTF places IndiaGlitz in the "Do not use" section, but there is a link an RSN discussion that tends to lean toward keep. Can we reestablish whether or not it's acceptable? Kailash29792, you were involved in the original RSN discussion. BladesMulti was indeffed for being a sock of OccultZone (so I'm loath to consider his opinion) and Sriram Vikram hasn't edited in three months. Also, if anyone else has any thoughts about this, that'd be nice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Indiaglitz can be considered a reliable source owing to the fact that we have evidence where reputed publications have referred its content. Suffices to say that, it can be used as a source if no better sources are available. Can we agree on that? Best, Mr. Nair Talk 10:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Its considered a gossip mag by some. It was rejected several times in my articles. I thought there was an agreement to use it only for exclusive content, but I can't find that discussion now. BollyJeff | talk 12:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it needs to stay in the "Do not use" section - it seems to prefer speculation and rumours to facts - and I'm not sure where we stand with citing them in any case. given their copyright "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed." (my bold) - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that someone can unilaterally prohibit fair use by declaring so in their copyright statement. That's the whole concept behind fair use--"yes, you own the copyright, but there are legitimate ways to use the information, thank you very much." There's probably another meaning they are more concerned with. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, thanks for participating in the discussion. To Nairspecht's point, I don't know that merely being cited by other publications is the best gauge. Let's face it, Indian entertainment journalism is..."not very good" (I say, as positively as I can.) I mean, is anyone keeping track of what's happening with Kabali? Across a number of film articles I've seen reliable sources cite Andhra Box Office (a blog) and Filmibeat (on our list as unreliable) and Onlookers (also a blog created in 2010 by people who met on Facebook), and I suspect they do this when they don't have any information of their own. I don't know that we should assume that the reliable sources are endorsing the data. And how can we tell the difference? If a reliable source cites IndiaGlitz and Andhra Box Office, should we start assuming that both are reliable? I don't know anything about IndiaGlitz. Who owns it? I also don't know if they generate their own content or are aggregators like all those other problem sites we encounter. WP:QUESTIONABLE says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." Who's the editor of IndiaGlitz? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair points. I did a brief, petty research on the "Hindi version" of their site and here are the details: Their 'Contact Us' link leads to nowhere, their 'T&C' link lists preposterous and effervescently promotional conditions that we wouldn't care about, and there is no 'About' section. There is literally no info about the publication in the web, which forces me to stand corrected and say that IndiaGlitz (IG) may not be a verifiable source. But, as you have argued here spot-on about the status of entertainment journalism in India to be like "retards using click-bait headings to generate revenue through adverts", I think we should put it in "questionable sites" list where better sources, if available, should be used in place of it. Be that as it may, has there been situations where IndiaGlitz has reported a news and an article or a part of it has been based on it? How did the editor(s) perceive the source to be, in terms of content? Also, let's take the example of this news story published on IG. The content is not at all what I would call ethical journalism. Just look at the video that has been embedded at the end. So, it is certain that IG is more of a gossip, pulp 'zine than a verifiable and reliable source for us to use. If no one is advocating its usage, I think we should do away with it once and for all. Just because they flash news and editors exploit them to add to their articles' references shouldn't be a reason to embrace its so-called genuineness. I think IG falls in the same bucket as Filmibeat. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 18:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Article naming conventions for multi-language films

Hey everybody, Mudinja Ivana Pudi appears to be a film made in Tamil and Kannada. The Kannada title appears to be Kotigobba 2. The lead reads:

"Kotigobba 2 in Kannada, Mudinja Ivana Pudi in Tamil

This is odd because the lead typically starts with the name of the article. If this trend is going to continue, it might make sense to discuss how we should approach these articles. For example, should the article be under Mudinja Ivana Pudi, or Kotigobba 2? How do we decide what the primary article title is if the film is made in 2 languages? If a film has two titles in two languages, how do we present that in the lead and in the infobox?

