Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 6

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.

In the 'List of highest Grossing Indian Films', Baahubali: The beginning tops both Telugu and Tamil tables with a reported gross of ₹ 650 crores. But, isn't ₹ 650 crores the combined gross of both Telugu and Tamil versions? While I understand that the gross of dubbed versions shall normally be included in the gross (as it is dubbed from the same film), I feel it is wrong to include the gross of a separately filmed version in the gross figure of one language. Baahubali was filmed in Telugu and Tamil languages. Only the Hindi and Malayalam versions were dubbed.

For instance, in the highest grossing Tamil films table, the gross figure of Kabali is given as ₹ 350 crore. This figure is the total gross of the original Tamil version, along with the dubbed versions in Telugu and Hindi, which is okay, since the film was originally made in Tamil. But Baahubali: The beginning was originally filmed in 'two languages; Telugu and Tamil. So, when Baahubali: The beginning is placed in the top of the table with a gross figure of 650 crore, it is grossly unfair, since the figure includes the collections of the simultaneously shot Telugu version. The Telugu gross figure cannot be counted as a Tamil film's collection (since it is NOT dubbed) and hence should not be included. Similarly, the Tamil gross figure cannot be counted as a Telugu film's collection! The combined figure cannot come in both tables since the other films in the tables only include the gross figure of the language in which they are originally filmed (along with the versions dubbed from them if any). PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly right and I don't think there's anything that can be done about it since there are no official box office sources which break down the gross by language. In fact, I think the whole page and all its related pages (this, this, this and perhaps more) are a total waste of space as none of the sources mentioned in those articles as references are reliable, in my opinion. As long as there isn't an official box office source in India, none of those gross figures can ever be considered true. - Nirinsanity (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

IMO, Box Office India is the most credible independent BO researching website, but unfortunately its research is mostly limited to Hindi films. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not to be confused with boxofficeindia.co.in, which I wouldn't trust one iota. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen cast lists like this, where people include among the cast the names of people who perform item numbers. Does this make sense to anyone? It seems that the cast would intuitively refer to people who are participating in the story, not necessarily the dance routines. It seems a stretch to consider dancers "cast". I could absolutely see the utility of including noteworthy people in a section on music, though. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just applying my narrow western thinking to eastern subjects. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

So these item numbers appearances are pretty important, and usually feature a famous central performer who should be mentioned. The background and secondary dancers, not. I am not familiar with the example that you cited though. Bollyjeff | talk 20:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are requested at Talk:List of highest-grossing Telugu films#Share collections. The issue is whether the table for Distributor's Share is within the scope of an article on highest-grossing films. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm writing an article on

You need to add an appropriate

WP:QUALIFIER: Mazhar Khan (actor, born 1905) and Mazhar Khan (actor, born 1955). Betty Logan (talk

) 13:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Man, this is getting really bad. We lost admin Ricky81682 to sockpuppetry, we lost Nairspecht, and now we've lost Inside the Valley, Charles Turing, and Essex-1799 who were all confirmed to be sock accounts of one another. It's unclear if that means sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. This is extraordinarily bad for a number of reasons, including that it creates a greater workload on all the people who work on Indian cinema articles. I hope that whomever is left will consider banding together a little more strongly here, participate in discussions, and if any of you are socking, STOP IT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

{{INRConvert}} is heavily used at List of highest-grossing Indian films, List of highest-grossing Tamil films, List of highest-grossing Telugu films and a number of similar list articles. Should the template be cut from these pages? The previous discussion on this seemed to dislike the template in general for needlessly converting to US dollars. To illustrate the problem, at List of highest-grossing Indian films in the Global Gross Figures table, note 3 Idiots, a 2009 film, is being converted to 2016 US dollars, because the template assumes that a current value is going in and produces a current value in its result.

If we use {{INRConvert|395|c}}, the result is ₹395 crore (US$49 million) ← Remember that the template is converting 2009 Indian rupees into 2016 US dollars.

If we use {{INRConvert|395|c|year=2009}} formatted for inflation, the result is ₹395 crore (equivalent to ₹993 crore or US$120 million in 2023).

In the second example with the inflation calculation, the resulting text is bulky for a table, and List of highest-grossing films, a similar article, doesn't attempt to adjust for inflation, so it's unclear why these similar articles would. Please indicate your !votes as either Keep or Cut. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Cut - as proposer, for the reasons mentioned above. The conversion templates are not producing accurate information, converting to US dollars is arbitrary, and it's unclear if there's precedent to use Wikipedia-based mechanical conversions for inflation in film gross list articles. That last part has the feel of
  original research to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk
  ) 03:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Cut - having read the discussion linked above, I agree with every reason to remove the conversions. We really shouldn't be misleading our readers with incorrect info, and converting to US dollars is not likely to be helpful to a majority of readers anyway. We want to decrease the Western bias, not add to it. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Cut - Is fundamentally a false comparison, serving no useful purpose. Do you convert rupees to dollars at the original exchange rate then add US inflation, or use Indian inflation and convert to dollars at todays exchange rate? Furthermore,we know that almost all the gross figures are only estimates to start with. - Arjayay (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Cut - It also ruins the set-up of many tables, such as here. If it specifies gross in US dollars in one of the columns, then the rupee box office tally doesn't need repetition. If you must convert, I feel it should be done manually. Furthermore, inflation adjustments don't seem to be normal procedure here, so should be removed. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, please keep an eye out for the introduction of box office "verdicts" in articles. I found this guy who introduced a lot of these[1][2][3][4] today. But I also feel like there's been an uptick in the introduction of this hyperbolic language. "Super hit", "blockbuster", "failure", etc. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just removed a bunch of them. Maybe an edit-filter for "more than two occurances of [some specific words and phrases]" would catch editors adding them to the filmography tables (actors, production-companies, ethnicity-by-year, etc) but not false-positive of cited refs for a single film's own article? DMacks (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reliable place top find the Filmfare Award wins and nominations for a given film? It is so frustrating that the Filmfare website does not archive these, at least that I can find. They only show the previous year. There was a website that had them up to 2005, but that is now permanently gone and no archives are available. The only thing I can find is http://www.awardsandshows.com/ but it's not clear if this is reliable. Please help. Bollyjeff | talk 03:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That site appears to be a

mirror website. Perhaps this could help. Kailash29792 (talk)

03:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I have used that before too. It goes from the beginning to 2005, which is pretty good. The source is not rock solid though, is it? Who is Dhirad? Bollyjeff | talk 13:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've come across User:Anwar Hossain jany which is a single-edit account which appears to be a biography of an actor born in East Bengal in 1931. It's a long way from my expertise, but I imagine that someone who won a Lifetime Achievement Award is probably notable - would someone care to look into it and see if the article is worth rescuing for mainspace? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Of late, I've been coming across budget figures of Indian films quoted in 'million' rupees. As the unit 'million' is seldom used with the Indian currency rupee, quoting budgets only in million rupees can be confusing to the average Indian reader. I suggest that both units are retained, i.e, if the budget is rupees thirty crore, then the infobox (and paragraphs) shall have the figure quoted as ₹ 30 crore (300 million). Thus, the main Indian standard unit is retained to avoid any confusion for the average Indian reader, and the same figure is represented in the bracket in millions.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the most elegant way would be to quote crores of rupees and millions of US$, to be more comprehensible to an international audience? Le Deluge (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: Your suggestion is appreciated, but consensus seems to prefer we not make arbitrary conversions of Rupees to US dollars. I could give you all the details, but it's basically that there are issues with inflation, infobox clutter, and a general "why are we arbitrarily converting to US dollars?" Obviously, I don't expect you to know any of this as you're just dropping by, but that's it in a nutshell. Your idea is appreciated, though! Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:COMMONALITY does say that we should avoid using the word "crore", but I don't see any harm in doing it per Plutonium's suggestion of giving both "crores" and "millions". NewYorkActuary (talk

) 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, comments requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Subramani, please. There are questions about notability. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, project members are strongly urged to discuss whether or not it makes sense to include films at List of most expensive Indian films if 1) the film hasn't begun production yet and 2) the film hasn't been completed. Seems like there's a real opportunity for Wikipedia to be used inappropriately as an extension of film companies' marketing schemes. Sources say Mohanlal's Randamoozham could cost upwards of 600 crore, so we just regurgitate that so that everybody starts looking forward to the spectacle? If the film hasn't finished production, do the figures have any meaning? If the film hasn't yet begun production, do the figures have any meaning? Please add your thoughts at Talk:List of most expensive Indian films#Budget for films that have not begun or completed production. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Only completed films should be included in the table. But no-one will listen. Please get the page protected indefinitely. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello all,

Quick presentation: I work with Kiwix, the offline reader that offers Wikimedia content for people with limited connectivity.
Quick background: Kiwix runs on all platforms, but we launched last year Wikimed with the help of WikiProject Medicine. It basically is an Android app offering all of Wikipedia's medical content. Lo and behold, it is a huge success on the Indian subcontinent (about 40% of our downloads)! We figured it would be a good idea, therefore, to target our next app to the region's audience.

That's where we need your help, because to be honest we know nothing about it and figured we might as well ask the experts.

How does it work: we unfortunately can not use categories (ideally category:Cinema of India) - so the next best thing is that we select articles based on the intersection of two Wiki Projects: {{WikiProject India}} and {{WikiProject Film}}. All articles that have been tagged by both projects will therefore be included. So we need to make sure that all articles you would like included are correctly tagged. For instance, talk:List of Assamese films of 2014 has been tagged by the Wikiproject Film but not by the WikiProject India (at the time of writing): if we want it included, we need to correct this (ditto for all similar pages; maybe a bot can help?). To be clear, we can also intersect other wikiprojects, just let us know.

What do we need: other than correct tagging? basically just a landing page that would present the content. You can see a

How you can help: make this landing page yours: you can change pretty much everything that says XXX or YYY or "article" (the left column is ours, don't touch it). Even the name of the app: I put Bollywoodpedia because it sounded catchy and I know nothing else, but if you want to give it another name, go for it. Remember: we cannot use categories (or link to them), so every link you put in there must direct to an article. A good idea would be to list a blend of the most-read articles by genre.

Any question -> let me know here, or

Hi, FYI I am uploading to Commons all Indian movies which are in the public domain in India. Please tell me if you have any special request or comment. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Could you please post the category link is once you start? - Vivvt (Talk) 10:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I am creating a category for each movie, as there may be more material (songs, stills, poster, etc.). But you can find the whole list here. All videos bigger than 1 GB are waiting for server-side uploads. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

BLP and other content-related issues on

Has he mentioned the correct date of birth in the video? If so, you could cite the video as a source in the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the DOB and his birthplace. Should be sourced anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey all, (all two of you...) I've moved the proposed ICTF FAQ into the hands of the ICTF. Instead of in my user space it can now be found at

Hi all, not surprisingly, there's yet another major discrepancy with the gross for a Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh film, Hind Ka Napak Ko Jawab: MSG Lion Heart 2. India TV News reports it as 100 crore in its first week. Box Office India sees things differently, reporting a 1 week gross of 4.28 crore. So I'm not sure how you guys want to deal with this. It could be presented as a range, or in some other way. Is India TV a reliable source? I couldn't find any info at BollywoodHungama, which causes me concern. I see several possibilities, including that India TV news is just regurgitating what the producers have claimed. I don't know off-hand, and I don't have much time lately to research this in depth. Any efforts to do so and to formulate a plan, would be appreciated. Note that there were huge discrepancies for the other films made by Singh--shitty reviews but astounding box office claims. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just came across the above awards page. It has a full Category:Global Indian Film Awards. Looks like they were distributed only in 2005 and 2007. I have merged 3 of the category pages to the main awards article. I don't think all the awards categories pages should have a standalone article? What do you all feel? Should we merge all of them? --Skr15081997 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If they can't be expanded any further, it's safe to merge them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

For the promotion of their upcoming films, actors frequently appear on TV shows; comedy, reality and even guest roles in daily soaps. It is apparent that the performance is merely for promotion. Should such roles be included in filmography list. What about appearances in TV specials of award shows. The leading actors have made dozens of such appearances. What's the community's opinion on this issue? --Skr15081997 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No, for the reasons you said. Bollyjeff | talk 04:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No, unless there's something unique or rare about the appearance that would be relevant for some academic reason, and/or if the appearance garnered significant secondary coverage. For example, when Drew Barrymore hopped on David Letterman's desk and flashed him, that drew a significant amount of coverage. Sinead O'Connor tearing up Pope John Paul's photo on Saturday Night Live would be noteworthy because of the subsequent media attention. Some actor doing a mundane promo interview on Comedy Nights with Kapil would probably not be noteworthy. Wikipedia is not IMDB, and we are not here to log every movement an actor makes, only to present a general overview of their most significant works. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The Hans India - Use or don't use as reference? About Us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why not. --Kailash29792 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, one argument might be that it was started in 2011 and thus might not be as well established as others, but if you're not bothered by is and you seem to know it, that's good enough for me. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As a resident of Hyderabad, i can confidently say that this newspaper is one of the most prominent vernacular ones alongside The Hindu, TOI and DC (surpassing the latter in some zones).

