Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 3

This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

The article on the film

) 11:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Could anyone provide a non-copyrighted image of Tamil actress Sneha. The existing image has been listed for deletion but i cannot find any other non-copyrighted image -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear all,
There as been some edit wars going on in

to this article. There are several stances,

• Include just the mother tongue
• Include the main career industry's language alone along with the mother tongue
• Include all languages in which the star acted along with the mother tongue

Views are welcome. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the filmography sections of Bollywood celebrities, nominations to Filmfare Awards are being included as if they are achievements by right. Anwar (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created this article on Kisan Kanya, India's first indigenously produced colour film and am thinking of nominating it for a DYK. However, I cannot as the article has been classed as a 'Stub'. It would be great if someone could help me in improving content or adding photographs. Please, hurry, I have only two daysleft. Thank you-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello all! I created this WP:India cinema advertisement since I realized that we had none. I think this would be a good way to canvass more editors to contribute to this wikiproject. To use this, please use this code:

{{Qxz-ads|ad=140|links=yes}}

to produce:

Wikipedia ads	file info – #140

Suggestions/ideas are welcome. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I've created an expanded this article on film producer and director

05:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Article request for Singeetam / Singeetham

Could someone please create an article as per

) 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP India

}} Banner as {{WP India|class=|importance=}} to the talk page of articles without the project banner. It can also add the workgroup paramaters like "|kerala=yes|kerala-importance=" etc ,if needed. The currently supported workgroups are Kerala, Maharashtra, Andhra pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Bengal, Goa, Himachal Pradesh , Karnataka , Punjab,cities, Cinema, Literature, Protected Areas of India, History, Politics states, Geography,Maps,Districts and Tamil.

If you need so, you need to provide me with the Categories to run the Bot. Due to some technical issues, the Bot will not run recursively to sub-categories. The requester should kindly verify that there are NO non-related articles in the category.
You may request for the bot run on my talk page... Thanks -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus actually. First of all, this template has nothing to do with this particular task force. This template, which is a part of many such templates sorted by country, was originally intended for general and core articles from the beginning, not film and actor ones. Both {{

in this discussion apply to the Indian cinema template as well, for the simple fact that these templates are of the same type. Just that the standard was implemented on American related articles, and the Indian were left, and editors started adding it when it actually shouldn't have been done from the outset. It was a mistake. I was actually one of the editors who had been adding these templates extensively. Now I'm doing what had to be done a long time ago. Don't think it was a big pleasure removing them back extensively, knowing that I actually was reverting my own edits in many cases. It was exhauting, but it's the standard, a standard which was overlooked/unnoticed by us, Indian cinema editors. Shahid • ^Talk2me

00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You certainly have every right to raise concerns and to participate in this task force as much as anybody, but it was the way in which you badgered Shahid earlier as if it was a misconduct. The entirety of the templates you see in the articles are a product of the two of us only. If I hadn't have created them and I or Shahid hadn't implemented them or actually done much to work towards this task force as you see it now you would neither be commenting on them or even be commenting here. Even the instructions on the project page were drawn up by us. Now we don't own the templates despite creating them and every editor has a right to express their concerns, but the generic Indian cinema templates are connected in the categories. People click a category at the end of every articles and voila they can access everything and it saves clutter in the mainspace particularly as there are also templates on directors etc. We are keeping the sub national cinema templates in the articles. Connecting to the entirety of Indian cinema is still a click away. There was consensus as Shahid explained with the American template which at the time we should have addressed the Indian one too. There are not too many editors around who could join a "discussion" at present. If you no longer want to be a part of the project because of a bunch of templates thats your're problem, but I hope you get over it and can work it out. It isn't the end of the world and it isn't necessary to create a drama. The task force has a lot to offer if there are editors willing to participate in it.

$1,000,000?

00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blofeld. It makes sense to have the same criteria for the Indian cinema and the American cinema template. Per the discussion here it was obvious that there was a consensus to keep the templates, but to only use them within certain criteria. It will be a lot of work to remove the template from articles which fail those criteria. If people agree with the criteria I can help out there. Garion96 (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise to User:GDibyendu if I appeared patronising or appeared uncivil to Giro but all I am saying is that there is more history to it than meets the eye. The problem GDibeyendu is that the activity of the project as a group is rather lower than once was at present and in the "golden days" project moves would have been well discussed as a group. I sincerely hope the task force regains it level of collaboration and discussion as a group once again and however much I may appear to belittle GDibebyendu I actually warmly welcome you as much as anybody to the indian cinema project because we need as many editors as possible to regain old ground and take things forward. But there is a quite a history with the project and high level of activity concentrated between only a handful of editors which I don't think you were aware of. Best regards

$1,000,000?

01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Blof and Garion96. It is perfectly clear in the link you provided, Garion96, that there is a consensus, and that the criteria and use terms apply to all of the similar templates. The decision was unanimous, but the American template was probably the only one to be taken care of, as it is always considered the representative template. The American template was sorted as noted in the criteria, but the Indian one was somehow overlooked/unnoticed/forgotten, and many editors, including Blof and myself, started adding it. It was a whole big mistake from the very outset. And the only thing I'v been doing is correcting it. My intention wasn't to offend anybody, if such a case is possible whatsoever. Everybosy is welcome to help me remove the template from articles that fail those criteria... I still can't see the light at the end of the tunnel... ;) Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we have reached the light at the end of the tunnel. :) Gotta love

awb. There still might be some, but I think the template is now removed from all the articles where it didn't belong per the criteria. Garion96 (talk)

20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh!! That was quick! Thank you very much Garion96! Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Swarnakamalam
• Swarna_Kamalam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.154.26.251 (talk • contribs
  )
  • Merged. Steve ^{T • C} 20:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As you

.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of
  a rubric
  , and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as
  described here
  .

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please

) 21:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Replace the '-ollywood' portmanteau in all the articles pertaning to the Indian Cinema!

Why everybody use terms like Bollywood, Kollywood, Tollywood,.. ? They should be renamed to Hindi Film Industry, Tamil Film Industry, Telugu Film Industry,.. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. What many people don't realise is that using the '-ollywood' portmanteau is extremely derogatory and brings the rich film-making culture of India into poor light. The films of India and the movie industries in all the Wikipedia articles should be primarily referred to on the basis of the language in which they are made, e.g. 'Hindi-language film' or 'Hindi Cinema', 'Tamil Cinema' or 'Tamil-language film'. This issue has to be sorted out as soon as possible. - Glaeronius (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the

) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Venu Ravichandran

I was recently cleaning up some links about Tamil movies and found myself directed to both of these film producer names (sometimes from different points in the same article). Neither biography is well-sourced or referenced (there aren't even any birth dates or complete names). All I can tell is that:

10:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Indian cinema

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please could somebody urgently try to get some of these up to bare minimum level. Many of them I've looked at at random fail even our basic notability requirements and neither have any context nor any external links to verify the cast or its existance.

22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please verify the claims made in the article? It survived an AfD , but I've been unable to find any sourcing that backs up what is claimed, and several sources that directly contradict the article's claims, all on the talk page. Thank you. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 06:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am working on Slumdog Millionaire, an upcoming film that has done well in a few film festivals and is gathering buzz as an awards contender. The film's setting is India with about a quarter of the language being Hindi, so if anyone is interested in helping with this article, any contributions would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have edited the wiki page for Kabhi Kabhie and put details of what i have done on the discussion page. I believe it meets all criteria of a B class article but is missing information such as Critic's reception and overall box office performance. Those two included would make it a GA article. Could someone please double check and confirm my work. Thanks and Happy New Year.Rgp2130 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The

) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources in Bollywood films articles

Hello all. In light of the recent disagreements over sources involving

15:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please list the websites which are considered problematic here:

Here you have the list:

1. Oneindia.in
2. thaindian.com
3. slough.gov.uk
4. desiclub.com
5. twitchfilm.net
6. indyarocks.com
7. iefilmi.com
8. Bollywoodcountry.com
9. Bollywoodmantra.com

Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

++

I've added in all the site with short explanation as well as the links to the actual article in question.

• Oneindia.in = Mainstream News site [[1]]
• thaindian.com = Mainstream News site [[2]]
• slough.gov.uk = review on government/public website [[3]]. Cross verified with [[4]]
• desiclub.com = Entertainmetn news portal [[5]]. Contains exact comparison of plots from both movies and similarities.
• twitchfilm.net = Entertainment news portal. Provided English translation of original Korean news article, with original source article at the bottom of same page.^[1]
• iefilmi.com = Official website of the India EU Film Initiative [[6]]
• Bollywoodcountry.com = Entertainment news website. Co-edited by noted director/film critic Subhash K. Jha. [[7]]
• Bollywoodmantra.com = Article written by professional media journalist [[8]]. Views confirmed in [[9]]

I was running a detailed breakdown on the main talk page questioning why particular sites were excluded. But as there was no reply on this, I'll include it here as well.

Take The site of the India-EU Film Initiative. Headed by Jag Mundhra - Movie director, and Pervaiz Alam - a former award-winning BBC journalist, iscreenwriter and documentary film-maker., who also edits the site.

We'll run this down

.

Given the credentials of its members and its editor, its definitely credible.

Given the organizations role and objectives, its obviously subject to peer review.

It is not self-published, being the site of an actual organization.

Its an official website for an actual organisation involved with the Indian film industry in an objective level and stand.

And yet according th user:Shshshsh's edit [[10]] iefilm.com, one of the organization's official website is not allowed, with all the films sourced from that site being removed from the "films with alleged plagiarism" list.

I look forward to getting a good response about the issue this time, beyond a vague "The sites are not acceptable" style reply. When research has been done, only to be dismissed repeatedly with the same lame vague excuse, it turns into a case of

.

Zhanzhao (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into these tomorrow. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Slough governent website should be reliable. My only concern about it would be what do they know about Bollywood? it seems an odd source. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld asked me here. I think a general chat at

WP:RS might be better to get more traffic and as these sites are used not only for Bollywood referencing. Personally I am skeptical of these pseudo-news/portal/matrimonial/networking combo type websites. It would get a thorough working over if presented at FAC, that's for sure. If a newspaper gave the same info, I would definitely not use the website.... I know a lot of people see Rediff as highly questionable and these seemt o be of the same quality. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!

) 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the sites I listed which are portals, these do not just junk news together but devoting one specific section of the site to it. Unless the site is aiming to be some tabloid portal (which would only make sense if the whole site is only dedicated to entertainment style news) it is bad business practice for them to just allow any article to be put there which will impact the credibility of their other sections (i.e. finance, news, sports etc). Thats the logical explanation. When these sites are taking their news from some other source, especially in respect to print publications, it typically comes self-sourced, usually with the journalist's name. With that, unless one has access to some national archive of every single publication in the world, like if we go into

WP:FACT

, most of the articles in wikipedia would never even make it since they are all unverifiable and one would have to take the editor's word for it.

On a side note, what do you guys think of blogs that list film similarities and differences on a point by point format? In that case its actually being stated in a matter-of-fact rather than an opinion. The problem is that a lot of the newspapers do not go very deeply in the nature of the plagiarism issues, many nary beyond a one liner comment. Newspapers have limited "real-estate" for each character included, even the "spaces" and "periods", unlike online websites. Their main revenue comes from advertisement placements, not the actual sales of the articles. Hence they seldom go deep into detail. Some editors have used this as a basis for rejecting even newspaper sources, saying that it must explain the plagiarism in detail (you'll never see as detailed a comparison in the Zinda article on any newspaper). Another common reason for rejection is that unless the article explicitly mentions the word plagiarism (or any of its forms) it should not be included. Even though in function and form it is plagiarism (taking "inspiration" or copying to a substantial degree without giving proper credit tot he source).

