Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 4

Hello, i would like to point that there is a bit of a confusion about whether Gangs of Wasseypur should have two different articles or not.As both movies were shot at the same time,it is being argued that ,that can be discussed in a sub-section of "release" section.

I think here should be two articles. These are 2 separate cinemas. An example can be Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows part 1 and part 2, which have individual articles.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So what should be done....?Should I move the page to two articles.I just wanted to make sure that no one merges the two articles back to the original one article.If no one opposes it in a couple of days i think i can safely move the article to two separate articles.Ayanosh (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that, this is a good idea, because the film was written as one, it was also premiered at Cannes as a single film, so i think we can work on a single article for the film, and i insist on mentioning the two different parts in the release section as i stated in

Gangs of Wasseypur, but we can create separate articles for the critical reception of each film. I will soon start my work on the article, and i am open to other ideas. Bineet Ojha

|BINEET| 17:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Bineet Ojha but i believe you are a bit late and i have already requested a move here.I think it would be fair that you point out out your objections on that page.Ayanosh (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we consider TOI as a reliable source? I believe yes. Anon cited this on the Roja article. Going by the reliability norms, we should have no concerns for its inclusion. But then I doubt the reliability for the language being used in the article. It also mentions nothing more than published date. What say? - Vivvt^Talk 18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed not all articles on TOI websites were written by TOI authors. For some time now, TOI has been including articles from other sources as well, like from haihoi.com and cinefundas.com. Only articles in which the author has been mentioned are TOI articles and can be considered as reliable. The above article is apparently from some other source. Johannes003 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On what basis do we differentiate between TOI and externally generated content? The above link apparently does not mention the site from which the info has been taken or how the article does not fall under TOI's jurisdiction.

Secret of success (talk

) 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said the authors's name will be explicitly mentioned at the beginning of the article like here or here. I would only consider these ones as TOI content. Johannes003 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the expansion of "TNN" exactly? Quite a few news articles use that.

Secret of success (talk

) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"TNN" stands for

Times News Network ...Msrag ^talk2me

09:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I am afraid that many articles would be applicable for the reassessment for the references mentioned for TOI. - Vivvt^Talk 16:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

TOI has started loosing reputation for sure. Check this. Although it is Hindu's marketing strategy it is very convincing. And this particular example speaks for itself. Although we are not at the point where we can officially delist TOI from RS, it is time to be careful in using it. §§

talk

) 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we do not get to have an opinion on TOI's "reputation". Johannes003, that is inaccurate; newspapers source their info from various agencies like Reuters, Associated Press, PTI, etc. where the reporter's name is not given; surely you cannot dismiss all those news articles? TNN is another network like that. "TOI vs The Hindu" is highly irrelevant; it doesn't matter what we think is inaccurate, at the end of the day, TOI remains a newspaper and all its articles are to be considered valid

reliable sources. Lynch7

07:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Animesh has mentioned this thread to me. My opinion of TOI is well known generally, it is crap nowadays & the standard of English written in it often gives rise to much ambiguity but, that aside, we do not use everything that is published in every newspaper, nor in fact is every newspaper generally considered to be a reliable source. Much depends on the context in which a source is used. Even extreme examples, such as the old Soviet

WP:CITEKILL to consider, of course. - Sitush (talk

) 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Some of the articles are equivalent to the gossip magazines. Moreover, few of the articles are also created purely based on the rumors. e.g.

Therdhal which was later 'officially' named as I. (That reminds of RfD for Therdhal.) I donno how many times Gautham Menon's supposedly collaboration with Vijay is added to several articles. I am strictly of the opinion that only "encyclopedic" material should exist. This is also applicable to several TV shows. - Vivvt^Talk

15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree, but IPs seem to love adding the latest "news". Is it just a matter of keeping up with deleting it all, or do you have something else in mind to help? BollyJeff | talk 20:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess that the best option would be to delete them, as they serve no purpose here.