** Pavan Jandhyala **

06:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Pavanjandhyala: A belated thank you for your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 06:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about 123telugu.com? Reliable? Not? On their About page, they say they're reliable, so naturally I'm suspicious.

123telugu.com, a part of the prestigious Mallemaala Entertainments Group headed by noted Producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy, is a comprehensive and reliable resource for Telugu Movie News, Reviews, Photos and Political News.

I see a flimsy article on Shyam Prasad Reddy, so I'm not yet convinced of why he or his organisation should be considered an expert on Telugu film reviews, financial figures, etc. (Or Political news, for that matter...) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have just removed some dollar conversions from articles in accordance with the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_6#PROPOSAL:_The_INRConvert_template_should_be_cut_from_various_list_articles. However, unless you know of the discussion there is not much point having a consensus if it is not visible to editors; therefore I recommend adding the consensus to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Films an dthen it can be easily referred to by taskforce editors. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I Have put it, and will seek to put others there too. It is always hard to find old discussions when you need them. Bollyjeff | talk 00:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You're the best, Betty! Thanks for the thoughtful assists! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone know if Baahubali 2 is shot in both Telugu and Tamil? I'm seeing claims at Talk:Baahubali 2: The Conclusion and elsewhere (I think) that the sequel was dubbed into Tamil. I know that sources said the first film was simultaneously shot, I'm just curious if the sequel changed format as far as anyone knows. A timely reply would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw the Tamil version, and the censor certificate does not mention it as being a dubbed version. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Kailash29792. Did you happen to notice any glaring lip sync issues for the bulk of the Tamil version? Anything that would suggest that most of it was dubbed? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope; in fact, one of the actors found it easier to dub in Tamil than Telugu. In this interview, Rajamouli mentions why the whole Baahubali series was planned as a bilingual filmed in Tamil and Telugu. He also mentions that 30-40% shooting of The Conclusion was complete during The Beginning's release. So I guess he indicates that The Conclusion was indeed filmed in Tamil. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The following articles mentions it as a Telugu movie which had been dubbed to other languages including Tamil. And all other articles on Bahubali 2 mentioned it as a Telugu Cinema only.

• HT->http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/could-baahubali-2-become-the-first-indian-film-to-cross-rs-1000-cr-at-the-bo/story-ou4eWPFmJCeGiJoqF8zqvK.html
• CNN->http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/04/entertainment/india-movies-baahubali-bollywood/
• BBC->http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-39777539
  (talk)
  11:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I can understand the western news sources making a mistake, but it's ridiculous if the Hindustan Times doesn't get it right. This simply should not be in dispute. The CNN source doesn't say that it's dubbed in Tamil, only that "It's being distributed" in a variety of languages. I don't know what to do here. Do we really need a reference for something that should be super-obvious by watching the movie? If the people's lips move correctly in time with the dialogue, typically, that's the best indicator that it's not dubbed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Believe me :) . We may get false votes. Telugus supporting Telugu and Tamils supporting Tamil. And do you mean HT is not a valid source?

(talk)

13:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but even "valid sources" get facts wrong and/or are guilty of poor journalism. I'll always point to the crappy job Indian Express/Financial Express did reporting the Kabali figures, making it seem the film grossed ₹677 crore at the box office when at least 200 of that was in pre-release income. And it would not surprise me one bit if the recent statements of the Tamil version being a dub was not part of wider agenda to have Tamil removed from the list of languages at the main Baahubali 2 article as well as List of highest-grossing Indian films. This has been an ongoing issue since 2015 or so. "Give Telugu its due credit!" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes what you said may be correct. The war is because, this movie became talk of India and everyone wants to claim it. The fact being all(or may be few) such Bilingual movies which are made before this movie were given with their Production industry language in first line of the article. For example- You can refer

(talk)

15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

agasthyathepirate, I already linked this interview, but I don't think you read it. Rajamouli says in that, "Given the budget of the film, it's impossible to recover the cost involved if we release in just one language. Right from the start, the plan was to make it as a Tamil-Telugu bilingual." By the time the first film released, the second film was already 30-40% complete, as stated by Rajamouli in the same interview. So it seems obvious that even the second film was shot in Tamil, not merely dubbed. --Kailash29792 (talk)

15:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/box-office/baahubali-2-the-conclusion-worldwide-box-office-collection-day-10-film-creates-history-by-crossing-1000-crore-mark/articleshow/58571727.cms

So, the data should be taken from a trade website who deals with collection from every territory and quote its figure on its site consistently. In this case, Boxofficeindia.com is site which gives data for Hindi films and Hindi-Dubbed films . it is much better than Bollywood Hungama, which is not quoting regional collections and takes data from producers. so Boxofficeindia.com should be given priority. there was data differences 3-4 years back in Krrish 3 collections when producers exaggerated the worldwide figures of film by 60 crores from actual ₹ 187 crores to ₹ 255 crores.

Worldwide Gross of PK from Two sources: 743 crore first source:
http://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=2914
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion has hit 1000 crore GROSS Worldwide box office in ten days. The film had gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore a few days back. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide but now with its China run it can go over 900 crore but its not catching Bahubali - The Conclusion.

second source:
http://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=2904
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion which has smashed all box office records has also taken the Worldwide crown in just six days. The film has gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore with business close to 800 crore. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide. PK at 743 crore and Dangal at 702 crore.
PK was released in Hindi only

The worldwide gross should be changed from 792 to 743 crore.--Rashkeqamar (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Emphatic "no way": As a summary for anyone who might be confused by all the bolded text, the user is proposing that the Indian cinema task force prioritize Box Office India over all other sources (TOI, IBT, etc) for Hindi box office figures. Per my comment here, I think this is a ridiculous proposition, because "prioritize" means that any source with a contrary opinion would no longer be valid and BOI would be our singular go-to. I believe this would be a gross violation of
  WP:UNDUE, as other reliable sources with different viewpoints would be excluded from consideration. Since the entirety of Indian film finances are derived through proprietary estimates, not through a central auditing system like Box Office Mojo, there simply is no way to establish a singular authority with any faith of extreme reliability. In the case of how the gross of PK should be represented at List of highest-grossing Indian films, I think a range of 743–792 crore could be appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk
  ) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, IndianBio, Bollyjeff, DRAGON BOOSTER, Editor 2050, Vensatry, Krimuk2.0, Krish!, Numerounovedant, Skr15081997, Jaguar, and Yashthepunisher: The article is undergoing a FAR here. Please provide comments before it is closed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This website was co-founded by