There's also another common argument that some non-Bollywood directors and producers are also guilty of these. In that case those should go under another article, and not factor into the main article in question. When one catches a thief in the crime, the defense of "that other guy was doing it as well" will get him off the hook.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have serious objections to the first sentence of the article itself:"...certain Bollywood filmmakers have been known to resort to plagiarism". Known to whom? WP? None of the websites listed above can be considered as reliable source. Slough website, being a government website for the borough council of Slough, is an RS, but definitely that does not qualify this site as an RS for films, by no means for Bollywood films.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with both Monkey and GDibyendu. Slough government site would be the only source which appears reliable to me but is clearly an obscure source as I said above. I would discard it, it is like using a source from a municipal Guatemalan website in Spanish or something to write an article on Hollywood. I also have a suspicion of such news sites as Yellow Monkey identified, most of them are not written by professionals or experts and may not appear neutral, Some of them are little more than news blogs. I would try to stick to mainstream newspapers as much as possible. FOr information on the release of a film etc they may have more legitimacy, but for a controversial subjetc like plagiarism in Bollywood which is potentially libellous you must exercise caution, and in my view should not be citing these amateurish sites to support strong claims. desiclub for indtance to me looks about as amateurish for a news site or film review site as you can get, you can tell by the way the site is designed alone that it is not a solid source. From that page alone I get a strong sense that POV is presented by the person who wrote that article giving it a measly 2.5/10. Awful film or not it isn't a valid source. The source that looks the most adequate to me is Bollywoodmantra.com which has long had a lot of information on Bollywood. The main concern was reliability before but I would find it just about acceptable given that the site is confirmed to be written by a professional, but again the concern is its neutrality. Bollywoodcountry.com the Entertainment news website also may contain some useful information by director/film critic Subhash K. Jha but again I am certain that neutrality will be comprised in these two sites. In reality these websites are pretty shoddy sources. Its like building a house out of paper. Find books, newspapers etc which undoubtedly contain information on it, they will look far more credible. Why hasn't anybody turned to book sources? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the India-EU Film Initiative site? Is it legitimate?

iefilmi.com does seem to have a title "India-EU Film Initiative " which suggests it is a professional site but is it official? Who is responsible for the running of the site? By the openness of the site to comments at the foot of the page and indeed some comments addressing flaws in the accuracy of the article on it then reliability is quiestionable.

Its actually a think-tank for EU and Indian film makers, sort of like an industry association established only early last year (from what I gather), hence there isn't much public info on them as compared to the older news sites. Plus the fact that they are more of a B2B rather than a comsumer oriented site/organisation does not help publicity wise. But the organisation has been interviewed by mainstream new agencies who acknowledge the organization and its roles. I.e. here and here and here.Zhanzhao (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I previously wrote: there are many articles from the mainstream news sites or organizational sites of relevant industries which have a one-liner statement that a particular film is plagiarised or "inspired" without creditation. But would that be acceptable and not be removed? Such citations in the past which had been removed. The best solution would be to have multiple citations, one from the "authoritative" site that gave a "one-liner", and one from a less authoritative site which gives more info about the plagiarism. But these too had been removed in the past.Zhanzhao (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I did try book-searches in google. Not all of the links allow you to view the contents.... i.e. this result for Baazigar kiss before dying at least allows a couple of sentence chunks to be shown, but the first entry for burning "train plagiarized" gives me this result with no content at all. However if the first case is still acceptable, I could work with it.Zhanzhao (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I have never used any of the above listed sites for references, I would not like to comment; personally I prefer using newspaper articles and reviews wherever possible.

Bollywood films and plagiarism, an old issue, even film historians are bored of it now. I'd leave it to someone who still is interested in the topic; I'd rather focus something appreciative, when there is so much to. --Ekabhishek (talk

) 13:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Ekabhishek, my thoughts exactly. Well the response from fellow editors from Indian cinema would seem to indicate that there is a clear consensus that these sources are not credible and should be replaced with newspaper and book sources. Most of the people who have commented have a great deal of experience in editing wikipedia on Indian cinema articles and they all claim to have never used any of those websites for referncing their work. If for instance we were to try to promote the article to a

14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In most of film edits, I've tried looking for sources and content via Google News and Search. That is I look primarily for newspaper publications. Occasionally, I source from rediff.com. Prima facie, I am not really sure about the above references. But if it is proven at WP:RS that these sources come from reliable people, then I'm sure to use them in the future. Mspraveen (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately even if the sources are from reliable persons, some editors still insist on questioning/removing them. I.e.

WP:RS and said the "Onus is on you to prove the sites are rubbish and not written by the supposed personalities"

. I had repeatedly explained why it seems credible due to the writer who is editing the site (a 15 year media veteren, film producer and bbc journalist) according to WP:RS (which I repeated again above) for his benefit, and yet never got a response from my explanation to either except or reject the explanation. Unless you count the unexplained follow-up removal of entries as a valid response.

Another issue I encountered with citations is that editors like user:Shshshsh choose to selectively ignore them when its to their benefit to do so, i.e. lying that I initiated the lawsuit claims when I was merely referring to the contents of the citations in the talk pages.

When an editor has it in his mind to reject a citation, it seems that nothing can stop it. Thankfully most editors are more responsible. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For your reference, I've actually gotten a korean friend of mind to translate and verify that the Twitchfilm.net article is correctly quoting the original korean news source (specifically paras 4-7 on the original article). If anyone else is in doubt, I welcome the more senior editors making a call for help in the Korean section of Wikipedia, as I'm sure the korean editors who are bilingual will be more than willing to help out. In anycase if and when I do use the twitchfilm.net link, it will be accompanied by the original korean link. More specifically, I'll identify the korean news link as the main source and the twitchfilm.net link as the translated source as per Oldboy^{[2] [3]}.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Shshshsh is again removing citations [[11]] without providing a proper justification for it, even though I clearly explained that I included Twitchfilm.net as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources by giving an English translated site along with the non-English article. Can someone stop this irresponsible editing?Zhanzhao (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Zhanzhao does not understand that because of him being the one who added the source, he is also the one who has to prove its reliability when it's questioned. I question the reliability of twitchfilm.com and the Korean site as well. The burden of proof is merely on you. Do you have a way to prove it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Moneytoday site is trusted and quoted by such respectible sources like Nasdaq [12], Forbes via Reuters [13] and Bloomberg [14]. Obviously these sources believe that the korean website is reliable, which I value more than your opinion and idea of whether only you believe the site is reliable or not.

The Twitchfilm.net site merely translates the contents of the sites, particular the verbatim statements from the PR person of Show East, the company behind Oldboy. The verification process lies with you being able to understand korean to understand the original news article on Moneytoday. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to read korean. However, yif you use the babelfish site translater, I'm sure you can pick up enough from the translated page to see for your self.

If you with to start a senseless edit war YET again, By all means do so. But I will not allow your stubborness in the face of factual stements (Since Moneytodya jsut factually reporting the announcements of ShowEast) make you king over wikipedia, a community project.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I question twitchfilm.com. What makes this website reliable??? Can you answer this question? If you can, I'll be more than happy to stop that issue. If it's not reliable we cannot trust their translation whatsoever. You don't understand that if you use it here, and then others will follow you, it can be resulted in someone's sudden statement that it's not reliable, and then we will be forced to remove them all. That's the result of such edits. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually got a friend of mine to translate it for me. I welcome you to challenge that as a lie and get anyone else to translate it for you, then come back and say the twitchfilm.net article is misreporting it. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I challenge it as a lie. I don't care about your friend's translation (if there was any), and I'm not going to ask someone to translate it to me. I want to know what makes twitchfilm reliable. You can ask for help on

WP:RSN. Shahid • ^Talk2me

06:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you outright saying that moneytoday is misquoting the PR of Show East? That still does not explain why the Moneytoday site is removed. Start behaving.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have to take lessons in editing from editors who don't even know how to edit properly. I changed the source with the one from The Hindu. Now relax and forget about these blogs, whose reliability you were not (and will probably never be) able to prove. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oneindia.in is a reliable source. it has two offices - http://www.oneindia.in/contact.shtml

Oneindia.in is owned by B. G. Mahesh

- CS2020 (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

New user, MAYA BHAI (talk · contribs) (or 81.98.110.203 (talk · contribs) logged out), has been creating some articles on new movies. I can't seem to find any sort of information that suggests these films are actually being made, and the user doesn't seem to feel like communicating. I'm hoping someone with a little more knowledge might have a chance to look over these recent edits. --Onorem♠Dil 20:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can't corroborate and there is no evidence that these pass

WP:NFF, then I'd recommend either AfD or Prod'ing them. Girolamo Savonarola (talk

) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Veer

Hey, I created the page for Veer (film). Still needs lots of work, but I figure I gave it a good start. Deavenger (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new

, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey all, I've started some mini projects to tidy up the Tamil Film pages. Anybody who is interested in helping out, the details can be found on the talk page of the Tamil films page. Any help would be greatly appreciated, together we can greatly improve the poor quality of many of these articles. Please reply either at that page or on my talk page if you wish to help out. Ckannan90 (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, Indian films are divided by language, with Hindu-language films being classified as Bollywood. Is this a correct classification, or just a simplification? Should any Hindu language films be placed on the

) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

bollywoodhungama.com and indiafm.com spam problem

We've had major spam problems with

single purpose accounts

spamming these two domains. 35 different editors have at one point or another given 59 spam warnings and 11 blocks to this spammer's multiple accounts; that's a record as far as I know. The spammer's pattern is also disruptive; instead of adding one link, he/she adds many links at once, sometimes removing other links.

At the same time, regular editors have also found these useful links to add.

I blacklisted these domains a few days ago. Now another editor has asked this be reconsidered. It would be helpful to get input from users that edit these articles as to whether the value of these links outweighs the aggravation of repeatedly cleaning up spam links. A third approach might be to selectively whitelist individual pages as requested by regular editors, however that requires the slight hassle of posting a request at

WP:WHITELIST

.

One final question: are these links reliable sources per our

External Links Guideline

?

Please leave your comments at:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#bollywoodhungama.com

Thanks for your help, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This baby needs a lot a cleaning up - the plot is told using the actors names for one thing. Can someone take a stab at fixing it? -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

After this AFD, I realised that the coverage of Indian language films on Wikipedia are really poor, especially for languages like Malayalam which produces over 25-50+ films mainstream films per year. Before creating the articles for each of them, I wanted to subcategorize the films per year, the categories are now at CFD, thanks to the same nominator. While I am aware of the canvassing rules, I request the related project members opinions at the CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_11#Malayalam-language_films_by_year -- Tinu Cherian - 03:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear All I am working on

) 07:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi, Im Abhishek from Malayalam Wikipedia. Recently a guy named Anees Kodiyathur uploaded a set of images of people in Malayalam film industry. They are all under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL. You can find those images here. Just wanted to let you all know so that those images can be used here also.--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Could I get some help keeping an eye on Mammootty filmography? Several people are editing the article to add their personal opinions as to whether his films were hits, flops, superhits, etc. That's personal opinion and shouldn't be in there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the

) 03:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot which automatically updates unreferenced biography of living persons daily

RE: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#Unreferenced biography of living persons bot to get projects involved in referencing.