Secret of success (talk

) 14:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Ninne Pelladata about the correct spelling of the film's name. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

		The South Indian Cinema Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

Guys I have removed this barnstar from main page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, as we already have enough of the north south propaganda by the politicians, lets keep this away from wikipedia, at least. Please use an Indian Cinema barnstar wherever applicable. --DBigXray 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good that you have started a discussion. But you shouldn't have removed that award before getting the opinion of others. The award is given for editors who contribute to South Indian-film articles. I don't think there are issues with it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you have reverted me I can read what it was intended for, please comment on the merits/demerits of the South Indian barnstar.--DBigXray 11:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to get away from the north-south divide, then kill both the Bollywood and the South Indian barnstars and replace with an Indian Cinema barnstar. And better yet, kill all national barnstars and replace with just one barnstar for all cinema. —SpacemanSpiff 11:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, There exists a Bollywood, and there are existing Telugu/ Tamil / kannada /Malyalam film industry. I will appreciate if people give barnstars on these names as they really exist. but using divisive terms such as North Indian Barnstar and South Indian Barnstar is not a very appreciable thing. I could recall that not very long ago there was a sock of some user who was adding South Indian Film award and South Indian film content on Tamil cinema page and similar pages, before he was blocked for sockpuppetry. (Update: link here Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_50#South_Indian_Jingoism )--DBigXray 11:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I think en.wiki is no longer a place to edit. —SpacemanSpiff 12:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the barnstar is to give a sense of appreciation to those who work exclusively in South Indian film articles. It has not been intended to create an ethnic brawl in this arena and shouldn't be interpreted in that manner. The reason of a sock puppet indulging in mischief is by no means sufficient to deduce that the item will be used in a defamatory sense and start a war here.

Secret of success (talk

) 13:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness at least you agree that people can misinterpret this barnstar in such a manner. Why cannot we have barnstar for these film industries, and if a user excels at a number of these film industries, why not give him an Template:Indian Cinema Barnstar rather than this. I am not trying to start a fight here, just a genuine concern, that I feel should be addressed.--DBigXray 13:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the barnstar should not have been removed without a discussion.But yes i would be happy if it got replaced with an industry specific barnstar than a region specific one.--Ayanosh (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a single industry specific barnstar should replace whatever exists at the moment. While it might not be DBigXray's intention to start a fight, in my opinion, the simple point is that a renaming of the existing ones is not going to resolve the issues that he has (perhaps unwittingly) raised. Also, appearing to associate sockpuppetry with one particular region or name is hardly going to be viewed positively. Finally, I do think this section should be named more neutrally (to something like "Barnstars for this task force"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarify: Good Heavens ! Apologies if I was not clear enough. As Ncmvocalist has already said above, Of course I am not trying to start any kind of fight here, in fact I am trying to remove the misunderstanding that will arise seeing this, I know a mere rename of this barnstar is not going to work, That is why I proposed doing away with this barnstar and using either An Template:Indian Cinema Barnstar or an Industry specific barnstar. --DBigXray 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Indian Cinema Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

After reading the above discussion I have created the Template:Indian Cinema Barnstar barnstar, comments please--DBigXray 17:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You should use an actual star, such as this one: It could be renamed. BollyJeff | talk 17:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Bollywood Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

This one already exists at Template:Bollywood Barnstar , I Agree some Image tweaking would be needed to make it look like a star. --DBigXray 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I have renamed the above section following Ncmvocalist's suggestion. Secondly, why is a "Bollywood Barnstar" okay whereas a "South Indian cinema" isn't? We have an article on

Secret of success (talk

) 14:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but we can atleast do what is in our hands. If an editor wants to award specifically for Bhojpuri films he can do so, but we should not promote the north south feelings. --DBigXray 13:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(Invited by DBigXray and Interested to butt in) Hello people..I have created a few barnstar designs for Indian Cinema Barnstars.Please leave your comments.

• 
  
  Option-1
• 
  
  Option-2
• 
  
  Option-3
• 
  
  Option-4Eliminated
• 
  
  Option-5 by Vibhijain

Cheers, TheStrikeΣagle 09:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Note Option 4 is eliminated. TheStrikeΣagle 14:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments go here

Which option are you likely to support?