There's no official Wikipedia "examination" that I'm aware of. Editors get together and reason through whether a source should be used based on questions like, "who runs this site?" and "does the site have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? And so forth. Do we know if any other news sources look to this site as a legitimate peer? Does The News Minute get exclusive stories that are then picked up by other media? (It's sort of tricky in Indian journalism, since we often see mainstream sites like IBT and TOI pointing to blogs like AndhraBoxOffice and Onlookersmedia.in for box office figures, which I don't think should count to establish reputation, because all these news sites are under pressure to report new financials, and don't seem to care where it comes from.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If The News Minute fails WP:RS on the grounds of being a relatively new site, then that's not bad. But

Comicbookmovie.com. Still I would appreciate an explanation by Vensatry on why he does not consider TNM a RS. --Kailash29792 (talk)

14:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, IndianBio, Bollyjeff, DRAGON BOOSTER, Editor 2050, and Ssven2: Sorry for the ping, but response at this page tends to be a bit low. Comments kindly requested at Talk:Baahubali_2: The Conclusion#Production Budget of Film is misleading. The issue is how the budget of Baahubali 2 should be presented. One editor, BoxRox believes that a budget estimate of ₹250 crore total for parts 1 and 2 made by Rajamouli in 2015 should be used for determining the sequel's budget. Many recent sources (as detailed in the discussion) put the figure at 250 crore, which BoxRox feels is inaccurate. Comments on how to present the figures are appreciated. Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

For part 1, it is 180 crores, while part 2 is done at 250, making up a total of 430 crores. But I feel only one person can tell us how much the film costs: SSR himself. One of us can tweet to him saying that Wikipedia wants to know.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

And you must try your best to avoid violating

WP:COI. Sometimes it is common for production companies to fradulently overstate their films' budgets (like Franchise Pictures did with this piece of gem), but I think producers would have stopped doing so after seeing what happened to the aforementioned film. I think both films were not completely shot together; 40% of Baahubali 2 was complete when Baahubali 1 was released. So maybe during the shooting of the remaining 60%, the budget increased. --Kailash29792 (talk)

07:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That is possible, with most of it spent on marketing, pre-release distributions (now it is K productions instead of Studio Green) and promotions.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2 and Kailash29792: The comments are appreciated, though we usually comment at the target discussion. Ssven2, we typically don't rely on primary sources for controversial content like finances. Part of why the Kabali gross figures were so heavily inflated is because the figures were being pumped out by the producer/marketing dept. Though I do understand your point. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: That was for the BO. This is for the production budget. I really don't think SSR would lie about that. I do have an idea though. One of us can add a footnote stating the different budgets estimated (like Eega's FA).  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Should Golden Kela Awards, Ghanta Awards, Filmfail Awards and the likes be added to accolades lists? List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone and List of awards and nominations received by Bradley Cooper (both FLs) includes Golden Raspberry Awards. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, 1. While I am editing an infobox in a biography, should I not cite any reference? 2. In the infobox, should I write like - |death_place = Mumbai, India or |death_place = [[Mumbai]], [[India]]? Thanking you, --P.Shiladitya (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

P.Shiladitya, since Mumbai, India are common enough for Bollywood related pages, there's no need to link them. If the info which you intend to add to the infobox is cited to a reliable source in the main body then you can add that but if not then at least add a source in the infobox. However, don't add religion until very necessary and also the relatives info unless they are notable enough to have their own article. Hope that helps, --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Skr15081997: Sir,

Thanks for your kind reply. I am new in wikipedia and want to learn rules. In the article Reema Lagoo, I named a part of the section 'Personal Life' as 'Death' and added a reference from Huffpost in the infobox, that all were reverted. And thus I asked the above question.

Whatever, thanks a lot from the bottom of my heart.

--P.Shiladitya (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:LEADCITE: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. I don't see why it would be any different in the infobox. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The reason I removed the infobox reference was, like you mentioned, due to "excessive referencing"; three references in the body already supported the said content. A person's death on a particular day would obviously invite enthusiastic contributors to the page on the said day and the following few days. But, there should not be a debate on the date of death. On the date of birth, there could be, which I understand and thus, have promptly left a reference next to the birth date in the infobox. I am no very experienced contributor myself, and am not aware of the 'extremely lengthy and hard to read Wiki guidelines' myself. But, thank you for bringing

this to my notice. I shall henceforth be careful and leave a reference in the infobox wherever required. I believe content should be added keeping in mind that these pages are here for eternity, and not a few days or weeks :) P.S.: Cyphoidbomb, you are doing a great job replying to questions and concerns of fellow contributors in such detail. Thank you! Editor5454 (talk

) 17:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skr15081997:, @Cyphoidbomb:,

Dear Sirs,

Thanks a lot for your reply. It would help me a lot in editing. I hope, I will get your valuable help in future.

Thanks @Editor5454: for participating in friendly discussion. I asked this question to know more and thus, kindly do not mind anything.

Thanking again, --P.Shiladitya (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I am always up for a constructive discussion. So, thank you for initiating one. Also, just to clarify on why I removed your edit "[[ ]]" on Mumbai ('

linking'), is because the subject's birth place was Mumbai too (known then as Bombay), which I had linked. Generally no page is linked to, more than once from an infobox. But, I suppose adding "(now Mumbai)" next to Bombay is necessary. Anyway, thanks! — Editor5454 (talk

) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, has anyone ever heard of the "Films of India Online Awards"? Their web presence appears to be here, but the anonymous nature of it with so little detail seems really sketchy to me. I first encountered this entity here when someone added a wixsite.com address at Neerja. The anyone-can-set-up-a-Wix-website notion bothered me, so I looked elsewhere on the project for instances of this site being used, then looked deeper. If anyone has any info on whether or not it's an award that anyone cares about (call me skeptical, since it only appears to have existed for 2 years) then I'll probably remove the instances. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There is an AfD that is relevant to your topic area at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aadhi Raat Ke Baad. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The admins says that they need a reliable sources.The Source used for the malayalam movie Pulimurugan is catch news.How is it reliable.It is not like any news channels or indian express.How is it possible to use it.Please clarify for what reason it is used.Who is the editor in that.What is his qualfication.Muhammed.suhail (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

admin please give reply against this problem as of my point of view in the section of highest grossing indian films the list and the editing is been done in fan base especially in the section of malayalam movie. A source is used there is catch news which is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammed.suhail (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