Hello wikiproject, I requested a bot which will update unreferenced living people (BLPs) daily.

page, this shows your project really cares about this issue.

I just need a list of projects who would like to test this bot. Please let me know here if your project would like to do this. Thank you. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 19:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, a number of films nominated by User:Universal Hero are at WP:Good article nominations. Two are under review, Aayirathil Oruvan and Kuselan. A further six are the next oldest nominations: Aegan, Vaaranam Aayiram, Sarvam, Dhaam Dhoom, Santosh Subramaniam, Dasavathaaram, and Jeans (film). The trouble is that User:Universal Hero is not responding to messages left on their talk page. The articles are in rather poor shaps, with extremely poor prose and some unreliable sources. Looks like they will all fail unless someone responds to the reviews, or tidies up those which are likely to be reviewed in the next few days. I just thought that I would give you a heads up. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me in transferring the images of Category:Telugu-language films from Telugu Wikipedia. I am creating pages with good information about them. These images can be uploaded to Wikicommons and added to these English Wikipedia pages. Thank You.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Priya Ahuja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HI, created today as a messy stub, raised at the WP:BLPN. Sent to AFD here for discussion. Young Indian Soap/movie actress possibe improvement/rescue? I have improved a bit, she looks a little notable, perhaps someone here is interested.

) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested parameters for Indian films

Hi. Have a look at Mooga Manasulu. This is a common feature in Indian film articles in that people list the crew in the article because the infobox does not cater for certain requirements. In Indian films, Choreographers, playback singers and art directors in particular are extremely important. I am led to believe that they considerable influence on the films in how they look and sound. Could you please add three new parameters to the infoboxes. Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers. Once added clean up can begin removing these ~"crew" sections from the articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Indian cinema articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Just announcing that Taare Zameen Par has been nominated for FA here. Any comments are welcomed. Ωphois 04:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Have been trying to get Anandabhadram back to a GA status. But many issues remain with the film. Someone willing to lend a hand? Please? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it passed in August 2007, right? Can't you compare its state now to then and recreate whatever has been broken? BollyJeff || talk 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Should take a look at Marshal(2002 film) and decide whether its notable. I just removed a PROD but the article needs work and if the task force doesn't think its notable, it should be submitted for an AFD. Obviously the first task if its to be kept is to move it from Marshal(2002 film) to Marshal (2002 film). Thanks. 68.165.77.238 (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A "Vivek Wadhwa" is listed as executive producer, and that's linked to Vivek Wadhwa, who ran some companies associated with modernizing COBOL programs. Different people, or same person? --John Nagle (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

) 18:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done I left the user blank for now. You seem to have the most edits on the article. Should you get credit for the GA? Or is it User:Vensatry, or someone else who nominated it and got it in good shape to pass? BollyJeff || talk 19:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, many users made great contributions to that article (Universal Hero, Johannes003, AtticusX, Active Banana, and me), but I'd say the article's nominator Vensatry polished it up a bit at the last minute to be GA-worthy. I'm actually not too sure. Many editors contributed well to give the article its GA status. Vensatry was of course the nominator. But I don't want to leave out any of the prior editors of the article. I guess at the end, someone else could do better in determining who deserves credit for this article.

talk

) 19:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

talk

) 20:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, both are there now with names. Good work guys! Now we have to keep vandals from ruining them. BollyJeff || talk 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain if "notable filmographies" are useful? What makes a film notable enough for it to be included in a notable filmography list? This has created some debate in pages like

) 13:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice to have a discussion on "Notable filmography". Even I too feel that those lists are biased towards particular language, especially for Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, since these two have done some good films in other languages apart from Tamil.--Thalapathi (Ping Back) 15:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Any section that starts with "Notable" is problematic as "notable" is already implicit. Such embedded lists should be notable rather than a trivia list. However I suggest that a Filmography for a BLP is either complete or selected (as implied above) on the basis of notable awards won for that film, at least the selection criteria is then unambiguous. Further, a complete filmography would not include uncredited appearances or appearances in distinctly non-notable short films, pilots or TV dramas that never made it big time unless these are of verifiable interest in independent reliable sources due to odd reasons such as "worst turkey ever" (i.e. not fulfilling

common sense selection criteria). --Fæ (talk

) 06:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard to consider just awards. Take a look at

talk

) 16:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it would be nice if we include recent filmography for Rajinikanth. He has hardly appeared in 4 films in the laste decade.--Thalapathi (Ping Back) 04:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also consider actors who have been in a lot of films, and no one has taken the time or wants to list them all in a separate article. In this case, notable should be allowed, because that's all there is. I have often seen these listed as "Partial filmography". An example is Anupam Kher. Again, it is subjective as to what gets put there, and sometimes heavily weighted to newer films. A better system would be appreciated. But it's better than nothing isn't it? BollyJeff || talk 12:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Kamal Haasan, it is clear that he has only a few no. of films for which he didn't get awards. So I don't think it would be fine if we go on adding all of his films in notable filmography.--Thalapathi (Ping Back) 14:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly why I'm looking for a bold definition of "notable". I'm assuming that would be somewhere along the lines of films of award-winning performances, critical acclaim/positive reviews, and high-grossing films. The question is, what if someone had numerous films where both those categories apply, in this case

talk

) 15:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this guy won a lot of awards. You may not be able to come up with a generic formula for everyone, but in his case, I would go with award winners only, to emphasize that. BollyJeff || talk 16:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a big doubt. Awards for film adds credit to the director or producer? If a film gets National Award who is credited. I see people saying Mohanlal has won 4 national awards (2 for best actor;1 special jury;1 for best producer). Does a producer really gets credit for a film. If that is the case. Thevar Magan has won a national award, but for the best regional film. Kamal Haasan was the producer. So he should be credited and he must be a 5 time winner of national awards. isn't it?? --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 14:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I always thought best film awards apply to the producers, because they technically "own" the film. Then again, screenwriters/directors probably do more for a film than anyone else. Anyone know who they generally call to the stage to receive a best film award during ceremonies? I believe it's the producers.

talk

) 15:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, Kamal Haasan is a 5-time national award winner. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It technically may be so. But many recognize him as a 4-time award winner, three for best actor and one for best child actor.

talk

) 18:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Then what about Mohanlal, 4 national awards (2 for best actor;1 special jury;1 for best producer). He must be called a 3 time winner isn't it??--Thalapathi (Ping Back) 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got clarified with the doubt myself after having a look at the NFA website. It's very clear that both producers and directors get credit for (Awards for films). Both are presented with a Silver Lotus Award and the producer gets double the amount (of cash prize) that of the director. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The price is given to both director and producer, but I think the film gets the "actual credit". Credits should not got to any person. In that case, Mohanlal is a 3-time winner. Johannes003 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

May be, but the award for Best film is given to both. So I personally feel the names of both producer director should be mentioned. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 16:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, in the Academy Award for Best Picture, the award goes to the producer. BollyJeff || talk 17:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I'm stressing. Producer gets an award for "best film". In India for national awards both Producers and directors get awards, Main credit goes to producer. In case of filmfare awards, credit goes to producer. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, an award for best film should be mentioned under the producer's filmography and at the film page. It can be mentioned at the director's page too, but not under the director's filmography.

talk

) 14:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Many recognise Kamal Haasan as a four time winner. It is assumed as (3 for best actor and 1 for best child artist) but I guess 3 best actor + 1 Best film (producer). He won a gold medal from the president for Kalathur Kannamma, but that was a time when awards were straight away given by the govt. The Directorate of Film Festivals was formed only in the late 1960s. So "National Film Awards" were officially termed only in 1968. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 04:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only that page, all categories are incomplete and we have been trying for years to get some useful information. In fact, any data prior to 1995/96 is not or only poorly/unreliably sourced and I won't believe anything stated there. Unless we get some official database from Filmfare, I am afraid, we never will get a complete list. Is there any way to contact Filmfare and ask for clarification perhaps? Johannes003 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well nice to get a reply. Interestingly, today I happen to explore the details of Filmfare Awards starting from 1972 till 1986 for four categories. (Best Film, Best Dir, Best Actor and Best Actress.) Check out the page! Regards. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 16:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This person has gone on a massive editing spree across multipel articles and I dont know enough to know whether the changes are appropriate, but they looks suspicious. [17]

Thanks! Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

They changed a film title from

Mugavari to Mugavaree, and updated all references to it on other pages. Don't know why, but I am not going to argue it. Other unrelated edits seemed okay. BollyJeff || talk

18:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Enthiran dispute

Can I get a third party opinion of [edit] which is now locked? Can the company's revenue report of 179 crore be taken to mean the same as box office gross? Are the sources that were there already considered reliable? If not, what can be done, as it seems that aren't many sources for Tamil films deemed reliable. BollyJeff || talk 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Official box office tally for Enthiran is already [available from its producer. It is more reliable than mere media/fan speculation? Kollyfan (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I said a third party opinion. We already know yours. BollyJeff || talk 19:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The provided source doesn't mention whether the number takes into account the revenue of the film overseas or not, because the "relied" sources that we agreed on before implied that it is estimated that internationally Enthiran must have made over Rs. 300. This was also a statement given by one of the key people in the company. It's better we stick with the interpretation given by the

talk

) 03:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought, it was reliably sourced that the film grossed 375 crores. In both sources from The Economic Times and IBN this number is confirmed by the COO of the company. He explicitly states in the video that the company's net revenue was 179 crores (which the source given by Kollyfan also confirms) while the overall gross revenue was around 375 crores. The figure mentioned in the press release should be understood as the revenue for the producer only not the overall gross. Johannes003 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Johannes003. I echoed these views on

talk

) 03:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For a detailed review on the box-office figures have a look at this. Almost all high-grossing bollywood films use this as the primary source. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 03:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is deplorable that Enthiran has been locked to administrators only in an erroneous state. Anyone know when its protection is due?

talk

) 02:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It will be un-protected today (17:57, 12 June). Check the page history. --Commander (Ping Back) 03:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

New Start. Please help here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marathi_films

-

) 16:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi friends, I've nominated List of awards and nominations received by Kamal Haasan for FL. I request you all to participate and provide your valuable inputs. Thanks! --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 06:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to add the Censor Board Rating for all the Indian Movies being added to wikipedia... it is difficult to get that information elsewhere. Please modify the template accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsrg01 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be good. Thus we will also be able to compare various Board decisions & would also help to improve the article on the

talk

) 08:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A while ago an article was created with the title "Bomma Saikishore". However, the text refers all the time to Ranbir Kapoor, on whom we already have a bio. For the moment, I have redirected Saikishore to Kapoor, but this is not my area and I'd appreciate if some editors here could have a look at the redirect. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ponnar Shankar has been added as a GA. In featured articles, around two or three users have been credited for contribution to the article and I believe that applies to GA articles too. Along with

) 12:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Paiyaa worthy for a GA status??