• Impressive indeed, Srikar. My obvious support is for the first third one, followed by the second, while the others are also welcome to stay.
  Secret of success (talk
  ) 10:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Srikar!?!?!? How do you know...? Thanks! TheStrikeΣagle 10:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol, we've met in

Secret of success (talk

) 10:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

haha...Yes! here! TheStrikeΣagle 10:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Good work! Option 1 and 3 looks good to me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Great effort!!!Option 1 and 2 would be my choices in that order.--Ayanosh (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Glad to see that Strike quickly acted upon my request for images. I like all of them. but best among these will be 3. I will also suggest members to think of some barnstar names so that we can use all of these images in some or the other barnstar.--DBigXray 13:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• I like number 3. It looks the most like other WP barnstars and represents our project best, using the same clapboard image. BollyJeff | talk 12:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Hi all ;) No 3 looks simple and best :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• No 3 is good. Only small change in it can be made, if not very difficult to make. Make the Ashoka Chakra coincide with the center of the star. Don't mind flap going bit above.
  Also i have another suggestion. Few months back Vensatry had suggested giving award on lines of
  talk
  ) 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Check it out and tell your views if anything can be improved.And about the option-4...I removed it because there was no support for it.Yes,I will let it remain so that we may use it for any other things. :) TheStrikeΣagle 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Strike I need to be given Credit for the idea of the option 3 in the file image per

CC-SA--DBigXray

14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done never mind...I didn't get the idea :D Actually I had that idea but thought that i might be awkward.But it seems great TheStrikeΣagle 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

parameter cinema

There is no special image that can be used in Tamil Cinema, Bhojpuri Cinema etc so I have used the image from above. As in the above section the consensus for Image is image 3 so in the Template:Indian Cinema Barnstar I have added a parameter |cinema for a special usage. eg. below --DBigXray 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Code	Result
{{subst:Indian Cinema Barnstar|1=Put your message here. ~~~~}}	The Indian Cinema Barnstar Put your message here. DBigXray 15:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
{{subst:Indian Cinema Barnstar|cinema=Bhojpuri|1=Put your message here. ~~~~}}	The Bhojpuri Cinema Barnstar Put your message here. DBigXray 15:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Tho phir sab industries me pharak kya padta hai Then what would be the difference between all the industries.If we wish to use a unified star for all...then that's it.....why do we have to use separate names of barnstars.....criticisms welcome :) TheStrikeΣagle 15:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not made a drastic change, Just added a flexibility to include the Title for Other Cinema industries. That is the difference. If you can come up with different Images then I will include them also in this Barnstar. --DBigXray 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Here comes my version. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As of strike's comment, what about ? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Indian Cinema Task Force for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently an editor attempting to make changes to the lead section of Taare Zameen Par regarding whether the English translation of the title is included, as well as the placement of the international DVD film title. I've tried opening a dialogue, but the editor refuses to discuss the matter. I don't want to start an edit war, so his version is currently up at the moment. Since the article is one of the two film FA's within this task force, and because the changes could affect the format of other Bollywood lead sections, I thought it would be best to see if anybody in the task force would like to contribute to the discussion that I opened on the film's talk page (Talk:Taare Zameen Par#Lead section) to see what everyone thought would be the best way to present it. Thanks. Ωphois 23:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk#wish to remove all the deadlinks related to my site on Wikipedia. how can i do it? (permanent link). There are currently 272 links to the site at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.chakpak.com. Many of them are from articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

While the use of reliable aggregator sites is accepted per

• Review Gang - http://www.reviewgang.com
• desimartini.com

I would request all to share their views. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

review gang looks more credible. It lists the critic reviews. I guess many Indan movies have review aggregates in rotten tomatoes as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to have original sources. We should not rely on these rev.agg's selective writing. They might be picking biasedly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Votes

• Review Gang

1. Support.
   Secret of success (talk
   ) 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have started to work on categories on Commons, first with Indian and Bolloywood actresses. My objectives is to nominate a valued images for all the main actresses and actors. We already got a few (ABB, Salman Khan, Aishwarya Rai, Madhuri Dixit, Shilpa Shetty, Vidya Balan, Parvathy Omanakuttan). We need a place on Commons to discuss Indian related subjects. What do yo think? Yann (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I started a WikiProject India on Commons: Commons:WikiProject India.