For anyone else who has information about Catch's reliability, I answered a portion of Muhammed's question here, where I told him that Catch News is owned by Rajasthan Patrika and was founded by Shoma Chaudhury, who was fired after the site had been established. Jupitus Smart has previously expressed that he doesn't think Catch should be considered reliable. Does anyone from the Indian cinema task force have any opinions about this site? If nobody is willing to stand up for it, then it, like any other random website could wind up being disregarded as a reputable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Extensive discussion on Cyphoidbomb's talk page. Refer there. Jupitus Smart 16:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:ICTFFAQ? I started compiling that a while back to help build a resource for this community, but it's not a strong document yet and many of the listed sites have never been discussed. Not sure if you have any time or interest in working on it, but it exists if you're interested. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 00:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:ICTFFAQ, though I am a little too pre-occupied now to actually contribute in any effective manner. I will try and opine on each publications once I make a full return. Jupitus Smart

03:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I would like to know if we can or can not accept assamtimes.org as a reliable source to support notability for films and actors? As per their Join us page anybody can join them and share write ups and ideas which they will endorse according to their editorial policy but I can't find what their policies are. I also posted this question at

I have started a discussion to split the article National Film Award – Special Jury Award / Special Mention (Feature Film). I hope ICTF members would spare some time to join the discussion. Regards.--Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi folks, Vijay (actor) is a bit of a mess, heavy with puffery and the usual unsubstantiated claims of critical/commercial success, etc. It's the sort of article that's going to need a lot of fine-tooth cleaning. Any chance some of the GA regulars could add it to their watchlists and/or their To Do lists? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Regular editors keep an eye on

Hello people! If anyone has seen the film Zindagi (1940 film), they are welcome to add a plot section and a cast section. Thanks, King Prithviraj II (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone knowledgable in movies take a look at Ittefaq (2017 film)#Plot and shorten it? Thanks. MT Train^Discuss 12:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this since a very long time and time to finally act now. As we all know, there are 100s of frivolous and laughable award shows with laughable categories solely created to award stars who attend these shows. Even the so called "reputed" award ceremonies are known for similar things. But I think the unnotable awards should be completely removed from wikipedia. I am talking about the awards given by Indian magazines such as Vogue, GQ, Filmfare, Femina and Hello, all of which award style and glamour. We all know everyone who attends these ceremonies get one award or the other. Even the worst -dressed stars like Deepika Padukone win awards like "Stylish Diva of Year" and so on. I would like to invite

You cannot be seriously thinking to eliminate the Filmfare Awards. It is certainly the most well known awards ceremony in the country, and only topped in prestige by the National Film Awards, isn't it? Bollyjeff | talk 23:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not Filmfare Awards but Filmfare Glamour & Style Awards.Krish | Talk 00:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If those award shows have Wikipedia articles, then they are notable to be included. Else, I am fine with their removal from the very face of Wikipedia. However, I am sceptical about removal of Awards that are notable simply on the basis that they are awarding every actor out there, which is not for us to decide. The reputed awards can certainly remain. 86.99.14.238 (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

While i agree with Krish regarding the nature of some of the awards shows in India, I am not too sure about how smooth their removal process (from Wikipedia) would be. It would lead to one contentious claim to another about which award is or isn't frivolous. NumerounovedantTalk 04:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Guyz, This is to inform you to join wikipedia discussion whatsapp group. To discuss any topic. Here is the link https://chat.whatsapp.com/0e4EnwRB3axGmcVpmlYouv. Regards Jack Shukla AKA TKSS & Paplesh. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I try to answer edit requests for protected page and almost without fail whenever I look at the relevant categories there are one or more edit requests by unregistered or unconfirmed editors asking for an update to box office figures for some movie. I am aware of the poor quality of most Indian cinema box-office numbers and I attempt to follow this task force's guidelines whenever possible to respond to these requests. That said, I am somewhat perplexed by not only the frequency but also the urgency of these requests. Some are quite vitriolic, accusing Wikipedia of racism over these edits. Granted, there is often hyperbole in edit requests but these are just disputable figures for how much money a movie supposedly made. Is it because of rivalry between different language communities within India or is there some other factor at work here? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have seen that most quality Indian cinema articles use million denomination over crore. While this is fine per

MOS:COMMONALITY, most visits to these pages are from Indians, and the million format can be quite difficult to comprehend for people who have lived their entire life using crore denominations. I am proposing that both millions and crore denominations be used in this format: ₹x crore (₹ x million). Perhaps a template can be created to ease the conversions. What do you think of this proposal? Please let me know the task force's opinion on this. Thanks, -- King Prithviraj II (talk

You might find this hard to believe, as did I, but in guidelines such as Naming Conventions, India is not considered part of the English speaking world. Presumably most Indians would be visiting something like hi.wikipedia.org where crore would be used. Make sense? Probably not, but it might get too messy to have multiple denominations, especially in the infoboxs. Maybe in the box office sections, but there we often add conversion to $dollars. Bollyjeff | talk 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

All, I've started a discussion at

I too am in favour of such a task force being established. However, I feel it could be specifically related to non-American film articles as they are less often edited than American ones. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, a contested merger is taking place at

• In the lead of Indian film articles we should always use this statement or it's derivatives: Example is a 20XX Indian XYZ-language (XYZ industry nickname for instance
  Bollywood for Hindi
  -language fims) film...
• Why? That's because it gives foreign readers an idea of what that particular language's film industry's nickname is.
• Exception:
  Cinema of Punjab
  has no nickname.
• See these: Gold (2018 film) and Hate Story 4 for instance.