Is the

) 14:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there would be some push-back on the reliability of the sources. I have seen in the past where Indiaglitz, and Behindwoods are frowned upon, to name a few. Can you find some better sources first? BollyJeff || talk 14:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I wanted to let you know that a page tagged as belonging to your project has been suggested to be a hoax. I've been trying to find some evidence to the contrary but I thought it time to consult the experts. The page in question is Sushmita Banerjee. All previous sources were either dead links or not relevant. Any help would be appreciated. RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone with subject knowledge please participate in the three Indian film GARs going on here: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment BollyJeff || talk 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have created my first wiki article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shadow7777/Kismat_%281968_film%29 <br?>Will be shortly making it public.

Someone on the wiki IRC suggested that i ask for feedback here before I make it public.

Firstly, wanted feedback on the article. Also had a couple of queries.
1. Since it is a very old film, there are not many sources / references. Most of the references are blogs. What can I do?
2. If I cannot find any proper references & if I make it public, will it be deleted?
3. Also, regarding specific things like plagiarism in songs? Is it appropriate to add in a movie's page? Also if the references to the plagiarism are less or is reported in blogs, would it be prudent to keep the section?

Sorry if I have posted this in the wrong place/section. Any kind of feedback is welcome.
Shadow7777 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The article looks good. I haven't checked the sources, but blogs cannot be used as sources. Since this is an old film, try finding published sources. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 17:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have tried to find published sources but unable to find them. Could someone suggest some links? Or help me with the article to make it a proper one?

I have also updated the article. Any feedback is welcome. Thanks.

Shadow7777 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems sufficient. Go ahead. Release it. Once out, ppl see it & then edit more. -

talk

) 14:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article into mainspace. Check the article here: Kismat (1968 film). Let me know what you think about the article.
Cheers, Shadow7777 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

New page! Please help editing & reviewing. -

) 14:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

New page! Please help editing & reviewing. -

) 19:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

New page! Please help editing & reviewing. -

) 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New page! Please help editing & reviewing. -

) 16:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New page! Please help editing & reviewing. -

) 09:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

New page! Please help editing & reviewing. -

) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am noticing that many articles under this project are rated as Stubs but they are usually C class articles. I myself when i created the above articles have surely kept them above stub level. I think we should start changing these scales to better suitable ones. You see,

) 13:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

New page! Please help editing & reviewing. -

) 08:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How does this template help? It doesnt hyperlink to the country. Does it have any hidden advantages? Administrative or for maintenance purpose? -

) 21:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

{{

MOS:FILM#Categories. BOVINEBOY2008

22:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we then include a hyperlink in this to take you to that country's page? -

talk

) 11:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say no per

WP:OVERLINK. It says to avoid linking major geographic features such as nations. BOVINEBOY2008

12:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New GA

The article Vikram is been promoted to a GA. I wasn't the nominee nor the major contributor. Can someone update the chart for "major contributors" on the project page. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 11:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I will do it. BollyJeff || talk 14:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add one more article, Karthi is now a GA. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done:Vensatry. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldnt the title of the page be

) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I will take silence as half assent. :) But i dont know how to create redirect pages. -

talk

) 13:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no usage of the Romanization Gabhricha Paus on the cover/poster, just the Marathi script. Maybe that's why they used the English title instead. BollyJeff || talk 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Aa ha! Could be so. But the reason available in History is "English-language title per naming conventions of films (

talk

) 14:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done now. -

talk

) 10:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Came across few pages of Hindi songs. The songs themselves arent notable. The content on the articles isnt sufficient either. Either they should be expanded (the chances of which are negligible) or be deleted.

• Meri awaargi
• Allah Hafiz
• Teri Meri

-

) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I redirected the first song to it's film page, while the second one to it's soundtrack page. The song Teri Meri is very much notable, among the top 10 song of the year, and probably the song of the year too. -- Karthik Nadar 12:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirects. I dont understand why there is a separate article on

talk

) 14:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Should i redirect

Bhool Bhulaiyaa (soundtrack) also? And about, "Teri Meri", I'm sure the song is to win certain awards (I will keep it i my watch list and will expand). That song deserves an article if you read the article, you will understand the notability of that song. Thanks and cheers. -- Karthik Nadar

17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! The

talk

) 14:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done: Redirected. Thanks and regards. -- Karthik Nadar 15:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -

talk

) 15:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Is is advisable to have separate articles for "Certificate of Merits" or have them in the same article where "Best Regional Films" have been listed just like National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Tamil. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 05:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Let it be in the same article. -- Karthik Nadar 10:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Another editor created the article Subhamasthu, which is just a stub. Could someone please look at the article? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, for a stub. What is your exact concern? -

talk

) 15:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two article pages for one same Marathi film;

) 15:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Top three contributors

I don't think it's the right way to find out the top three contributors for an article using the tool which was discussed by users: Secret of Success and Karthikndr. The tool only tells who has made more edits which include reverts (correct me if am wrong) made by a user by which you cannot say that someone has contributed more to a particular article. For eg., see this single edit made by User:Universal Hero, where the article was expanded by almost 4.5 times and he almost took the article close to GA. On the other hand User:Active Banana, one among the top three users with more edits to the Rajinikanth article has zero actual input, a claim made by himself in his user page before retiring. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I and Karthik had discussed for a specific case, and not intended to discuss in general. I am aware of the above reasons, but how exactly do you find out and compare who contributed to the article? For

X.One ^SOS

13:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not discussing about a specific case. I agree that it's hard to determine the top contributors. But using that tool just for the sake of including names doesn't seem to be a good idea. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 13:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I do felt the same and completely agree with Vensatry. That's the reason I had earlier mention myself, Ankitbhatt and Scieberking. Secondly, I agree with Secret of success accepting that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and to remove the main contributor parameter. -- Karthik Nadar 14:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As someone whose name appears there 4 times now, I must say that I will be a bit disappointed if it goes away. I worked very hard on some of those articles, and having a little recognition there is a good feeling. A lot of folks around wikipedia live to display those little green circles on their user page, and I like to do it as well. I am not sure if other projects have what we have in the way of a GA main contributor table though. If they do, then we should keep ours. If they do not, well then maybe we should reconsider too. It could be be a little demotivating though. BollyJeff || talk 03:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Correctly said by BollyJeff, the name in the list surely motivates us. I believe in constructing a policy which should be considered while adding the main contributors. -- Karthik Nadar 07:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, they can add the GA icon to their user page as big as they like and add a lot of other stuff. They get Barnstars and other awards, which can be showcased in the user page along with as much jargon to their heart's content. What more do you need? Getting de-motivated just because your name isn't there isn't the wisest thing to do in WP. We ain't gonna loose our status just because we don't get credit. This page does not have a lot of traffic either. No offence, but quite a lot of people, seem to forget that this is an encyclopaedia, meant to be improved for the sake of providing a better source of information. Our names aren't gonna change anything.

X.One ^SOS

12:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of arguing whether to have names (for top contributors) or not. The main concern is finding out the top three contributors using the tool which I mentioned. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I have nominated an article for deletion via

X.One ^SOS

13:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

References!

Oh wow! We finally got some traffic here. Lets utilize it.
There have always been questions raised on reliability of sources for filmy articles. I mean biographic as well as film or songs article. Biographic articles are anyways covered under BLP policies and are quite strict. But when we face GA/FA reviews we are always questioned on reliability of various sources that we use. Thank god that do to numerous filmy articles, no one actually bothers to tag "citation needed" on them. Or claims like "This film is a remake of XYZ film from ABC language", "PQR was intially approachd for playing the role of LMN", etc. should require sources. Story for regional films is even worse. They dont even have Box Office source. Not only while facing reviews but also while expanding these articles i am dubious in using these sources. Hence i feel we should shortlist some sites that can be used. They can thus also be used by all editors for searching stuff easily. -

talk

) 09:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Other than highly

CNN-IBN, Hindustan Times or even Bollywood Hungama

, we can use the following sites i know: (As per as my views)

• • Mild reliable sources
  • Oneindia.in
  • IndiaGlitz.com
  • Boxofficeindia.com
  • Behindwoods.com
  • Sify.com

Do add more websites here and we will discuss about the same. -- Karthik Nadar 10:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oneindia, Sify and Box office India cannot be questioned. They are very much notable, receiving a lot of coverage continuously in papers. The issue is only for Behindwoods and Indiaglitz.

X.One ^SOS

12:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Behindwoods has been reporting Tamil film news since 2005, having an alexa rank of around 4000. The site has received only two coverages, trivial though here and here. One of the links mention the site as an "entertainment portal". I think that is enough to prove its reliability. Regarding Indiaglitz, the site's main aims are to provide cine news and create websites for Tamil films. It oftens cites itself as a "media partner" of certain films. It is more of a primary source, in that aspect, but certainly, it is a regular source and it provides news for Hollywood, Tamil, Telugu, Hindi, Malayalam and Kannada films. It is much older than Behindwoods and was started in around 2003. This has received only one major coverage, as far as I know here. It doesn't say much but its topic covers the entire subject of the article. These are my views. Hope its agreeable to everyone. Thanks.

X.One ^SOS

12:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

All the above mentioned sites have been agreed :) I wanted to know about Cinema.currentweek.com, accesskollywood.com, moviecrow.com and nowrunning.com. These are also the links now been currently used in many Tamil film articles. -- Karthik Nadar 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed? By whom? During my first try at GA with Shriya Saran, I was told that Behindwoods and Indiaglitz were nogos, along with a pile of other sites. See HERE for a list that the reviewer considered bad and good. Other editors would say that you cannot blanket ban a site, and it depends on the context in which you are using it, but that's hard to explain/enforce. BollyJeff || talk 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

X.One ^SOS

08:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not your problem if you don't work on South Indian film articles. We normally use those sources and I completely agree to Secret of Success. -- Karthik Nadar 10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The sites, Cinema.currentweek, accesskollywood, moviecrow and nowrunning doesn't sound like good sources. I'm very sure that nobody would agree on the reliability of these sites. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I myself havent worked much on south-indian films. But while wandering i came across Telugucinema.com. Is it good? I used it to find some release dates of films in a certain year. The table there was quite good. http://www.telugucinema.com/c/publish/movietrade/filmlist2006.php -

talk

) 22:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, accesskollywood and moviecrow are by no means notable, and all major editors would agree. Nowrunning is frequently used for reviews. To be frank, I was impressed by the way the critics review movies, and they point out all sorts of loopholes in a film which other major critics overlook often. They have given

X.One ^SOS

10:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD

An article is undergoing AfD

X.One ^SOS

18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Another AfD

X.One ^SOS

14:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood songs

What crap is this? How do we delete this article? -

talk

) 17:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tag the article with

WP:AfD —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

17:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Afd Open

Please vote here...

talk

) 16:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Mukesh moved

Your views on move of singer "Mukesh" to

talk

) 09:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Review please

I have nominated two enteried for DYK,

talk

) 12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Tulu Cinema

Request Wikipedians with more information on Tulu cinema to support or adopt

Tulu Cinema article and improve the article. Read in some articles that 40 Tulu films released so far. We could manage only 34 in that article, request you to fill the remaining. We also like to convert the list into a complete Wiki-table with Year of Release, Director, Actors etc. Requesting your cooperation.
Anish Viswa

02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

CSD A7 on many articles

Hello! A seemingly

talk

) 08:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Gangavataran

I have created a DYK-worthy article. But references are quite difficult to find. Since it is a historically significant film, any new addition will be good. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job! Will add as much as possible and discuss things on its talk page too. -

talk

) 16:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet to release films

We mention the films that are yet to release in Filmography tables of actors. We usually do write some note about it in the last column. The notes vary from pre-production, filming, post-production, announced, etc. Few enthusiastic editors also write the date of release here. I find it quite unnecessary and hence i have edited these tables sometimes to write only "Upcoming" for such films, irrespective of whatever their state is. Ofcourse, those edits have been reverted by registered editors or IPs. IMO, we need not maintain a live-log of film's status on all subordinate pages. The live log should be on the film's article's page. Not on all pages of all actors, directors, and other concerned people. What say you? -

talk

) 07:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to be many editor's favorite thing to do, and it's too much work to keep reverting, so I just don't worry about it anymore. It will take care of itself eventually. What else can you do? BollyJeff || talk 12:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right! Its favorite. Just like indic scripts. But will it stop in future if many editors decide to follow on one thing now? -

talk

) 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been reverting such edits but every time after I revert some fanatics keep adding that. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

They also like to add lots of films coming out in 2020 with no sources :) BollyJeff || talk 16:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What are these?