There was a big kerfuffle at Talk:Baahubali about a year and a half ago because the pro-Telugu folks wanted to make it clear that this was a Telugu industry film, when the film was simultaneously produced in Telugu and Tamil. Is the ethnic film "industry" that produced it a factor worth considering? Is there a smarter way to go about this? How do we present the information in the rest of the article? Input would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Another case in point: Vismayam (2016 film) and Manamantha. This film was produced in two languages, for the Malayalam film industry (addressed as Mollywood hereafter) and the Telugu film industry (addressed as Sandalwood hereafter) and the film has separate articles because of the language (and industry) difference. According to me, the best way to tackle this would be to observe the history of the people involved in creating the film. Since we generally attribute a film to be the director, I think Mudinja Ivana Pudi should be attributed to K. S. Ravikumar, who primarily works in Tamil films. So, yeah, the title of the article is correct, but the start of the lead MUST be changed. Also, for the Kannada variation, I think instead of creating a separate (redundant?) article and hogging Wikipedia's memory, there should be a small section in the primary article about the variation, that's it. However, the starring actors have a diverse repertoire, and if we are to also consider that, then this discussion is gonna continue indefinitely. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Quite an interesting topic of discussion - I don't quite see an equivalent problem that has appeared elsewhere with any other language, not on this scale at least. My suggestion would simply be: stick to Wikipedia policy as closely as possible, in particular the much hallowed common name policy, and the film naming conventions wherever applicable. The film naming conventions are not really designed to handle these kinds of cases, and should probably be ignored whenever none of the languages involved is English. We should stick to the usual way of handling titles: go by what reliable, English language sources say. For sure, it is not a perfect solution, because the English-language press is very active in all regions of south India. So, typical ways page titles are discussed are through demonstration of commonality through prominent news sources, or sometimes, based on search engine results. I would hesitate making a set convention on this, because the prevalency of the name in English language sources varies from case to case. Titles based on what "industry" the director belongs to would be flawed simply because of WP:SYNTH. It is not up to us to decide what industry a person belongs to, and basing Wikipedia convention on that would be against WP:SYNTH. MikeLynch (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If we are to look at the sources, then both the titles' search results throw up equally reliable and comprehensive sources, which cannot possibly be used to reach a consensus on which title should be used as primary. Since WP:SYNTH prevents us from using the feeble solution I provided, I think the best bet here would be to go by something like Mudinja Ivana Pudi/Kotigobba 2 is an Indian bilingual film... That is, if all parties agree. Otherwise, like Mike Lynch has stated above, making a set convention here won't provided a concrete solution. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 08:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The wording in the lead isn't really a problem, is it? The X/Y format in the article title does indeed solve this problem, but isn't really accurate (as a whole) as a title (and might create a problem in the future for potential tri/multilingual films). Do you know of other Wikipedia articles that use such a format, or other articles with similar problems and circumstances? I'll check as well. MikeLynch (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't think the wording in the lead is a very big problem - mention both names equally prominently, with the precedence being decided by a trivial criterion such as alphabetical order. I don't think this alone is a problem worth discussing. Cyphoidbomb, in your initial question, did you mean just the lead/infobox, or the title as well? MikeLynch (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please check my first reply. There is a bilingual film, but there are separate articles for the 2 versions. Don't think that is the best option, though. Providing equal prominence to the titles should be a thought here because readers might want to distinguish between the titles and know what's what. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 09:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Having separate articles for what is essentially the exact same film is pointless. MikeLynch (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that would suck. I actually had to fix one of these semi-recently. Someone created an article for a dub of a TV series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The hard part seems to be figuring out what the proper article title should be. Once you figure out that it should be listed under Language X, then the lead is slightly easier to write, with Language X being listed before Language Y.
Kotigobba 2 (English: One in a crore/10 million) in Kannada, Mudinja Ivana Pudi (English: Catch him if you can) in Tamil, is a 2016 Indian action film directed by K. S. Ravikumar.
Though as you can see, we are presented with a potential for serious clunkiness in the lead because of all the info we tend to cram into it, though I'm not sure what can be done about that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding inflation column at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films