Harsh Rathod 04:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As one of those "foreign readers" - I think this is a terrible idea. It just adds more clutter to what can already be congested ledes, and just isn't that interesting. Why should a foreign reader need the nickname of an entire cinema culture in a film article? The language is relevant - if I don't know Telugu then I know I will need subtitles, but I'm not sure why I would need to know that it's a "Tollywood" film. Aside from Bollywood, all those "X"ollywood terms are not widely used outside India,so it's not like you'd need to know the term to eg find it in a film library. So it just looks like clutter to me.Le Deluge (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: This is not the first time my proposals are straight away rejected. Bit still, at some point, please think how did you happen to learn the word bollywood? Where did you read it first? Do you deny the fact that amercian cinema is also called hollywood? Do you know what is sandalwood? Of course, you will google it now. Even for me, this word is new. I had learnt it recently. Please read this discussion. Following the consequences of this discussion one editor took it personal and raised questions on my editorship. See the Tollywood section of my talk page. That was so disrespectful and humiliating stunt. They also call my edits crap. But I learnt that cinema of Kannada is called sandalwood. Now, do you think this word should be mentioned in the lead of film articles? Since it is new for you and me both. Harsh Rathod 17:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't personal at all - it's just a bad idea. The first sentence of an article is for mentioning the 2-3 most important things about the subject - and explaining what "x"ollywood means is not one of the most important things about a film. We don't explain that a) a film is a Hollywood film and b) what Hollywood means in every US film. As an aside, some of the most "Hollywood" of films are made outside the US - in Canada, the UK etc. In fact the whole thing of defining film industries in terms of Hollywood is very much an Indian thing that isn't common elsewhere (

Spanish cinema rather than Frollywood and Spollywood etc. The phrase Telugu cinema is precise, self-evident and unambiguous - why confuse things by introducing the ambiguity of Tollywood into things? And why does this have have to be in the first sentence of film articles? I repeat - nothing personal, but it's a terrible idea.Le Deluge (talk

) 17:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: I was talking about mentioning both things in the lead. The language name and then nickname. Harsh Rathod 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why the industry nickname is so important that it belongs in the very first sentence of a film article. The fact that a nickname is not well known and "new for you and me both" is a powerful argument not to include it, as it falls foul of Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone "the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader". Le Deluge (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Vokay! Apologies for my behaviour. Harsh Rathod 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am completely against the idea of including film industries' nicknames in lead sections of film articles. Rather I'd begin an article like, X is a <year> <language> film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Another rejection. 😐😑😣😔 Harsh Rathod 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with the proposal. There have been instances of films from a film industry having different languages other than the industry's primary language. Bollywood churns out a considerable number of films with English spoken in them. See Anna M. M. Vetticad's footnote on this article for more info. Bollywood or Tollywood is not going to tell a non-Indian much about its language. It may be useful in the production section, though. King Prithviraj II (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with … It may be useful in the production section, though. But I was talking about mentioning this in the lead. Another rejection. 😪😴 Harsh Rathod 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with the proposal - there is a language parameter in the infobox which already copes with this. Also, a number of films are being issued in multiple languages (not just overdubs) which would give even more clutter. I also foresee arguments/editwarring about which language comes first and people trying to include dubbed versions -

Tollywood (Telugu)? If people want to know the language, they can just check the infobox. - Arjayay (talk

) 11:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Another rejection. 😪😴 Harsh Rathod 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors can consider primary language used in production. Harsh Rathod 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree with inclusion of nickname A version of this discussion was previously started at Talk:Hate Story 4. Harshrathod50 didn't get any traction changing the lead there from "Hindi-language" to "bollywood" [sic], and though his next effort was to slap Bollywood in parantheses next to Hindi-language, this too just creates needless clutter and I reverted it. Since he was making these changes to a swath of film articles, I asked him to come here. In leads we typically answer the Five Ws and provide some disambiguation if necessary. Sometimes we can do that in one elegantly cluttered sentence, sometimes it takes several. "Bollywood" is an abstract concept that loosely describes films made by Indian studios in the Hindi-language, typically produced by the Hindi ethnic group. Does a Hindi-language film have to be produced in Mumbai for it to be Bollywood? Can a Bollywood studio make a Hindi film entirely in Switzerland and call it a Bollywood film? If a studio from Karnataka makes a film entirely in Hindi is it a Bollywood film? That's a really heady concept to mandate for inclusion in the lead. A standard lead would intuitively tell us that it is a film (what), that it was made in 2018 (when), that it is from India (where), that it stars ___ and was directed by ___ and written by ___ (who). Noting that it was produced in Hindi (what) also serves to disambiguate from other films of that name. Like how we distinguish Drishyam, a Malayalam-language film from Drishyam the Hindi-language remake. Describing films as Bollywood or Sandalwood or Pollywood (as some like to describe the Punjabi industry) requires readers to have foreknowledge of the nicknames for the nicknames to have any value. Alternatively, every time we use the term, we'd have to clarify what the term means, which just creates more clutter. "The film was produced in Bollywood, the Hindi-language film industry centered in Mumbai." And as correctly stated by Le Deluge, we need to be precise with our language so that the widest audience possible can understand the most important aspects of this film. Maybe an argument could be made that this language could be presented somewhere in the article body, but I don't see its value in the lead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree with above disagreement: @Cyphoidbomb: I stopped all my activities the moment you made it this much big. See this page I had edited recently. I made it as YOU want. So be happy, everything is as YOU want. Don't worry about this bolly, polly, tolly matter. I have some other plans for it. Actually, I'm not able to explain everything properly. No doubt, I'm not of English origin. Harsh Rathod 08:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: Uhhh, I don't know why you're making this about ME. It's clear that the majority of the people above and at the Talk:Hate Story 4 discussion didn't support the practice. These aren't my rules, they are the preferences of the community, and part of my duty as an experienced editor is to tell you what these preferences are. I don't always agree with the community preference, but I adhere to it. Whatever your mysterious next plan is on the matter, you may want to run it past other editors here first to save yourself some headaches. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Simply because it is always you that got problems with everything here. Also your previous comment targetted me. 😤 Harsh Rathod 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: And again, see above. I was obviously not the only one who had a problem with it. Any existing guideline or policy that we have at Wikipedia comes from the community having a problem with something, not just Cyphoidbomb. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:ADMIT that I was wrong with everything I did. My ideas are so bad that they suffer instantaneous rejection. CyphoidBomber feels good seeing me defeated everywhere. 😏 Harsh Rathod

16:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick question as to community preference: at Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna the film poster presents Rani Mukerji's name with an H (Mukherji) rather than as Mukerji. What's the best way to deal with this? Do we use the credited name, or the name that Wikipedia seems to prefer? This sometimes comes up with Shahrukh Khan vs. Shah Rukh Khan and I'm sure others as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

- i think Mukherji or mukherjee is the correct one if we see the history of traditional use... see Mukherjee-Samarth family... no idea since when rani became Mukerji :-( --Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the poster of her latest film has her as Mukerji, it seems that she changed her spelling at some point during her career as she was widely referred to as Mukherji in her early reviews. But generally in these cases we'd use the spelling she herself uses rather than what it "should be" based on "traditional use", certainly for her main article. It gets complicated with the films where her "official" spelling has varied through her career, I'd generally use Mukerji for anything except where a film specifically refers to her as Mukherji, but at the same time wikilink to Rani Mukerji to make the connection clear.Le Deluge (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