What are these articles? Should they exist? Atleast not in this state.

• Hindi dance songs
• Sad Hindi songs

-

talk

) 10:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I could never imagine there could be an article titled Sad Hindi songs! What next? Cheerful Hindi songs? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in having such articles. Sad songs usually depict iconic parts of a film, unlike cheerful songs.

X.One ^SOS

11:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Really X.One? Should we have mood & genre wise all songs' articles then? Cheerful, sad, patriotic, romantic, humorous, horror, etc. And what with dance? One can dance on all songs. -

talk

) 12:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please go through the second sentence of my point once more.

X.One ^SOS

13:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean "iconic" part? Yeah... didnt get that. Would you elaborate more? -

talk

) 13:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, let it be straightforward. Usually, sad scenes with songs are praised by critics and accolade judges. Hence, they become notable and iconic.

X.One ^SOS

08:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well... the current state of those articles could really require some help. And what abt the dancing songs? -

talk

) 12:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

They are all popular enough to have separate article. A google book search seems to give around 7580 results.

Secret of success (talk

) 07:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

New Volunteer coordinator for WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

We have been requesting the community at large in general for Volunteer coordinators for all the task forces/daughter projects of WikiProject India. We have also been requesting suitable editors to volunteer for this post. We have been making this request in those WikiProjects where no one can be seen taking up a clear leadership role to champion the cause of the WikiProject.

After a long time, we have found a volunteer for Indian cinema task force, User:Vensatry who has agreed to be the volunteer coordinator. We welcome him in this onerous and prestigious venture and request all Task Force members to cooperate with him. Vensatry is an enthusiastic and balanced editor. He has 16449 edits since 28 March 2010 and has autoreviewer, filemover and rollbacker rights. He has a challenging task in front of him. The WikiProject has 12,574 articles and many more undiscovered ones to steward. Please support him not only with moral support but edits, ideas, engagement and encouragement. AshLin (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

More about volunter coordinators

The volunteer coordinator's roles include:

• Do whatever needs doing in the WikiProject/task force, or getting it done along-with others.
• Do everything that needs doing in the task force, or getting it done along-with others.
• Look after the interests of the task force community in general and the articles in specific.
• Represent the views of the task force wherever representation/participation is sought; to get a consensus where required and put forward the community's viewpoint.
• Innovate and bring forth new initiatives, continue existing ones and retire defunct ones.
• Maintain the task force infrastructure of pages.
• Community development - recruitment, motivation, empowerment.
• Join the mailing list for Wikipedians working on India related content on English Wikipedia (wikimedia-in-en [at] lists [dot] wikimedia [dot] org)
• Provide reports, updates to the Community, for the newsleter and keep the community updated in general.

The Volunteer coordinator is a volunteer from the community and is answerable to the community. The volunteer enjoys the informal recognition and full support of the community. A volunteer coordinator is equal in all respects to all other editors except that he/she has the privilege to work on the WikiProject's wide range of interests. We trust him/her to take the best decisions and right actions. It is prestigious to be a volunteer coordinator as it signifies community trust reposed in an editor. However, the volunteer coordinator is open to recall by the community, should the community so decide that this is in the best interests of all concerned.

Any editor of good standing can volunteer or be chosen by the community. There is no rule which says a WikiProject can have only one volunteer coordinator but each should have at least one such person.

COI or unable to carry out their duties in good faith, we expect them to inform the community and surrender their post. In addition, a volunteer is open to recall by the community, should the community so decide. AshLin (talk

) 17:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ashlin for providing me this opportunity! Glad to take up the responsibility and hope I can do something for the development of the project with all your co-operation. I also expect a few more members to come forward, as that would be helpful and effective in organising and developing the community as a whole. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Krrish

A

Secret of success (talk

) 07:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

BBC Bollywood reviews

I found some Bollywood reviews from BBC Shropshire http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/films/bollywood/vault/film_archive_02.shtml#e

If anyone wants to improve some Bollywood articles with additional reviews and info about financial performance at UK box offices... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Feedback please?

I'm currently working on the article Tere Ghar Ke Samne. I added sources and expanded it and all that, but right now I don't know what to add. I know for new films, there are lots of details on the production, but I really don't know anything about the production of this movie, except that Vijay Anand directed it and Dev Anand produced it, and that has already been mentioned. What else can I do? Fireblazex3 (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Few things: You can clean up the Bare links used in references. Have tagged it so. Flag should not be used in infobox. Also use standards in infobox like date. No need of synopsis. Story is thus written thrice. Thats too much. Have a seperate section of how the film performed in market or critics reviews of the film. That must be available. There are few links in External links that may be used in the article. Remove blogs from there and from references. Youtube links should be placed only if the video is not a copyrights violation; means the production house should have themselves uploaded it. Soundtrack section has overlink. Remove those. Add song durations. You can start a production section if you get some information on it. Try searching reliable source for stating that few sequences and "Dil Ka Bhawar Kare Pukar" was shot at

talk

) 11:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the bare links, and removed the tag. I'm not sure by what you mean by using the date in the infobox. I removed the synopsis too. I don't know how it performed exactly at the box office - I only know that it was the seventh highest grossing film of 1963. I don't know the opening, etc. I removed the blogs as well. The songs are uploaded by Shemaroo, which is the copyright holder. My DVD is a Shemaroo one too. Movie is also uploaded by it. I removed the link to the other one which was uploaded by someone else. I don't know what you mean by overlinkm either. I added the song durations and the Albums thingy. I can't find any info on the production, and that is completely driving me nuts. I added a reliable source (The Hindu) to support that "Dil Ka Bhanwar" was filmed in the Qutub Minar. I also added inverted commas. What do you mean by Indic scripts, by the way? Anything else to make it a B or C class article? Fireblazex3 (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever things you havent understood, i will do them in the article with notes in Edit summary. In case you still have doubts, ask. -

talk

) 13:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you think it can meet B or C class criteria now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireblazex3 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Players

A

Secret of success (talk

) 10:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Images in the film articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am under the impression that a consensus has been obtained for this discussion, which can be stated as "removing cast images from the cast section and retaining location images if and only if critical commentary demands it." With that understanding, I shall close this discussion, which will be archived and for usage as a reference for the consensus. Secret of success 14:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I am noticing some trend of using images of actors in the Cast Section on the film articles. It is seen on GAs like

talk

) 13:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I really hate it, and so refrained myself from doing the same in Rockstar. Its a bad idea, looks very complicated and messed up. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I was thinking a bit, and I feel that each article has different requirements for photos. Its dependent on the film itself. Since I am familiar only with Ra.One I can speak about it. Come to think of it, I guess the Cast section doesn't need photos, so I think I will remove them if consensus builds on that way. However, I feel that Ra.One needs shooting location pics. The two location pics were of very important, pivotal action scenes. We have to see from the context of everybody; how many Americans have seen CST Terminus? How many Indians know of Battersea station? I put the pics to show the locations, so that all readers will have a general perception.

So, I neither support nor oppose removal of photos from Cast section. However, i oppose removal of location photos. My 2 cents. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you insert a wikilink to the articles in the prose? The reader can click the link, go to the article and see the images. Secret of success 10:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding images of actors in the cast section seems irrelevant. However, pictures of location, shoot, etc., can be added only if it has got much significance and is highly relevant to the context. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My vote is to take individual pics out of cast sections. For locations, you probably have to have a cast member in the pic at the location, or I think it will be disallowed by most reviewers. Like someone said, why not add a link to location and let reader go there to see it? BollyJeff || talk 20:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In case of

talk

) 17:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for Kahani its okay, because it is her in character, for The Dirty Picture I would say no. According to

MOS:FILM#Free_licence_images, it says "cast and crew can be photographed at the various premieres of the resulting film as well as any components of production on display (such as costumes or vehicles)." Not just a random pic of cast members. BollyJeff || talk

17:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For Kahaani; Balan's image in the infobox poster shows her pregnant. Also note that the image used in Soundtrack is not very different than the main poster. That also needs to change. For Kahaani we also are talking about the Durga Puja, Kolkata and Howra Bridge images; all random and needless. §§

talk

) 18:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding images which does not show the actual picturization of the film does not add any value to the article. Providing links would be more than sufficient. And again, image is freely available from wikicommons does not mean that we should add it to the article. Thanks. - VivvtTalk 18:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Actual picturization images are difficult to get (some from Bollywood Hungama may be available). However, if the image is significant as the backdrop of something major in the film, why not add them? For example, CST for Ra.on (I have not seen the film, but guessing CST was the location of a really important action scene).--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive images tend to disrupt format of text, and highlight a sign of giving

WP:NFCC#8. It should be deleted. In Ra.One, the cast images and the filming locations are not needed, no matter what. One cannot go about saying that the reader cannot or may not intend to go to the article of the location and find their target there. Plus, if the subject is not mentioned in the prose at all, it makes the article confusing. Secret of success

05:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Kolkata image in Kahaani showing yellow taxis and busy roads is quite relevant to the prose as the review mentions, "Ghosh pays a fond yet understated tribute to the city's essence and elements—yellow taxis, leisurely trams, congested traffic,...." and so on. In this case, we cannot expect the reader to go through the entire article of Kolkata and figure out the yellow taxis and congested traffic. That'll be adsurd as the image itself does not represent the whole city nor does it have a separate article that can be linked. But yes I do agree with Howrah Bridge image which is just a click away and can be removed (based on the outcome of this consensus), the soundtrack image is quite the same as Infobox image and that also can be removed. The Durga Puja image has quite a significance to the whole film as such. The festival is mentioned quite a few times in the article and if Plot is not the right place for the image, then it can be moved to any other section but it has to be there somewhere. Though I understand that the Cast image is not extremely important to be there, I also feel its not harmful either as the pic just displays Vidya's character which is quite different from the Infobox poster. Therefore

• I support removal of two images as of now i.e., Howrah Bridge and Soundtrack.
• I oppose removal of two images i.e., Kolkata traffic and Durga Puja
• For Cast, I neither Support nor Oppose. Just fine with anything

--Msrag (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, is it difficult to visualize a yellow taxi or congested traffic? For trams, the reader can indeed be expected to go to the article (Kolkata should be linked) and get his work done. Those images are generally added only when their omission would confuse the reader. For the Durga Puja, it is exclusive to Bengal (mostly), I fail to deny that, but still I would prefer to move it to the production section, under development or filming, perhaps? And unfortunately "its not harmful" isn't by any means an arguments to justify an addition. The cast images need a rationale to stay. I shall start an unofficial rfc here, after this discussion gets over. It shall be closed and consensus implemented to all articles within the scope of this project. With regards, Secret of success 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just repeating the cast pictures as in Ra.One and The Dirty Picture in not wanted. Must we put the same picture of an actor in the articles of all films he/she has been in? Even if it numbers in the hundreds? No! BollyJeff || talk 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not really understanding why many of us are taking so much deletionist attitude? manual of style states "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals."