An editor has requested that a column be added at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films that would reflect gross box office values adjusted for inflation. If you have thoughts on this, please feel free to comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The recent discussion on the use of dollar conversions, expanded to cover this - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 5#Use_of_.7B.7BINRConvert.7D.7D_in_infobox
Although there was no formal consensus, I would be against both dollars and inflation figures. User:Cowlibob suggested "only show a film's box office gross in its own currency and the inflation figure should only be for their own currency if the film is older." - but we would need to define "older", and if a column was added to List of highest-grossing Indian films this would end up covering all films. - Arjayay (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Arjayay, the discussion was mostly centered on the infobox. Anyhow, if the film was released in the current year, there wouldn't be any inflation change. Like:
Rank Movie Year Studio(s)/Producers Language Worldwide gross In 2024 currency
1 PK 2014 Vinod Chopra Films/Rajkumar Hirani Films Hindi ₹792 crore (US$95 million) ₹1265.47 crore
2 Baahubali: The Beginning 2015 Arka Media Works
₹650 crore (US$78 million) ₹980.9 crore
3 Bajrangi Bhaijaan 2015 Salman Khan Films/Kabir Khan Films Hindi ₹626 crore (US$75 million) ₹944.69 crore
4 Sultan 2016 Yash Raj Films Hindi ₹584.25 crore (US$70 million) ₹839.95 crore
Just an example. Not sure if I used the {{Inflation}} template 100% correctly. I think "older" would be any film for which inflation calculations could be made. In the example above, I used {{Inflation}} for all of them. As of this note Sultan shows 584.25 crore in the far right column, but come January, (or whenever the inflation tables get updated) the value might read differently. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Devgan or Devgn

I keep seeing editors change the spelling of Ajay Devgan's name from Devgan to Devgn like here (I'm sure I saw another change yesterday, too.) I know that he's sometimes credited as both, and I know that his production company is Ajay Devgn FFilms -- Does the community have an official take on this? Did he change his name officially? Do we vacillate between Devgan and Devgn depending on how he's credited in the film? Was there a cut-off period where he stopped going by Devgan entirely and everything after NNNN year is Devgn? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he officially dropped the letter from his name owing to numerology in 2009. As per TOI, he did it sometime in October 2009. He's since been credited as Ajay Devgn. I remember it was all over the news that time. Conclusively, I think we should -
  • go with "Ajay Devgn" in all instances as we move ahead
  • try to stick with this new variation if we the related content is post-2009
  • stick with this latter variation for Shivaay as well
  • base the use of the latter version on universal knowledge than what is mentioned in the credit rolls
Having said that, yes, I think he stopped going by Devgan entirely after 2009. More voices needed, though. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 18:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. As usual, I don't care either way, so long as we're consistent. If that's the name he's grooving on, then we can use that. (And yes, I'll wait for others to contribute their thoughts as well). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Need thoughts about how to communicate Kabali gross

Input needed on the issue of how to communicate Kabali's gross.

There was a whole RSN discussion about this, but it really went nowhere.

  • Initial reports of ₹320 crore within the first few days were put out by the producer, a primary source.
  • Figures of ₹650+ crore were put out by Financial Express (670 here) and parroted by Indian Express (their affiliate) and other sources.
  • IBT called some of these high estimates "fake" and placed the gross in the 350 crore range. One point of contention, was the inclusion of ₹200 crore pre-release income, which would never be included in a film's gross total, because gross only includes box office revenues.
  • Firstpost also cast doubt on the high numbers, placing more conservative estimates in the 300 crore range at the time.

So while Financial Express and various blogs were trumpeting the record-breaking success of Kabali, very little has been written about it since then in sources that are not Financial Express or their affiliates.

The question for the community is: How do we communicate Kabali's gross to readers?