She officially goes by "Rani Mukerji", but is credited in films directed by Karan Johar as "Rani Mukherji", and was credited as "Rani Mukherjee" in some of her earlier films. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

So in the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, would we use "Mukerji"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I think we should use "Mukherji" there since that's how she was credited in the film. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted a change like that, which also changed SRK spelling, thinking it better to stick with the

WP:common name everywhere. Also, how can you know for sure how they are credited in a certain film? Bollyjeff | talk

02:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Many films have background score and soundtrack album. If one weighs both of them equally, then music parameter should be asigned with values for both. Then why does this article use only background score artist in music parameter?
2. If a production company officially employs an artist for the sole purpose of composing background score for a film and also credits him for it, then shouldn't we use ony background score artist in the music parameter (provided the soundtrack album of that film is not notable?) As is the case with this article.
3. As is in practice nowadays. Many articles asign music parameter with both background score and soundtrack album artists. This fills film's infobox with jargon. Even if there is special section for the soundtrack in that film's article. Shouldn't the soundtrack album artists be asigned in the infobox album put in the soundtrack section of that film's article?
4. It is clearly mentioned in Template:Infobox film that music parameter is for the film's music composers and not for the songs composers then why is this ignored by the admins? Harsh Rathod 10:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a question best asked at Template talk:Infobox film. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: No, it is best suited here. Don't you have to say anything on it? Harsh Rathod 12:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The usual practice is to mention the music director/ composer in the infobox. The soundtrack album is usually considered distinct from the film and often has a separate section/article, while the same is not the case with background score. As this task force primarily deals with Indian films, this sort of thing is better discussed at WikiProject Film or the Infobox talk page for more output. 2.51.21.246 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I raised this discussion at Template talk:Infobox film "Music_by:" last year. Only got one response, and his feeling was that the parameter should be flexible, as there might be instances where the soundtrack of film intended to be a musical (like Oklahoma!) might be more important than the incidental music that connects the story together. Since Indian films are a bit different from western musicals, and in some cases the item numbers are irrelevant to the story and just serve to entertain (and stretch film length), there might be valid arguments for not including the information in the infobox. However, I don't see why the ICTF wouldn't be a good place to have the discussion. It's rare to get useful comments about Indian films from WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the best place to discuss it here. I get into edit wars now and then because of this. And has to explain this thing everytime in the edit summary. 😡 Harsh Rathod 08:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Even here no one is replying. So, I will continue with my preferred editing practice on this matter with no hesitation. Harsh Rathod 04:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: Lack of feedback after 2 days doesn't mean you have carte blanche or community consensus. You may encounter push-back, at which point you will need to do more discussing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Okay, okay, okay, okay! I will wait, wait, wait, ...and wait! I don't understand carte blanche. Explain it in the context of your previous comment. Harsh Rathod 14:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: wikt:Carte blanche (literally "white card") means free license. "Just because I gave him the keys to the car doesn't mean he has carte blanche to drive as fast as he wants." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Oh, I see! But still, do you have any reason to stop me? Harsh Rathod 15:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: I don't have a specific reason to stop you, other than personal experience, but when your impulsive edits are reverted by IPs that don't value discussion, and you're basically edit-warring by yourself, well, then I guess we'll speak again! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Rockstar (2011 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Just what the heck do we mean by the above category? Is it that this category contains (1) films whose background score is composed by ARTIST or (2) song(s) in the soundtrack album of that film is/are composed by ARTIST?

There are so many instances of wrong categorisations in this type of categories. Some people are mistaking it as (2) and some as (1).

Shouldn't there be a special page/essay on this matter? Harsh Rathod 07:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

7 days, no reply. I think nobody cares. This is my conclusion: I will remove any film pages from these type of categories which only includes soundtrack album or one single from soundtrack album composed by ARTIST because these categories are meant for background score artists of the film. For instance, see these pages: Category:Films scored by Sanjoy Chowdhury, Category:Films scored by Surinder Sodhi and Category: Films scored by Sunny and Inder Bawra. They are true to their purpose. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Without any comments on the merit of the proposal, indulging in a discussion at a local venue, that hardly gets high page-views, and assuming consensus by absence of any objection is not a good way to indulge in mass-editing of general categories.Please raise the issue over here and gain a consensus.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is mostly with Indian film articles. So, please summon them here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

List of accolades received by English Vinglish—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk

) 19:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Satellite rights? Do we care?

Satellite rights. Have we ever discussed this before? What is the point of including this information in articles? I see Santhosh 2018 adding this to dozens of articles[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] but it's unclear to me what the point of it is. When a western film is released, does anybody care whether it's going to later be released on Showtime or HBO? What academic question is being answered here? Are we just trying to promote the TV release of the film? Is Indian cinema an exception for detailing mundane business transfers like satellite rights? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I never add such information, for the same reason we should not add

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. --Kailash29792 (talk)

15:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No disagreement here - you're gonna need a mass rollback on Santhosh2018's edits, I think they are close to 100 articles.

Ravensfire (talk

) 01:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Having said this, I'm going to roll it back slightly. In and of itself, I strongly question if this warrants inclusion in an article. It absolutely does not belong in the article lead. In a well-developed release section, with some decent context, this may be useful information. By itself though, not a fan as it just looks promotional. I think the sourcing also needs to be very solid - not from a primary source at all.

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, would this make sense to crosspost to the main Film wikiproject?

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There are 300+ pages which include this information ("The satellite rights of the film were sold to XYZ") so if you guys want I can simply run AWB to clean up. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do so. And someone please create a permalink for this discussion so that we can cite it in edit summaries when reverting edits about satellite rights additions. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure let we have the permalink for this discussion. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note: There was some previous discussion about this here. Nairspecht had some different opinions on this matter, for whatever it's worth. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Aag Ka Toofan vs Hag Toofan

The latter of these films only has an IMDb link which redirects to the IMDb entry for the former of these films. Are both articles actually referring to the same film? mahir256 (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