As Msrag has explained, the image with yellow taxi and traffic congestion has direct relation with the article. Of course the reader can clink on wikilinks and go to respective pages to know about yellow taxi, traffic congestion, Kolkata or whatever. But that does not preclude this very article to thrive towards self-sufficiency. Provided the images are relevant, with appropriate copyright status, and not adding to clutter, always images should be encouraged.

Now, you may argue "relevance" is often subjective. That itself explains that the image does have relevance to many. Again, if the image is not harming, and rather helping the reader to get some visual clues, it goes beyond saying that the image should be included.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear SOS, No its not difficult to visualize yellow taxis and nor it is difficult to visualize

Sharukh Khan launching his movie merchandises or Mahatma Gandhi walking for Salt Satyagraha or Abdul Kalam giving a speech or Al-Qaida bombing WTC, nothing is infact difficult to visualize but the question is out of context as we cannot expect or force a reader to visualize things himself depriving him to enjoy the article in a continuous flow with visuals included. May I also request you to please provide the Wiki policy explaining your statement, "Those images are generally added only when their omission would confuse the reader." For Durga Puja image, I was already thinking to move it the Filming section where it has a prominent mention. In support with Dwaipayan's POW of not taking the "deletionist attitude", I feel the discussion is heading towards a different direction where it can also lead to a point when one can even argue removal of all images in all articles and provide links to external websites such as Google Images or even Youtube to catch a glimpse of the subject in context.--Msrag (talk

) 05:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dwai, none of us are having a "deletionist" attitude. Please try to assume good faith. I suggested the removal of it because I felt it was unnecessary. Effort should be made, but it should also be directed towards providing accuracy, relevancy and the correct choice. I agree that images should not clutter, and that is exactly what we are discussing here. Secret of success 12:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Msrag, I apologize if my comment gave the impression that I was specifically addressing you. I was not. I questioned the taxi image for visualizing, yes, but I'm afraid we have to accept that visualizing taxis is far more easier and much more possible than visualizing a person doing something that catches the media. I don't see how we cannot accept that. We cannot force a reader visualize complex features, but for simple things like a taxi, he is expected to know it. That is the generally accepted standard provided by Wikipedia, for its readers. Regarding the policy, that is restricted to non-free content and available in

WP:NFCC, but if you think of it, it obviously has to be that way. Otherwise, some person could bring about an album of different images and push them into an article, as per his POV. If you disagree, I'm still willing to discuss and again, I apologize if my comment seemed specific. Secret of success

12:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Also,

talk

) 12:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my stand a bit better. As far as I see, placement of images is also dependent on the article itself. This dependence can be in the form of relevance to the article's content (as some editors have been saying). For Kahaani, presence of the Durga Puja and city photos is, in ways, important. Why? Because both photos symbolize the city, and as was reported by the director, "The city of Kolkata is a character of the film, perhaps even the most important of all the characters in the film". There is another dependence and that is based on the length and extensiveness of the article, case being Ra.One. Just one look at that article and readers would feel a bit jittery at the sheer amount of information in the article. Does anybody think that when a reader has to read so much information, the reader will bother clicking on more links just to see a photo? No. As editors, our job is to see things from the perspective of readers as well; beauty of presentation is a key feature of MOS. And as was pointed out, the images don't really harm the article. In fact, if placed properly, they enhance the article in many ways.

To come a bit more specifically, I see no problem in addition of normal location photos, even if they don't show any filming. As was the case for the Lambeth Bridge photo in Ra.One, most people don't even know where that scene was filmed. Most non-Indians have never heard of CST Terminus. Again, the article is really long, so is it worth for a reader to click on a number of wikilinks to see the photo of a single filming location? To point out, the photo of Lambeth Bridge is not used in the actual article, and shows the bridge in a better way as the main article's photo shows a very distant view. The Cast images, again, are basically for the length problem, though the argument for that is a bit weaker. So I reiterate by saying that I don't have any particular problem removing the Cast images though it would be better to keep them but I totally object to the removal of location photos, at least if we see from the article's perspective. My two cents. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I support Ankit Bhatt in this regard. The MoS is about grammatical correctness, style and beauty. If a lot of images hurt the article, we should remove images. If the addition of images (with proper copyright and relevance to article) improve the article (either by adding to the aesthetics, or by easing the reading, or by helping reader understand something), we should encourage adding images. A free image would of course be preferred over a non-free fair use image.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to obtain a number of more photos for Ra.One, so in the best interests of the article, I have done away with the Cast section photos. Now, I have also obtained photos showing actual filming, so I await more consensus. However, most photo needs should be tailor-made for different articles, so having such a general discussion is somewhat pointless and can even be harmful in the long run. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now can we delete the cast pictures from The Dirty Picture? BollyJeff || talk 18:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, removal/addition of photos depends on the article itself. You can discuss the photo removal with the major contributors of Kahaani; as far as I can see, there is no problem whether you keep/delete the Cast images. I removed the Cast images because I have now obtained more photos, and I know that I should not clutter an article with too many photos. I would like to point out, however, that Kahaani's soundtrack image needs to be deleted (and some editors have stated that above as well). Guess this will be a bit of a long consensus. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall start a separate rfc below after this discussion gets over. Till then, please honor the standstill. With regards, Secret of success 05:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt, please clarify as to what you mean by saying "The Cast images, again, are basically for the length problem." Is it that since a cast section is too long, lack of images gives a feeling of truancy and defection to the reader? The point is, the cast section should not be long. Info from production must not be repeated under the relevant characters. It is always better to have a "casting" section in the production, and the cast section is better off if it has one liners all over, and possibly better off if certain details from the plot of the film which could not be included in the section (for reasons concerning

WP:FILMPLOT) are added to it. Now, this does not make the section long, however, if it happens so that there are five three liners and four one liners following it, how on earth will the same feeling of truancy not inflict itself upon the reader for that purpose? Secret of success

05:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ankit, and SOS, I never took that addressed to me. So that's fine. As said earlier, I'll remove the Soundtrack image in Kahaani as its just the same as in the Infobox and replace it with another one if I find. Also, the cast image can also go provided the outcome of the discussion says so and everybody over here is in support of removing it, though I dont see any harm as the one in particular is not a random image of the actress and rather specific to the film. The Howrah Bridge image can go, am fine with it (though, on a funny side I feel, the Howrah Bridge illuminated with lights was rightly placed in the section: Kolkata in lime'light'). Durga Puja will be there along with the Kolkata road image. Strongly Oppose the removal of two. And btw, a lot was said over visualizing a "yellow taxi." So just did a Google Image search on it, found hundreds of it and I failed to even recognize (forget visualize) which one of them belonged to Kolkata. Till then I'm trying finding out other relevant and filming images for the article. --Msrag (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Specifically for Ra.One, a number of more photos have come out and I have added them in the article (and boy was it like hell fitting those photos in). Again, for the best interests of the article and to prevent over-crowding, I have done away with the generic filming location photos, and I hope I can obtain permission to use some specific filming images in the article. Besides, another photo may also come about regarding the "Costumes" section.

While I am not particularly happy with the removal, I guess its for the best. I shall instead try to replace the photos with text showing certain filming locations. I believe that will solve the problem. Msrag, no problem :) I also strongly oppose the removal of the city photo in Kahaani; that one is an absolute must. Durga Puja is also very important, and actually much of the promotional material for Kahaani depicted Durga Puja clearly as an important characteristic of the film (a tagline was "In a festive city..." says it all). Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it that the final consensus is to remove cast images and retain the location images only if they depict critical acclaim. I guess it is understood that lack of response poses an agreement. With regards, Secret of success 06:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. With stress on "retain the location images which are used for depicting critical acclaim and delete the other ones". §§

talk

) 06:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Volunteer co-ordinators

The project is in need of a few more members (Volunteer co-ordinators). Anyone willing to come forward? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I know its all on their own interest, but I do feel

Animeshkulkarni, both will be able perform the tasks better than anyone. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫

11:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Am in! But am not quite clear on what i have to do in it. But am quite sure you will let me know that. :) -

talk

) 11:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am touched by the gesture, but before making any hasty decisions, I wish to know the role of the post.

Secret of success (talk

) 12:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically I don't know what's going-on in the minds of Vensatry, the guy who will be leading you all. Nevertheless, even I would be with you all. As of now, you can have a look at the probable tasks here. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative, but I'm afraid I have to refuse the offer, due to my little experience here and lack of activeness these days. Sorry about it and regards,

Secret of success (talk

) 13:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Karthik, those tasks are so generally stated. Waiting more from Vensatry. -

talk

) 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing like there should only be a single co-ordinator for any project on WP. Having more will reduce the work and make things more efficient. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Vensatry, you got anyone to help you? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey... Am in! But let me know what i am supposed to do. -

talk

) 17:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back. Glad to see that Animesh has come forward. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

New Volunteer coordinator

User:Animeshkulkarni has agreed to assist me in coordinating the task force. With over ten months of editing experience and 6000 plus edits, he is one the finest editors involved in this project as majority of his contributions are to INCE. On behalf of the other members, I welcome him to this post and request all of you to cooperate with him. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

02:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Way to go Animesh and Vensatry. Hope to see many GA's and many other initiatives under you guys. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 03:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Will surely try my best to do good for the project. §§

talk

) 21:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Adhora: The Obscure

Please look at Adhora: The Obscure and express your views in the AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Box Office India

So, what is the status of boxofficeindia.com now regarding

WP:RS? It used to be problematic source years ago. Is it considered a reliable source now?--Dwaipayan (talk

) 21:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I sure hope so. It is the most used source of box office figures for our articles. BollyJeff || talk 22:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is RS now. Previously there was a little less professionalism, but now they have certainly graduated to the RS level. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

However, the fact remains that it is a

primary source, and that degrades the reliability of the site to a large extent. Secret of success

13:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Query regarding photos

Even if I can obtain photos of filming locations showing actual filming, can somebody tell me under what license I am supposed to release it in? Or does the licensing depend upon the source of photos? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont know all types of licenses. But filming photos have to be free. User-rationale will hardly be accepted. These two are free. One from Bollywood Hungama.

talk

) 07:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have two photos from a blog. Are they free? Or do I need to ask the permission of the blog owners to release the photos under the no-copyright status? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos from blogs are "usually" not free because "most of the times" blog owners do not own any of those. Only photos with Creative Commons 3.0 or Sharelike 2.5 can be uploaded and reused without any permission. So in case, blog owner holds the copyright, it should be released under these two licenses for its usage. Otherwise, photos should be used under non-free fair use and would need a rationale for its usage in the article. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 11:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of the latter option. In case it is non-free fair use, what sub-category is it in? There are many, like "Movie screenshot" or lots of other stuff. I will, of course, mail the blog owner and ask for confirmation. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Do Google search for "visually similar images" to find out how many sites are having the same image. That would tell you whether blog owner really owns it or not. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 11:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Behind-the-camera photos cannot be uploaded from copyrighted status as per