  • At Kabali (film), we need to figure out what to put in the infobox's |gross= parameter. Some possibilities: The word "Disputed" with a link to a relevant prose section. The lowest undisputed value. A range between the lowest estimate and the highest.
  • At List of highest-grossing Indian films we would have to figure out where to place Kabali in the various tables. The high 600+ values would put Kabali in the top 5 highest-grossing India films of all time, while the lower numbers would put it far lower. Do we represent a range of ₹350–600+? Do we add "Disputed" and a link to a more thoroughly documented section?
  • At List of highest-grossing Tamil films same issue as with the general Indian article. It's either the #1 or #2 highest-grossing Tamil-language film.

This disparity also has the potential of affecting language in other articles. For instance in some articles we will encounter phrasing like: "Baahubali: The Beginning was the third highest-grossing Indian film behind PK and Kabali." That's something to consider as well.

Your feedback would be very much appreciated. If response is poor, I may have to open this up to an RfC. It seems like a fairly significant issue in the world of Indian cinema. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

At the List of most expensive films where you can get widely differing totals the consensus is to use the lowest figure and give the other figures in a note. I think that solution would work here in absence of an authoritative source. For example, if you have one source saying the film grossed 300 crore, another 320 and another 350 then they all at least agree that the film grossed 300 crore. The other figures can be included in a note so that you have comprehensive coverage of the figures. As for the film article, you could include a range like we do with the budget on some articles such as Jack the Giant Slayer. Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we see IBT claiming the value to be ₹350, while Indian Express [32](their affiliate such as Financial Express [33] [34])& India Today [35] [36] claim the value to be ₹650. Both these estimates lack proper research and concrete sources as its hard for anyone to estimate a revenue for a Tamil movie as its illegal to sell tickets higher than ₹120 in Tamil Nadu though ticket are reported [37] to have been sold around ₹500 - 600 by theaters. These actual figures may never surface unlike the other Indian regional language films like Bollywood, Tollywood etc as they officially dont have a government cap on ticket pricing. So what ever value is reported, it would be referring to the official value of ₹120 per ticket.

And coming to the query,

And i strongly think its wise and fair to claim a "Dispute" as "Disputed" and leave the audience to decide on what to take. Thanks. --Pearll's SunTALK 21:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

How to order languages in infoboxes and elsewhere

Hey all, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Languages ordering in infobox and elsewhere. This pertains to how we should organize the list of languages for multi-lingual films (like Baahubali: The Beginning, 2.0, etc.) Your input will be instrumental in our ability to manage disruptions to articles. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Mudinja Ivana Pudi and Kotigobba 2