Please come and participate! Yann (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're doing a great job and your work is much appreciated. Look forward to more number of valued images of Indian celebrities. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Recently a group of articles of

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. My first time contributing here. I think that we can do that, it will require a lot of work and references, but it can be done. Red Hat On Head (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RHOH for the support. But we will wait for more editors to agree (or disagree) as we are talking about 70 - 80 pages here. We might require an

RFC also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C

} 09:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but your question has been there for a long time. How much longer will we have to wait? Red Hat On Head (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We wait till we get the response. If not, i will have to raise individual page move requests and i don't want to do that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point there. I am really excited to get started on this if it is approved by other editors, my first big project on Wikipedia! And working with other editors! :) Red Hat On Head (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: You are talking about a lot of work - moves, redirects or link fixes on hundreds of articles, templates {{Bollywood films}} {{Bollywood}}. Some articles use these names in the text. For example: Film YYYY was the highest grossing of the 'Bollywood films of XXXX'. This won't sound right if the title is changed to 'XXXX in Bollywood', hence the need for redirects. BollyJeff | talk 16:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Thanks for noting the amount of further work required. I was thinking of redirecting "Bollywood films of XXXX" to "XXXX in Bollywood". That way we need not fix any blue links present in the articles. Two templates fixing won't be a big deal for me. For maybe few days the years won't appear in bold in templates. Thats acceptable. Also, the format of "XXXX in ABC" is seen a lot on Wikipedia. Something to bring uniformity! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not use {{

RFC}} to get more participation in the discussion? It might also be useful to find someone who can do some of the work with a bot if a decision is made. Ryan Vesey

21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There we go. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC

I propose redirecting and reformatting all articles (74 in number) in the Category:Lists of Bollywood films by year. The current articles in the category are titled as "Bollywood films of XXXX" (XXXX is year). Should they be moved, leaving a redirect from old name, to "XXXX in Bollywood", they fall in line with many other "XXXX in topic" format on Wikipedia. Also, this new name increases the scope of the article to include births, deaths, special events, award ceremonies, debuts, etc. of that year on same page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Secret of success (talk

) 12:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Did not notice that before. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I created most of the Indian and world films lists, yes. 1973 in Bollywood etc would be cool if they were written about as articles and then the list of films and birth/deaths and award.

The proposal at

Talk:Bengali films of 2012#Requested_move affects over 850 lists in Category:Lists of films by year

and its subcategories. Its scope includes all these Bollywood articles, but goes a lot wider.

I want to offer a suggestion here. It seems to me that the standalone lists of films are themselves a very useful navigational tool. I rather like the way that most of them are only list of films, because it makes them more useful as indexes to the enormous number of articles on films. The more other topics get added to the same page, the more jumping around and scrolling and so on is needed to find the list in the midst of everything else.

OTOH, I can see the utility of the broader year-in-topic style of article which Dharmadhyaksha has proposed. So my suggestion is: why not do both?

If done at all throroughly, a page on a particular year in Bollywood could easily become very big, without including the list of films. There is a huge amount of published material on each year, more than enough to support a standalone article ... so if the film lists were included, it probably wouldn't be long before hey had to be split out again.

So what I suggest is to create the YYYY in Bollywood pages as new pages. The existing lists could either be transcluded initially, and the transclusions changed to links once size became an issue. That way we get the best of both worlds.

How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good; the idea of having list separate and 2012 in Bollywood as a separate article. But in the YYYY in Bollywood, i intended to have the list itself as the major part. Births-deaths-events would be very less. For events i planned to only give links to existing articles. I did not intent to duplicate content from other articles, even in brief. Also Bollywood doesn't have any good critics who would compare films of a year, or comment on the trends or other aspects of filming, etc. There would hardly be anything in YYYY in Bollywood if the list of films is taken out. (Of course if wanted, any silly thing can be bragged and written in lengths. But i don't like such style that assumes readers have short term memory or are unable to understand tables.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but it still think that it would be a pity to dismantle the excellent collection of film lists under Category:Lists of films by year.

If there is little material for each year, then rather than creating YYYY in Bollywood articles, why not do them by decade: YYY0s in Bollywood, such as 1980s in Bollywood? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well... move it to List of Bollywood films of YYYY if you wish. But i don't see any point in clubbing all births-deaths per decade just for the sake of writing something. Readers can go on individual pages and read it. Also if the articles on trend changes of Bollywood are to be written, i don't think trends follow decade wise pattern like some government regulations. That would also be a page filler. Hence better unwritten. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello friends, I've nominated

