Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dharma Productions films/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 18:19, 3 April 2015 [1].

List of Dharma Productions films

List of Dharma Productions films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):
KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

After successfully working on the

KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from FrB.TG
  • "comedy Duplicate (1998), both of which were directed by Mahesh Bhatt". This one's not a requirement.
Tweaked.
  • Add author/s for ref 3 as it can be seen there.
Added.
  • Perhaps romantic drama would describe Kuch Kuch in a better way.
Yup, changed.
  • Add a noun after "overseas" in the third para as it looks so weird. You might add "sales" or something.
Added.
  • You might want to add about Dostana (2008) as it depicted homosexuality, very rare in Bollywood; it was a commercial success and to some extent, it was a critical success, too.
Added.
  • "Dharma Productions' greatest successes". Something is wrong with this. Perhaps "greatest", as it sounds too fluffy.
I think this is okay because it talks about the biggest hits among the many successes they had in the 2010s.
  • "the 2012 remake of Agneepath" of same name?
I think it's better this way, no?
  • Ref 12 seems to go nowhere. Fix it.
Ref 12 seems to open fine for me.
  • Also there are some redirected sources as per this.
Redirects are common. Don't think they need to be changed, unless the link dies.
  • A redundant use of full stop (.) in the caption under Bachchan's image.
Corrected.
  • You do not need to repeat company's name in every caption of the image. You can simply use "the company".
Tweaked.
  • No source for the 1980 film Dostana's plot?
This was discussed in the FLC nom for Yash Raj Films' list. And Dr. Blofeld clarified that the plot synopsis doesn't need to be covered by a source, as they are verifiable by the film itself. I have provided a review for each film, wherever I could, to not rely solely on Bollywood Hungama listings.
  • And the same thing for several other films.
  • Not sure about this one, but I think that Indiatimes needs to be in italics in ref 20 as it seems to be a piece of news.
Since Indiatimes is an online source, it doesn't need italics.
  • The link for ref 25 is dead.
Changed link.
  • Perhaps you can add Rani's names in K3G's cast. Not necessary though as she was in a cameo role.
Yeah, I have not included cameos in the cast section.
  • The reference for Kal Ho Naa Ho's plot does not say that the lead actor had a disease. However, this source does.
Per above.
Yeah, that is, but when there is a source which verifies everything, we can use that source, so that it should be easily verified, no?
Yeah, added the ref.
  • Ref 32 does not support that Rani's character was a school teacher, but you can use this source. You won't need ref 31 as well as this source also names the actors' names.
Per above.
Changed ref.
  • I would probably link "
    vigilante
    " as I think that not everyone knows about the word.
Added.

I was closely following this list while it was being improved. I wanted to inform you about the DYK nomination of the list as you had completely forgotten about the nomination. Anyways, I hope that these suggestions help you improve the list. I think that you have done an amazing job as always. Thank you for working so well. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments,
KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think it meets the criteria. Nah, kidding, I fully Support this. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks. But you may want to remove the "oppose" from there for the convenience of admins. --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose for now (3b violation) – Solely based on the size of the parent article. With a size of 5.8k chars, I see no reason to have a stand-alone list. —Vensatry (ping) 10:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see a 3b violation here. It's very much an acceptable type of
KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think this list fits into at least one category of what can be called as an "acceptable fork". On the other hand, the parent article is very short and hardly contains any reference. The list of films can well be accommodated in that article. —Vensatry (ping) 08:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy that explicitly states that we cannot have a stand-alone list if the parent article is short and/or unreferenced? I don't seem to find it. --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The answer lies
here. According to the criterion, short-size of the parent article would mean that this could reasonably be included as part of it. —Vensatry (ping) 09:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose Plot summaries are not relevant to this article, which is a list of films by a production house. Therefore I instead expect things like the name of the producer(s) [KKHH article lists Yash and Hiroo Johar, for eg], the budget of the films, their box office and similar. I also think the actor focus in the lead and in the photographs is similarly misplaced.—indopug (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's always nice to see opposes based on personal preferences. FYI, listing a synopsis for the films by a production house is quite common. Look at
KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Not a personal preference at all; by "I" I meant the average reader. See
3(a), if you want me to be explicit about the criteria this article fails to meet.—indopug (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, so when it's a country it can have a synopsis but when it's a production house it can't? How convenient. Also, what an average reader expects from an article is not what 3(a) talks about. " It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.". This list already does all of that. There is no violation, and your oppose is purely based on your personal preference. --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 17:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • When I read the oppose, I knew the list I wrote would be referred to.
Anywho, since this is a list of films by an individual production house, the producer's information should not be left out. Period. I would tend to include the short plot summaries, though, as they imply a certain formula or structure commonly used by the studio (and thus give a better understanding of the studio). If these were 100 word long summaries, I'd agree with Indopug, but a sentence is manageable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since Dharma is a in-the-family production company, all the films are produced by Karan Johar and his mother, Hiroo Yash Johar. Is it really necessary to keep repeating that for each film? And in case of co-productions: if it's with
KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Budget and box-office figures are essential information when talking about the films of a production house. The absence of these was the crux of both my comments; for some reason you've taken my constructive criticisms personally, become combative and made it solely about plot summaries. Also I think it'd be more relevant to have as many of the producers' photographs on the side as possible.
(If this list were really comprehensive and you added columns for budget and box-office, the table would probably become too wide for the plot summaries anyway)—indopug (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, it's Indian films we are talking about. There is little transparency on budget and box-office information, and that's for those for which the information is available. It makes very little sense when we don't have such data for a large number of films on this list. --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Support I think it meets FL criteria. I disagree with Vensatry that there is a 3b violation here. The list is of reasonable length and I think it would bloat the main article on the production house. Rather the production house article needs major expansion and sourcing. Agreed with Crisco here on the plot. In fact I was only just thinking how much the (basic) plot summaries helped the understanding of the films here. It allows the reader to overlook the scope of the productions and what they were producing at given times. I think it's an excellent list, although I suppose I'd have expected a column on producer or gross for comprehension's sake. I guess though a producer column is redundant if they're mostly the same person. If not, then I think Krimuk you ought to add something in the lede or footnote to explain all films are produced by Karan Johar and his mother, Hiroo Yash Johar and if it's with