Why do we have two articles for the same film, Mudinja Ivana Pudi and Kotigobba 2? @Ab abhi: You created Kotigobba 2 (improperly, by the way, since you performed a copy/paste move but did not properly attribute the source article) and Kailash29792, you seem to have encouraged this. Does this make any sense? Is this the future of Indian film articles, where films produced in multiple languages now require two unique article to satisfy everyone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears true. I thought I should have tried merging Mudinja Ivana Pudi and Kotigobba 2, but had no time or interest in doing so. But it appears both articles have the potential to stand apart from each other, so why not let them remain separate articles? I also feel that two films sharing the same article violates WP:NPOV by giving preference to one of the two random films, but when multilinguals like Yuva/Aaytha Ezhuthu, Raavan/Raavanan get separate articles, why not other multilinguals? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The films made in multiple languages with the same cast should be redirected to the primary language. Like, Eega for that matter. Tamil version Naan Ee is a redirect to Eega. Above examples given by Kailash29792 are not valid as all of the films were made by the same director and has almost similar crew but with different cast. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This was an issue that I had to think about. The position I'm inclined to take on this is that only one article should exist for these films because they are fundamentally the same film, directed by the same guy, produced by the same company, starring the same people. If the only difference is language, then I fail to see the justification for a unique article. They're both the same Indian film. In situations where we're talking a re-shoot with different cast, or a different producer, or something fundamentally different, then perhaps it could be justified, but we'd need to figure out what creates that exception. In many of these cases, I don't know why we wouldn't treat the off-shoots as glorified dubs. Does a remixed song get a unique article? Maybe in some cases. I do know that movies that are remade typically get their own articles, but usually there's some time that goes by in the middle. Anyhow, I tend to agree with Vivvt's thoughts, but again we put ourselves in the position of having to declare what the correct "industry", which makes me uncomfortable for original research reasons, but we can probably figure out a way to handle it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
As I've stated elsewhere before, it makes the most sense to give importance to the production company's industry. Which is what is done on films, generally on Wikipedia as well. Inglourious Basterds is called a German-American film because the production companies are based in Germany and the USA. So, in the case of Mudinja Ivana Pudi, the producer is Rockline Venkatesh, a Kannada producer. It would make sense, in my opinion, to keep the Kannada title (Kotigobba 2) and merge the Tamil article with it. - Nirinsanity (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
In what circumstances do you think that a unique article should be created for an Indian film that is basically the same as another Indian film? If the cast changes and the film is reshot? If the cast + production house changes? If the cast + production house + director changes? Psycho (1998 film) is a remake of Psycho (1960 film) but with 38 years in between and all different people involved. Just curious. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not too sure. I think that decision would be subjective to the film(s) being discussed. Remakes certainly deserve their own article as everything is different from the original except for the base story. - Nirinsanity (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that I have copied few things from Mudinja Ivana Pudi. But I didn't copy everything from that article. You can check the history, Plot was completely different and it was then copied to Mudinja Ivana Pudi from Kotigobba 2. I know it violates WP:NPOV but it is difficult to merge. Since the names are completely different in 2 languages, it's difficult to write a common name to the article. Meaning of Kannada name is One in a crore whereas in Tamil it is Catch him if you can (So we cannot even write a common English name). I think, with few changes in the plot and music, we can maintain 2 different articles. Ab abhi (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ab abhi: Copy-pasting is very easy to handle when you're creating an article. See Copying Within Wikipedia. It typically requires as little as an edit summary that says, "Content copied from X page, see that article for attribution" as the bare minimum, with the use of a {{copied}} template on the talk page of the new article if you want to be thorough. You don't have to copy everything, just the stuff you need, but attribution needs to be provided. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Sort of, but I don't think that discussion was set up to handle something like this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yuva/Aaytha Ezhuthu, Raavan/Raavanan are fine as separate articles, I feel. Both have big differences in the lead cast and nativity - and that is where I feel a line should be drawn. MIP/K2 have no such vast differences and should be merged - much like Game (2016), Alone etc. Here, the film is made by a director who has predominantly worked on Tamil films - has a Tamil supporting cast, Tamil music director and so forth - so Mudinja Ivana Pudi over Kotigobba 2 as the main page. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me: should Missamma and Missiamma remain two separate articles or share the same one? Cyphoidbomb, please examine and tell me. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Satellite rights?