Why there isn't a portal for Indian cinema. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because it was not created!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question! and appropriate answer by Dwaipayan ;) After this, I'm thinking to create the Indian Cinema Portal. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I have a question. I apologize if I am wrong, since I'm new. :) Are the importance ratings for actors going to be all the same? I'm not referring to the importance rating on the WP India banner, but where it says, "This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (marked as ______-importance)." Because for Amitabh Bachchan, it is rated as Top-, and for Dev Anand, it is listed as High-. Shammi Kapoor is rated as High- too. Shouldn't they all be the same, since they're all actors? Red Hat On Head (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The importance rating is a representation of how important the article is for the work-group. It is irrespective of what the subject of the article is, i.e. biography, film, soundtrack, song, award-list, etc. Bachchan being one of the most reputed film personalities, this project considers it as a Top-importance. Same will not happen with Sidharth Malhotra whose article is a low-importance one, even if he is also an actor. Even though Lata Mangeshkar is not an actor, her contribution to Indian cinema is huge and hence her article is also of Top-importance. Sholay being one of classic hits, is also a top-importance article. Hope your doubt is answered. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

But then isn't the importance subjective? For example, Dev Anand, Dilip Kumar and Raj Kapoor were the so-called "Big Three" of Hindi cinema, and of course Raj Kapoor was known as a great actor and director, and Dev Anand did venture into direction as well, so. I apologize if this is being rude, but maybe some editors rated Amitabh Bachchan Top-importance because the media is promoting him and his son more? I know that isn't relevant to the encyclopedia, but I do think that Dev Anand, Dilip Kumar, and Raj Kapoor deserve to be rated Top-importance. Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is subjective. Many things on Wikipedia are. They are of course written from someone's point of view. Some editor from Australia won't even know about Bachchan. Some Indian who doesn't see Bollywood films wont care either. We have something called

WP:INCOTM where editors take priority articles for editing.
Now to answer you specific question about Bachchan. Amitabh holds the record for having the maximum nominations including all acting categories for Filmfare Awards. He is also Filmfare Lifetime Achievement Award winner. He is also recipient of three National Film Awards, which is also a record he hold with Kamal Haasan and Mammootty. He is also recipient of two of the top four national civilian awards, Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan. He is also known as the "Man of the Millennium". And to top that all, he is continuously promoted by media. He gets ill, media reports that. He blogs, media reports that. He tweets, media reports that. He has many controversies to his name. Political parties have been involved. With so many notable points, he is of top-importance.
Are others like Kapoor, Kumar, Anand not that important then? They are, but not as much as he is in my opinion. I can't speak for other editors. But if you want to change it, you can change it. Because as explained above, this rating doesn't really matter. I wouldn't mind if you rate Bachchan to low importance either. But i am sure someone else will revert it. These rating are just for maintenance works. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C

} 04:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright then. I think that a lot of people think Amitabh is more important because he just has had more hits in recent years compared to Dev (not a hit since 1978), or Dilip (Started playing character roles and doesn't really work much), and Raj... isn't even here. But at first he did have the Lifetime achievement award named after him. And yes, the Filmfare Awards thing... it started in 1955, which was later in most of their careers compared to Amitabh, so perhaps it was a given that he'd win more awards. I'm not going to rate Amitabh Low-importance, because I know he is important, but I do think Dev, Dilip and Raj deserve to be Top importance to. But thanks for explaining that to me. Because I do think that those articles need a lot of maintenance. Red Hat On Head (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask a question here whether upcoming actors are considered notable if there exists multiple reliable sources about them. I am struggling to save this article inspite of five references from national newspapers. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, actors and actresses are expected to follow

Secret of success (talk

) 14:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article shouldn't be here. It's just not notable at this point in time. After the film's release there won't be any problem. For now, the article can be rd-ed to the film's (Kadal) article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on a deeper look, it appears to be otherwise.

Secret of success (talk

) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This place is sufficient. And after you nominate the AfD will be listed one various sorting lists as well. But are of the opinion that this is all hoax? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't say really. IMDB of Iqbal doesn't mention him, and Nagesh Kukunoor is everywhere credited as the writer of the film. Perhaps he is an uncredited writer. Jay (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks uncredited to me. Didn't find his name in the film. But here The Hindu says "Kukunoor should just recognise his talent lies in directing and not in writing. He should hire a talented script writer on a permanent basis for all his films. He needn’t look far. Vipul K. Rawal who wrote the memorable “Iqbal” should do." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I am new here, however I stumbled upon this page. Actually the writer of Iqbal is Vipul K Rawal and there are numerous articles from various reliable sources attached. I noticed a few from Ecomonic Times, The Hindu and even Moser Bayer, the company that has the DVD rights of the movie have credited the movie to him. ALso, the website of Rajashree, a reputed production house who have the internet rights of Iqbal have credited the story of Iqbal to him. Saddumama (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddumama (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) As a reference I am attaching the link from the Moser Baer quiz. [2] ^[1] Saddumama (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Saddumama (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddumama (talk • contribs) 12:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that we need to rethink the criteria for including a language in the article