WP:NFCC#1 which says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Secret of success

11:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

@Vivvt : I'm sorry, what? Could you please detail out what to do? i am pretty weak with photo-related stuff, so all this is new to me :P ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Try uploading the image to Google image tab with the help of small camera icon available on the search panel. It would search across and tell you how many visually similar images are available. I could not see this option in IE7, so try Google Chrome. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 13:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah thank you! There is only one other usage of the photo, and that too is a blog :P Now what am I supposed to do? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And very fortunately, another image from the blog is used nowhere else. So that means that the photo is owned by the blog? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Check with blog owner whether he/she is image owner or not. Btw, can you paste the link here? Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 13:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have sent a mail to the blog owners; they should (hopefully) reply in a day or two. Tediously, I had to send the mail in three languages (English, Hindi and Italian); thanks to the power of Google Translate for making my job easy :P. Here is the link. I wanted the second and fourth photos. The second photo shows a match with another blog, Pandolin (which itself has a number of other filming photos). The fourth photo, thankfully, shows no match. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I googled a bit and found that those images are mostly not by blog owner. It is from a second site i.e. Pandolin and seems to be by a person named "Rahul Krishnan Ahuja". Check out this link to know more about his photos. All the pics from the blog and site can be found here. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 03:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not look like that he has shared the pics under CC and CC ShareAlike 3.0/2.5. But then you may want to check with him directly by contacting him for permission. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 03:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only one of the photos (the one with the train in front of a blue-screen) is with Pandolin, and I have already given a link for the Pandolin article which has that photo (and all the other photos from Pandolin regarding the filming of Ra.One). I was referring to the second photo, the one with SRK running. That is not available anywhere else. I was hoping to get permission for that one; as of now, however, the blog owners have not responded. I fear they may never respond; several people don't :/ ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of particular URLs

I came across this particular web page :- here. It highlights interviews of certain VFX experts in the industry. I am talking only about this web page; is it usable as a reliable source? After all, it just shows a collection of interviews of people, and it even has author names etc. RSVP. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, is Business of Cinema reliable? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Box Office India seems to be a weekly trade magazine, looks to be a reliable source (again, lack of transparent disclosures from film distributors continues to be a problem, and we have no other ways to get estimate figures but to rely on these trade magazines). IMO for an interview it should be reliable source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well then there should be no problem. Thanks for the clarification :) Could you also check Business of Cinema? And another doubt, could we use official videos as sources of information? Especially on

the ProveIt referencing tool, there is a separate parameter for video references. Does that mean we can listen and see videos and use the content spoken as a reliable source? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt

~*~ 08:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Videos are no different from published sources. If they are official, they become primary sources, and if they are not (for instance, from CNN or NDTV), they are secondary. See

WT:RS, in which the FAQ states "A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy." Secret of success

08:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Use "cite video" template for references in video. Mention the approximate time when the particular point of interest occurs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Well there isn't any particular "point of interest" in the video as the entire video demonstrates important stuff, so I left that blank. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding an unrelated matter, why was the poster of Ek Tha Tiger removed? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Article

A new article titled

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Secret of success

06:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is completely unnotable as it can be very well explained in the "List of highest-grossing Bollywood films" article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Tag it with

talk

) 20:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedic article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Following mergers have been requested and are under discussion. Please participate and add your comments on the discussion page.

Host article	Article to be merged	Discussion place
Salaam-e-Ishq: A Tribute to Love	Salaam-e-Ishq (soundtrack)	Talk:Salaam-e-Ishq:_A_Tribute_to_Love#Merger_proposal
Blue (2009 film)	Blue (soundtrack)	Talk:Blue_(2009_film)#Merger_proposal
Lakshya (film)	Lakshya (soundtrack)	Talk:Lakshya_(film)#Merger_proposal
Bunty Aur Babli	Bunty Aur Babli (soundtrack)	Talk:Bunty_Aur_Babli#Merger_proposal
Don: The Chase Begins Again	Don: The Chase Begins Again (soundtrack)	Talk:Don:_The_Chase_Begins_Again#Merger_proposal
Ghajini (2008 film)	Ghajini (soundtrack)	Talk:Ghajini_(2008_film)#Merger_proposal
Goa (film)	Goa (soundtrack)	Talk:Goa_(film)#Merger_proposal
Johnny Gaddaar	Johnny Gaddaar (soundtrack)	Talk:Johnny_Gaddaar#Merger_proposal
Jhoom Barabar Jhoom	Jhoom Barabar Jhoom (soundtrack)	Talk:Jhoom_Barabar_Jhoom#Merger_proposal
Kal Ho Naa Ho	Kal Ho Naa Ho (soundtrack)	Talk:Kal_Ho_Naa_Ho#Merger_proposal
Karthik Calling Karthik	Karthik Calling Karthik (soundtrack)	Talk:Karthik_Calling_Karthik#Merger_proposal
Meenaxi: A Tale of Three Cities	Meenaxi (soundtrack)	Talk:Meenaxi:_A_Tale_of_Three_Cities#Merger_proposal
London Dreams	London Dreams (soundtrack)	Talk:London_Dreams#Merger_proposal
West Is West (2010 film)	West Is West (soundtrack)	Talk:West_Is_West_(2010_film)#Merger_proposal

§§

talk

) 09:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm against merging Goa's and Don 1's soundtracks, as they have quite significant content and are indeed notable. For the others, all right. Secret of success 14:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you will also be commenting there. Just in case non-regular editors crowd there (which i doubt) your comment here could slip out of our minds. §§

talk

) 14:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A very big problem

I really hate to say this, but we may now officially lose a perennially-considered

WP:BLP. I mean, where have you heard Aamir Khan being described as a "7-year old gaming freak"? Or Hrithik Roshan

as a "20-something college going, long-skirt clad girl"? Nothing has been as provocative and blatantly stupid as this, ever.

I would like to discuss this a bit here before taking this up at

WP:RSN, because I seriously doubt the neutrality of Daily Bhaskar. It may not be written by their team, but publishing such an article is simply egregious. Thoughts, please. ~*~AnkitBhatt

~*~ 11:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't be upset! Those are the typical profile of fans of those actors, according to the author, not the actors themselves!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get you. Isn't the "article" published in Daily Bhaskar? I mean, if its private, how is it visible with the Dialy Bhaskar logo shining bright? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

LoL!! Hrithik Roshan is NOT described as the girl, a stereotypical fan of Roshan is described as such. The article says, If we stereotype the fans in terms of their favourite ‘superstars’, you’ll mostly get these names as replies, and then goes on to typify the fans of each actors. It is nothing provocative, or blatant. You can call it humor, or, bad humor may be.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But its still tasteless. Is there a need to deride the fans of other actors just to prove a point (which itself is inherently false)? Besides, the article is literally dripping with fan-worship; "may you live for a 1000 years", really? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Film title.... English or Indian

I have come across various film articles which have titles based on their English names. The

WP:COMMONNAME

shouldnt these articles have the Indian titles? I mean... these movies must have been famous in those years in Berlin or Cannes or wherever. But do Germans/French care to see these film articles now more than the Indian masses?

• Golden Berlin Bear
  )
• The Immortal Song --> Amar Bhoopali (1951 Marathi film still popular for its hit songs that was nominated for Cannes Film Festival
  )
• Drumsticks (film)
  --> Shevgyachya Shenga (1955's National Film Award winner for Second Best Marathi film that was nominated for Cannes)

There might be even more such examples that i did not come across. Instead of raising move requests on individual pages, i though it better to decide collectively for all. -

talk

) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Whichever way you go, make sure there is a redirect for the other one. BollyJeff || talk 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As per

WP:NC-FILM#Foreign-language_films, it says "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world.". Now for some of the movies, those may not have been released in cinemas or on videos with English title. It might be only for film festivals. Moreover for Kandukondain Kandukondain, there are sources which says movie was released with the English title on DVD as I Have Found It. By the rule, it might make it eligible for move but then hardly people know the movie by English title. In this case, its not appropriate to have this rule applied. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk

13:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is fine, but sometimes blindly following the guideline looks funny. Some films are given an English title just for the sake of 1-2 Film festival screenings. The English speaking world neither be knowing these films nor recognise the films by those titles, whereas the film lovers/viewers in its native place will be knowing the films with the original titles and the films may be well poular there, but the Wiki article title will look strange and odd to them. So, I feel it is better to keep the original and most popular title of the film as the article name and provide the English translated names only in the article body. People will most likely search for the films with the original popular title only.

• eg1:
  A Story That Begins at the End
  --> Arimpara
• eg2:
  A Dog's Day --> Pattiyude Divasam
  Anish Viswa
  01:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Will now move the first three examples with redirects available.
@Anish, the poster for

talk

) 08:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That poster is for the festival screening only. That was placed in Infobox just because anothe poster was not available to upload. No Malayali in Kerala identifies the film with that name (just like in the examples u gave for MArathi films), which is the native place for that film.
Anish Viswa 16:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:UE > this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk

) 10:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

talk

) 10:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

COMMONNAME and UE are both part of the same policy/guideline. Lugnuts (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We understand that. But we do not understand your opposition clearly. Do you want to say that The Holy Island, The Immortal Song and Drumsticks are more common names than Sagar Sangamey, Amar Bhoopali and Shevgyachya Shenga? -

talk

) 13:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yaa, using little known English titles as article names for Indian films is not making any sense. The policy needs to be re-visited to consider these aspects in parts like India.
Anish Viswa 13:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

India is always an exception in something or the other, due to its polyglot nature. It gets annoying when looked at from a certain angle.