What's the deal with all the additions of satellite rights content in articles?[39][40] Is this noteworthy? Why? There's nothing at MOS:FILM that would encourage the inclusion of every aspect of a film's finances. Tons of western films wind up being shown on cable, on network television, etc. but I don't think I've ever seen this information detailed in a western film article. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very noteworthy, and certainly not for its own section. BollyJeff | talk 00:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree about them not being a thing in Western films, but in India, it is definitely a parameter to judge the film's financial, and to an extent, critical, success. The amount for which these rights are sold are added to the film's final gross. This article on Livemint is the first one I could find on the topic, and it might be a good read for us to understand why they are a thing in Indian films. However, no need for a separate section. If supported by reliable sources, a one- or two-line entry about it under the "Release" section would suffice, but it does not demand a separate section. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
But under what principle? Just because India is fascinated with every financial detail related to a film's performance doesn't mean that this has universal academic relevance. We're only here to provide an overview of a film, not to detail every aspect of it. To your point that the rights are factored in to the film's final gross, we don't detail a film's final gross (i.e. the entirety of money made from all revenue streams.) We don't factor marketing costs into a film's budget, we don't add nett figures or track distributors' shares or include confusing "nett gross" figures, and we don't subtract actor fees or entertainment taxes. Creating a unique system for India that is inconsistent with how the rest of the world's film articles are written doesn't make any sense. If other films from across the globe sell satellite/rebroadcast rights and music licensing rights, but we don't document them, why is India so unique that we should? These additions look like hastily considered filler added when there's nothing else to say. Please note also that MOS:FILM represents widespread community consensus for what generally should and shouldn't be in an article at the English Wikipedia. I think that Indian film article editors often forget this, believing that Indian film is a world unto itself. It's not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense, but your point that globally these petty satellite right deals and blah blah are not documented because the Western world is not as jubilant about the idea of satellite rights is not that convincing. Do we have any sources talking about which channel bought the TV rights for, say, the Suicide Squad (film)? If yes, and we are not documenting it, then yes, your point entirely makes sense. If otherwise, I think enough weightage should be given to this factor in Indian films, considering importance in not the final gross of the film, but the overall appeal (?). The point is to stick to a sentence or two only. Under what principle, then? Well, under the principle that it is an integral part in measuring the film's success, at least, in India.
I have seen countless articles where patriotic editors have added this information, and when someone tries to remove it citing MOSFILM, an edit war ensues. It becomes a mess, honestly. What could be a possible solution? Best, Nairspecht (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
We already have a system for determining a film's success—we look at budget and gross. Note that we have a "Box office" section and not a "Finances" section. There are too many other variables to consider and the choice of "satellite rights" is completely arbitrary. Why that one piece of data, and not the others? Box office is the best gauge of success, because it is indicative of raw audience interest, not just that someone got suckered into paying too much for satellite and music rights speculating that he'd make a huge profit. Or that someone bought the satellite rights for a huge amount up front (looks good on paper!) with a backdoor rebate to get back 75% of the purchase price. See the problem? Wikipedia can unwittingly become a shill for a film's promotional department. The figures are too easily manipulated. We are not an accounting firm and we don't indiscriminately log every aspect of a film's financials. That's what books are for. Editors need to also remember that the financials are actually not very reliable at all, what with the rampant corruption, fabricated data, poor journalism, and inflated figures from primary sources (I'm looking at you, Kabali...) So adding more fabricated and estimated data doesn't actually paint a more accurate picture of a film's success. As to your point that removing the content causes edit wars, I don't think that should be a major consideration. I see tons of people adding content about how much of a "blockbuster" or a "super hit" a site said a film is, but that POV garbage has no place in an encyclopedia article. The fact that random silent editors want something in an article doesn't legitimize or require its inclusion. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Adding content about satellite and music rights doesn't make articles more consistent with other film articles across the project. If anything, it just puffs up India's film industry to make it look a little better financially. Now, I could very well wind up being on the losing end of this discussion, but what matters is that if the content is going to be added, there's a super-valid academic reason to add it, not just because the trades are obsessed with every aspect of a film's financials, you're accustomed to seeing it, and so Wikipedia must include it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaaand, Nairspecht was indeffed for sockpuppetry. His was the only opinion in favor of including satellite rights data. If anyone has any thoughts on the above, your comments are still welcome. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I'm just hearing about WP:SOCK. Who would've thought people actually had the time to do stuff like that. Anyway, I do agree with his view that it makes sense to add just a line or two about a film's satellite rights. While it may not be a thing in Western cinema, almost every film in India gets a news article when a channel buys the satellite rights of the film. Just my two cents. I don't extensively care whether satellite rights are mentioned in the article or not. - Nirinsanity (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't add any info on satellite rights as it borders on WP:Run of the mill and WP:Dogbitesman... unless there is some significance. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, cool. That makes sense. - Nirinsanity (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Indian cinema challenge

Anybody here love movies? Of course you do LOL! The first challenge for India has arrived, Wikipedia:WikiProject India/The 1000 Challenge (Indian cinema). Interested in winning prizes for fleshing your favourite films and actors and seeing articles coming in like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon? Sign up if interested and let's start to see people expanding those stale old stubs and producing some good work for Indian cinema! 1000 articles is an achievable target, and a chance to showcase your work and be credited.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_5&oldid=960245685"