I suggest that we have a criteria like 'languages that have been awarded more than two or three times be given their own article'.The Discoverer (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Two or three is very less. There is no point in having such small stubs. One big mix page like this is good. I am happy with this current state. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The respective articles are already there, just redirected to the Discontinued and Intermittent National Film Awards page. And, name is self explanatory when we say "Intermittent" !! - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, awards for

Discontinued and Intermittent National Film Awards, because they are clearly being awarded "intermittently".The Discoverer (talk

) 01:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@TD: The award for Konkani (4), Manipuri (9) and Punjabi (14) have been given very less time in last 59 years. Also, the count in last ten years makes it eligible for considering it as "intermittent". This is not applicable to the other language awards that were mentioned by you here. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Vivvt, I was disappointed that you have reverted my work of creating separate articles for Punjabi, Manipuri and Konkani. I would like to reiterate that this article's title is a misnomer, because many the awards for other languages are also intermittent, and we cannot really redefine the meaning of a word to suit ourselves. I think we should not be critical and have such arbitrary classifications of awards, but we should apply a common rule for all. It seems very illogical to me e.g. that the award for Oriya, which hasn't been awarded since 2006 is not considered intermittent.

I urge all the members of this task force to consider my viewpoint and to treat the awards for all the languages equally. I call upon more users to give their views on this topic.The Discoverer (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "work" was a mere copy-paste of the original article!! Again, I don't understand your point of putting Oriya into intermittent as it is given more than 30 times in last 59 years and not given in last 5 years. This is very clear there that article have not been "deleted" but directed to the page which consolidates all the intermittent awards. This does not harm the reader as long as you get the relevant data. Please do not edit the concerned pages till we reach the consensus here. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not do a mere copy-paste of the original article. In addition to making standalone articles, I also made factual corrections to the data and you have added some of the errors back into the 'Discontinued...' article while reverting. One could also say that you created the 'Discontinued...' page by copy-pasting the text from the original individual articles, and the proposal to merge was not even notified on the individual articles' talk pages back then. In any case, I do not wish to have a two-way argument, but I wish to build consensus too. What I'm trying to say is that as long as the award is given less than 59 times in 59 years, it qualifies as intermittent as per the meaning of the word. If all of wikipedia had to use a rationale like this, the article

Indian national football team would never have existed, instead it would have been a paragraph on a page called 'Teams that have never won the football world cup'. Infact one could argue that India shouldn't have its own page, it should be part of a page called 'Countries created after 1900'. For this reason, I'm saying that if one language award has its own page, other awards should too, to maintain uniformity.The Discoverer (talk

) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the pages before and after creation of "Discontinued.." page to verify the copy-paste! Again, you are more than welcome to correct the errors in the page, if you have observed any. The page creation was discussed on the talk page of this task force and then taken a decision to make a separate page. With your logic of one-missing-in-59-lets-make-it-intermittent, we will end up having every article in the intermittent page. So get the consensus on that as well so that you can move everything you wished to the intermittent page. The examples you've given here are surprisingly irrelevant to the subject!! - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In order to have the views of the wider community, I am requesting for comment.The Discoverer (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Separate pages for awards in each language?

Should the award for each language have its own article, or should a few of the articles have their own article and rest be grouped into a common article? (See preceding discussion)The Discoverer (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I support merging all of this stuff into one article, unless and until it is so unwieldy it has to split, per

WP:SUMMARY, to be useful. Even then it should only split off sub-articles that are necessary, not one for every applicable language. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.

07:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask the question that started off this entire discussion: Can Punjabi, Manipuri and Konkani be independent articles, or should they be a part of the 'Discontinued...' article? The Discoverer (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral. I was invited by RfC bot, however I can't contribute to this topic due to lack of knowledge. Jesus Presley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly, two television and film child actors