Secret of success (talk

) 14:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We just need to agree on something ourselves. Or should we raise this question at

talk

) 17:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should discuss it in Naming conventions page. The current convention is not helping anyone's cause with regard to Indian films, no one knows the English titles and the popular titles are not used in article names. The best way is to use the title with which more people identify the film. If non-English film is well-known to the rest of the world with an english title, it is correct to use the English title in article name. But for films which are given an English title just for 1-2 festival screenings in USA or France, it is not wise putting that name as the article title.
Anish Viswa 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, so long as English title is mentioned in the lead, and a redirect is made from English title to the article. BollyJeff || talk 01:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A more recent example of this would be

Speedy Singhs, released last year. It was released internationally as Breakaway. Not many Indians, including me are aware of this and may get confused. --Rsrikanth05 (talk

) 07:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

After a lookup, I see that Speedy Singhs was a foreign film dubbed into Hindi, never mind. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a useful discussion. I notice that we aren't particularly consistent on film naming anyway. For example,

The Middleman but is at its Bengali title rather than at its English one. Another example is Sonar Kella which doesn't even have a redirect from its American title "The Golden Fortress". The one issue that needs discussing is the transliteration one (Sonar Kella or Sonar Killa?) because we may not have sufficient English language sources to figure out the preferred spelling. Personally, I think that if a film has had a wide release in English speaking countries under its English title, and reliable sources have reviewed or written about it under that name, we should use that title (The Middleman rather than Jana Aranya). If, however, the release under an English name has been limited, then we should use the name in its original language (Kuch Kuch Hota Hai rather than Something Happens).--regentspark (comment

) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Before having the title of Indian films in English language i.e. The Middleman, The Golden Fortress, The Immortal Song, etc., we need to see if they are of any importance to non-Indian world now. All these movies are quite old and had been released/screened in festivals under English titles then. But they are still known by their Indian titles in India. As it goes for all Indian articles, reliable sources, reviews, etc. will mostly be found on net from basically non-Indian sources which will mostly use English titles. But the main question is how many non-Indians care to look at these articles now? If they are more than Indian readers then there is some meaning in having English titles. I tried moving first three films and they were reverted by

talk

) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the default should be the Indian title. However, for films that are well known outside India by their English titles, the English title is a better bet because the English title is geographically wider. Jana Aranya, for example, is mostly known as The Middleman so that would be a better title for it. Sonar Kella, on the other hand, is equally well known by its Bengali title, therefore that's probably a better article title. Generally, unless there is a reason to believe that the English title is well known outside India, I'd go with the Indian title. Perhaps this needs to be taken up at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films) since the guideline just says 'released' which is, imo, meaningless. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We plan to take it to NCF talk page. But wanted to see if at least all Indian editors agree to it. About Jana Aranya i particularly dont know by which name it is commonly know. But looking at the other similar films i tend to keep it on it's Bengali title, especially when it already is there. -

talk

) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem with that. I think there is a general agreement (here, so far) that the Indian title should be the default and that the English title will only be used in a few cases where there is a clear widespread release under the English one. A 180 degree flip of the current guideline which advocates the opposite. --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

talk

) 14:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So should we move articles to Indian titles with redirect from English titles? Is that the conclusion? §§

talk

) 20:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Can any of the admins conclude this discussion or one here? Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 22:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Discontinued National Film Awards

For National Film Awards, there are some of the awards which were discontinued over the period of time. Some of them were instituted but was not given consistently and then eventually were dropped. e.g. Best Filmstrip (11th National Film Awards) was given only once. Best Newsreel Cameraman was instituted in 1975 and then discontinued in 1983 by awarding only 5 times. Do we need to create separate articles for these discontinued awards or shall we club them together if the award count is less?

Moreover, for the Best Feature Film in each of the languages other than those specified in schedule VIII of the constitution, it has been observed that these are also awarded very inconsistently. e.g. Korborok, Bhojpuri, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Khasi, Bodo, Urdu, Kodava, Tulu, Konkani, Bhojpuri, Monpa, Korborok and Dogri. Shall we create separate pages for each of these language films?

I had posted this on NFA talk page but no response for a week, so thought of posting it here to get some opinions. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 13:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support combination of relevant and sparsely-covered topics into a single article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! Clubbing them together is good. Had there been only few such awards the article

talk

) 09:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Point. I would suggest Discontinuous National Film Awards or Intermittent National Film Awards. How does that sound? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

All the discontinued awards are from non-feature films category, except Best Story (for which I have already created the article). Otherwise, Best Filmstrip (1/1), Best Experimental Film (8/17) (1967-1983), Best News Review (12/14) (1975-1988), Best Newsreel Cameraman (5/9) (1975-1983) and Best Industrial Film (5/5) (1984-1988) have been discontinued. These awards can be clubbed together like Discontinued Hugo Awards.

For languages, I would prefer Intermittent National Film Awards. Konkani also has got its

article but has been awarded only thrice. Among others, Korborok (1), Bhojpuri (1), Gujarati (8), Kashmiri (1), Khasi (1), Bodo (1), Urdu (2), Kodava (1), Tulu (3), Monpa (1) and Dogri (1). So all these can be clubbed together. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk

23:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Discontinued NFAs is good. But on second thought i am not sure if we should be so critical. Its okay to mix all these in discontinued itself. Do we have any examples of such intermittent awards or events or something? §§

talk

) 20:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to have one single page for both? Thanks. - VivvtTalk 19:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup! I tried looking, but found nothing for example of some sort of intermittent awards. So i guess all in one is ok. Others should comment here. §§

talk

) 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

With no comments for the discussion, I assume everyone's fine with two articles. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 22:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

I have taken up the matter of the reliability of Pandolin as a source on Wikipedia at

WP:RSN. The discussion can be seen here

. As per the feedback I got (after a pretty long time), the solution suggested is :-

Hmmm, it is a bit on the bloggy side, but it isn't a typical fan site. The people listed as being in charge are professional film industry folks. I'd say that it could be cited for things that are not too controversial, if the article editors agree.

Hence I would like to see some consensus on the use of Pandolin as a reliable source. I intend to use non-controversial sections only - interviews of people related to filming of certain films. This is in special regard of the article Paan Singh Tomar, which could do with the addition of some filming information. Other beneficiary articles will be Ra.One and Don 2. The particular interviews are here, here and here. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: In case I need to be more explicit, I obviously support the inclusion of Pandolin as a reliable source for particular things. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Only for material which is not controversial and unduly self serving like BO figures and achievements. Completely avoid in
  BLP articles. Secret of success (talk
  ) 11:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Site looks awesome and reliable, news seem to be covered well. Wondering if it is owned by any Wikipedian, the info provided are very neat, clean and organised! Are the contents in public domain?, if yes, would be great. Agree with SOS too. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with what Secret of Success says above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Looks good for the technical details, IMHO. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 18:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Only for film articles. §§
  talk
  ) 19:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Agree with SOS completely. Unfit for BLPs. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My intention was to use the specific interviews for the respective films' articles. BLPs were not there, though come to think of it, you do have a point. The consensus was, more specifically, aimed towards the three film articles. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

COTM

Why don't we have something like COTM for this project. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support for this idea. We could seriously do with a "Collaboration of the Month". It would help us dig out some now-forgotten articles and help bring them back into the limelight. Though I have to point out that starting such a thing would require very wide community consensus and a separate group of editors devoted towards the cause. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Its already happening in parent project WikiProject India. Why don't you guys nominate a film related article here and get it selected with maximum no of votes. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:India is one of the most inactive projects in this community. I don't think many will come forward if we nominate a film article. The primary idea is to make this project more active thereby developing the quality of the articles. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

18:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Right! I doubt any film will ever be selected there. Plus, from this month onwards INCOTM was supposed to choose articles from Top or High importance category for India project. Are there any films in it? §§

talk

) 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

One might still try generic articles like

talk

) 19:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the article

Bollywood? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫

05:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why this move is receiving opposition. IMO, this would be a great idea, and we could use it properly so as to bring up some articles do a good quality status. Some articles for films don't even exist, despite the fact that they should. Like, Phijigee Mani, a film which won a National Award but is little-known because its in a North-East language. This proposition could bring to light some such articles and help us improve our standards too. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

One Q: What is our INCOTM gonna do? Improve existing articles or create new Start or C class articles? If its later, i am in. Because we have many notable films whose articles are not present. That could be a good drive to undertake. §§

talk

) 18:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral: I mostly cant work in collaboration. (I at least couldn't in one of the
  talk
  ) 19:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The film project seems to have quite a few very interested and active editors. COTM might go well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support as the idea is very standard and yet, the feeling of "regretting it later" plagues me. Secret of success (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Films and

WP:NFF

I would like opinions on whether a few articles, which I found depicting films that have not yet started filming according to reliable sources, should be retained or not.

WP:NFF

clearly says in bold that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." The ones are :

• The Legend of Kunal
• Zanjeer (2013 film)
• Once Upon a Time Again
• Khiladi 786
• Oh My God (2013 film)
• Chennai Express (film)
• Gulab Gang

For an alternative to deletion, I would suggest that they be re-directed to the filmography sections in the articles of their respective lead actors until filming commences. Secret of success (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Zanjeer and Khiladi 786 seem to be well supported by wider media/ references. Saw a few reports on Once Upon A Time as well. Not sure about the Legend of Kunal.

Zanjeer and Khiladi we should surely retain. Otherwise those have to be re-written again later on.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Start of pre-production is not sufficient. WP:NFF clearly states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Unless sources exist saying that filming has started or is going on, we should not keep those articles. Wide media coverage just to satisfy

WP:GNG isn't enough. Secret of success (talk

) 13:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And just to note :

• RARE
  WP:NFF
  are allowed to be considered IF
  • the coverage of the topic of a planned film is itself enduring and persistent in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of
    verifiable
    information in an article (whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur"), to be reasonably placed anywhere else, or a suitable target for a shorter article does not yet exist.

Courtesy -

WP:FFCLARIFY Secret of success (talk

) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no more comments have been put forth, I shall redirect those articles to the ones of the filmography of their lead actors. Secret of success (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting. Are we to follow this redirect-to-most-suitable-article for all future articles too? I think it might work. We have tried deleting with AfDs and keeping in incubators or user spaces. That never stayed so for long time. Articles pop-out again immediately. §§

talk

) 20:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, redirecting would prevent further creation until filming starts. I have struck out Zanjeer for that reason. We can follow that system for all articles. Secret of success (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

time please

If someone has time and interest can they please look into

talk

) 20:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Madhuri tweeted than she has signed the film. No further news is available as of now. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 02:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess this should also be redirected to Dixit's article, just like other films discussed above. §§

talk

) 20:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Film screenshots in actor BLPs

On going discussion can be found at

talk

) 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Help for a userspace article

Due to the overwhelming size of the visual effects section of

WP:FILM which deals exclusively with a film's VFX. I am unable to work on it alone since I have 2 GA reviews going on, and I shouldn't neglect them either. So I request community help to improve the article before moving it to the mainspace. Just give me today to fill out the references. Thanks and cheers :). ~*~AnkitBhatt

~*~ 05:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now the article has been moved to the mainspace. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian tv shows

The sister project,

talk

) 09:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts

Wanna know what's happening in the project. Add this to your user pages! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You meant watchlist? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup! You can also add the template to your user page if you want. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

National Film Award for Best Newcomer

I Wonder whether such an award was really given. I couldn't find such an award in the NFA archives or any published sources. This must be the Rashtrapati Award or something of that sort. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As far I know, there is no such award given at any point of time in NFA history. I see that as one of the NFAs for Amitabh Bachchan, but there is no official source for it. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I remember Amitabh mentioning this in an interview (news report) as he got the award from the hands of M. Karunanidhi, the then chief minister of Tamil Nadu at a ceremony held in Chennai. NFA ceremony held at Chennai in 1970 is something hard to believe. That must be some other award. Also there was no "Best Child Artist" award in 1961. Many news reports mention that, Kamal Haasan got the "Best Child actor" award for Kalathur Kannamma. The latter is the Rashtrapthi Award and I've corrected that in pages related to Kamal. Yet the Best Newcomer award still remains a mystery. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are referring this interview. Rather, Saat Hindustani was awarded at 17th National Film Awards and ceremony was held at University Centenary Auditorium, Chennai. But if we go by official catalogue, it does not mention Bachchan's name. Video footage from this clip at 9:59 does not help in recognizing who handed over this award. So till we have any official source, we cannot say anything. It might be one of the discontinued awards as well. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 11:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ "올드보이 (Oldboy) Makers Plan Vengeance on 'Zinda'".
2. ^ ShowEast Considers Plagiarism Lawsuit - report from korean newssite
3. ^ Translated english quotes of the korean report