Phantom Films then Anurag Kashyap is the co-producer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Much thanks Dr. B. :)Added the producer info; hope it's better now. --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Dr. Blofeld: My question is why can't this be reasonably included in the parent article? Even if we consider the length, 28 films don't seem to be a bigger number (with one-fourth of them being co-productions). I also don't understand why would it "bloat" the main article, when you yourself agree that the main article needs to be expanded. —Vensatry (ping) 07:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a growing list, on average four films a year. In ten years time that's 40 films. If the main article was given a major expansion then splitting this would be the way to go. It's a non issue from my perspective anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the main article does need a major expansion. But the scope of it is much different from this list. Just as
KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It's not a case of
    WP:CFORK. I agree that the scope is much different for both the articles. But for now, both seem to contain a substantial portion of overlapping content, although the list is a much improved version. I see no reason why this should be a standalone article as the prose part of this "well-written" list can be incorporated into the main article and the table be merged with the same, until the parent article gets expanded. In the case of Aamir Khan's article, the filmography can well be forked-out as the size of the parent article is well over 20k+ chars (close to 4k words). However, that's not the case here. —Vensatry (ping) 09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I can understand the concern, and agree that the main article needs a major expansion, but a straight-out oppose seems drastic, don't you think so? --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, both Dr. B and I disagree with you on this one. Cheers! --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support: I think this list is well sourced and format. I also strongly disagree about opposition because of the parent article. I agree that it needs expansions, but including it in the main article would create a bit clutter since this list is about the individual films as opposed to the production company itself. That's just how I view it.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Birdie. I really appreciate it. :) --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure. :)
Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Elaboration of my opposition

I have opposed this article's promotion to FL not because of a couple of easily-fixable things, but rather since its entire focus is misplaced. Again, understand that this is not just any list of films, but a list of films by a particular production house. It must thus prioritise aspects of production before anything else. Specific ways that the article gets it wrong:

  • Needs box-office and budget information: I opened a bunch of the movies' articles, and many of those since the 1990s have both budget and box-office info, with citations. Therefore two new columns for these should be added. Empty cells—even for half the films in the table—are okay.
  • I agree that biggest hits/flops info should be in the lead; this information will surely be found in film journals, magazines or biographies/history books of the Johars and Dharma. If not, just say "from the information available, xyz is the biggest hit/flop"
  • Another concern I've listed above and that has gone unnoticed is the article's incorrect focus on actors rather than producers (who indeed didn't even find mention in the table until I highlighted the point above) in the lead and in the photos. For eg, pics of Screwvala and Gauri Khan captioned something like "Dharma has often collaborated with UTV and Red Chillies...".
  • The lead can focus more on the producers. For example, it doesn't mention that Yash Johar was the exclusive producer for the first two decades, before it was taken over by his son. Have the types of films produced changed over the years? How are Karan Johar's films different from his fathers'? What is the impact of the UTV and Red Chillies collaborations on the films?
  • WP:Recentism: quite clearly the article is tilted towards recent releases. The entire cast of one 2012 film (SotY) finds mention in the lead and have their pics included; but nobody except Bachchan from the 1980s and early 90s does. Post-90s directors are named more frequently.
  • Sources: is Bollywood Hungama a reliable source? Are there none better?
  • Minor point: the refs in the Footnotes are not necessary, everything is already cited in the table.—indopug (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the entire point of this oppose to be highly misplaced. This is a listing of the films produced by the production house, and not an analysis on them. The analysis on hit/flops, types of films produced etc should be included in the parent article, and not in this one. Also, a whopping 70% of the films produced by them are post-2000, so obviously larger focus will be on the recent ones. Also, wanting pictures of producers instead of actors is probably your only valid concern, though an extremely minor one and easily fixable. And finally, box-office and budget info can be suitable add-on's for the list (where available), yes, but are not mandatory. Tomorrow, another editor may take offense that the names of editors and cinematographers aren't mentioned in the table. As such, I can't base the list on everyone's personal preference. --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If your idea of this article as solely a "listing" of films, then all you need is a bullet-point list such as "Dostana (1980)" and so on. For that you don't need a separate article, but just a separate section in the parent article (as Vensatry suggests).
And I continue to be bewildered as to how plot summaries and cast lists can be considered perfectly relevant, while actual production-house-related information like budget and box office—which is available for great many of the films, so Crisco 1492 needn't worry "how rare that is to come across"—are merely my "personal preference".—indopug (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A great many films" where, exactly? My specialty is Indonesian productions, and in this industry figures are rarely published. India appears to publish figures more often, though it's possible that not all the films here have released such information. Unless you can provide more than "it's common", Krimuk's objection is completely reasonable to me. Sources showing that there is information available, for instance? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the article, and open the wikipages for the films from the late 90s onwards. Many of them have sourced figures right there in the infobox.
Further note that the nom refuses engage with most of my comments (recentism, reliability of Bollywood Hungama, mentioning the biggest hit/flop in the lead as you suggested etc). If nominators can get away with such blatant condescension ("probably your only valid concern, though an extremely minor one and easily fixable"—and he hasn't fixed it, by the way) and any criticism is dismissed as personal preference, it's hard for reviewers to take the process seriously.—indopug (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you may, but I refuse to "engage" with reviewers who are so condensing in reviewing nominations. As I said earlier, someone else may have a concern that the names of music composers aren't mentioned in the table, because you know, music is such an integral part of Indian films. As I have said before, I really cannot indulge everyone's personal opinion in making a list. --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Krimuk90, Indopug has a point here. When you talk about list of films produced by a production house, it makes sense if we focus on the producers/co-producers rather than actors. For now, this list seems more inclined towards the actors just like their filmographies. I think I had pointed out this in the DYK nomination as well. —Vensatry (ping) 07:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But actors have the maximum visibility, don't they? In India, stars are the selling point for a film, whether we like it or not. So why shy away from doing that here? --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Seems like you haven't got the point. This page is not an actor's filmography, but all about a production house, as simple as that. —Vensatry (ping) 17:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are pictures of actors, who, I repeat, are the most visible aspect of the films by any production house. I don't go on and on about these actors, but just have a few pictures of them. That doesn't make the page about them. It still lists the films of the production house, and doesn't list the films of these actors. It's a ridiculous POV preference to fight over. If someone doesn't like the pictures of actors, and prefers the pictures of producers and directors instead, they can google it! --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Except this is not about the most visible aspects of the productions, it is about the production house itself (and thus, the producers).12:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The person who has produced most of the films already has a picture in the lead. --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A suggestion: I reckon the pictures make sense, but since you have space, how about you also add a picture of Yash Johar (he produced a large proportion of films; every film from 1980-2003), Hiroo Johar (she pretty much produced every film 2006-onwards) and Ayan Mukerji (as the director of the highest grossing film YJHD) AB01║TALK 05:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any free images of either Yash or Hiroo Johar, though I'll try to find some on BH. --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added images of Ayan Mukerji and Gauri Khan, and also put the gross of YJHD which may be the highest grossing Dharma film. --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Support: Looks good to me AB01║TALK 01:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AB01. :) --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Support – Well written, readable lead, clear layout, evidently comprehensive. Is the omission of the accent from "fiancé" an

Engvar thing? Full marks for being brave and writing "common friend" where most writers would use the incorrect "mutual friend". To my eye the centring of the text in the middle five columns would look better if ranged left, but that's just personal preference, and doesn't detract from my support. – Tim riley talk 07:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you so much for the kind words. :) I originally intended to write "fiancé", but I guess I missed the accent. --
Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Closing note: This
    WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. I think that the various threads have finished here, and the main points dealt with. I don't see this as being a 3b violation (as others have also said), which would have been the main bar to promotion. – SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Dharma_Productions_films/archive1&oldid=1208173280"