IndiaGlitz revisited

@Kailash29792 and Ssven2: Hey guys, I'm looking at this RSN discussion from 2015. Do we all still agree that IndiaGlitz is a reliable source? As I was unaware of this RSN discussion, I've been pretty consistent about rejecting it for controversial content like financial details. Thoughts on this? And naturally anybody else is welcome to contribute. GSS raised this question on my talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I might've been aware of the discussion based on the stuff that's written at the ICTF FAQ, but it might be worth revisiting anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As its quoted in reliable sources think it is acceptable for non-controversial content such as film reviews as they are quoted in reliable sources, but not for contentious personal details in blps or box office details, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is a RS or not now least bothers me. But no Indian site provides definitive BO figures. --Kailash29792 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe we should accept this website as a reliable source due to the same issues pointed out by

talk|c|em

) 04:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As the reviews are quoted in reliable sources including IBT, Mid Day and CNN-IBN it is unlikely they are paid because if they were then reliable sources would not use them. I believe their reviews should be permitted but am emailing India Glitz to ask for information on their staff and credentials- they probably won't reply but if they do i'll report back, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic306, just make sure the above cited websites didn't take fruits from a poisonous tree: if the source (the tree) is tainted, anything obtained from it (the fruits) is tainted as well. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

talk|c|em

) 10:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Re: "As the reviews are quoted in reliable sources including IBT, Mid Day and CNN-IBN it is unlikely they are paid because if they were then reliable sources would not use them." I don't think it's a huge problem to cite their reviews, but I would be cautious about assuming general reliability based on other Indian news outlets citing whichever site. I've seen a lot of Indian news outlets citing questionable sites like onlookersmedia.in, which suggests to me that these outlets are pressured to scrape up information from wherever they can get it, rather than by employing proper journalistic methods that require them to fact-check. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, haven't heard from them yet (suggest give them 3 to 4 weeks) but if no reply agree only use them for film reviews (as they are used by rs) and basic information such as film release dates but not to use them for any blp information or box office figures or budgets, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well if they do reply and give staff names and credentials we can check them on google as far as we can. Reliable sources that have a reputation for fact checking can be assumed to have checked the site before continually referencing it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic306 are you going to ask behindwoods.com to provide the list of people working for them as well? Behindwood another blog type website with no information who they are? who is running the website? what are their editorial standards? etc. and I don't understand why you are so desperate to list these two websites as reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes will email them later. If these sites were new and not quoted in reliable sources then I would not be interested but Behindwoods has been around for 5 years and is regarded as reliable by rs so it is at least worth trying to find their details. Also, these sites are referenced in 1000s of wikipedia articles so its best to check them thoroughly before causing huge removals, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:ICTFFAQ because your assertion that the linked discussions established reliability was a stretch of interpretation. One opinion was a sockpuppet, one opinion expressed doubt about the source, and the other discussion relied on a flimsy statement that since a reliable source described the site as an "online Tamil movies portal" that somehow translates to established reliability. Astoundingly far-fetched argument. Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 16:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we count "press releases" as reliable? see this Google News search for Behindwoods. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Press releases are fine for uncontroversial content, like a film release date, or a casting announcement, but we shouldn't rely on them for controversial content like film financial figures or summaries of a film's performance. "The film received unanimous praise" can't be taken seriously if it comes from the studio or its marketing teams. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd regard Behindwoods and IndiaGlitz as reliable for content like exclusive interviews. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, have emailed behindwoods.com. On their website it says they are owned by Nian Info Solutions Private Limited. Also, found this jobs page here on their website which shows they have a professional staff and they require 4 years of Tamil film industry experience for their chief editor. Regarding wikipedia articles there are a number of reliable sources that have had their articles deleted such as cricketarchive which is referenced by tens of thousand cricket bios and is still regarded as an rs. (the cricketarchive AFD had a controversial close-so there could be a deletion review if anyone is interested?) thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: so now how we are going to verify whatever they have told you through email? also have they gave you the list of people working for them? GSS (talk|c|em) 09:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Haven't heard from Indiaglitz yet and have emailed behindwoods just now so nonreply yet. If we get a list of staff we can research them on google, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I thought they already replied.. never mind will wait for it. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 09:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306:--Any updates?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No reply from either, unfortunately, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Then, I guess, in absence of any knowledge about their editorial practices, the way forward would be to declare both the sources as unreliable, other than for sourcing the most trivial-est of stuff.Paging GSS, Cyphoidbomb and Kailash29792.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think they both belong on the unreliable list. We can add a note that clarifies that they can be used for superficial facts like upcoming release dates. Basic press-release stuff, but nothing controversial like financial details. It's not unreasonable to use them for interview content, since the reliability in an interview comes from the primary source. Unless we get the sense that they're refactoring quotations or something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

All that glitters is not gold. I agree as above that they can be used for superficial facts like upcoming release dates and to prove existence of the subject but nothing byond that. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rudranil Ghosh

Hi all, I'm seeing a big explosion of edits from an IPv6 editor 2405:205:6288:C37E:0:0:1ECD:A0A1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who keeps adding Rudranil Ghosh to various movie credits. At the rate he's going, it would appear Rudranil Ghosh is the most prolific actor in Indian films ever. Anybody ever heard of this guy? Am I overreacting? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The simplest term needed to classify this IP editor is ""

fanboy". He kept adding him to Baashha in a high billing, and though I've seen the film countless times, I don't remember seeing such a character onscreen. In fact, Ghosh is not even credited. --Kailash29792 (talk)

04:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I see this article, which implies that the guy is super-busy, but looking at the article's filmography, where he has 79 roles in 2018 projects just seems so astoundingly rare and questionable. Working 7 days a week, he could only spend 4.6 days max on any of these projects. Any ideas for what could be done about this? How do we verify these? And yes, the additions where Ghosh was added to the Starring parameter are problematic. I've admonished the IP editor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Perhaps it would be safest in terms of verifiability to do a mass deletion of all of the ips entries that don't have a rs reference and advise the ip that he can readd them only with a reliable source reference, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)
    • Has now moved to 2405:205:640E:CDD7:0:0:1F16:60AC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Arjayay (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Update - So I realised that I first encountered this IPv6 editor when they were puffing up Sabyasachi Chakrabarty's filmography, and after spot-checking some of the recent additions there like these, where he claims that this guy was in the 2012 The Amazing Spider-Man, I think it's safe to call bullshit on him. So far the subjects I'm aware of them polluting are Sabyasachi Chakrabarty, Rudranil Ghosh and Jisshu Sengupta (as discovered by eagle-eyed Bonadea). I'd appreciate if you all could look out for these--Typically they add massive filmographies to actors. If you look at Chakrabarty's filmography, they went through a lot of trouble to create a table. Note the overlinking to languages. Note the overlinking to disambiguation pages for these languages. (To make this easier, go to Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance and tick the box that turns on disambiguation page links orange.)

If you do spot this guy, the other thing to watch for, is that he adds the actor's names to the various film articles, likely to make it harder to spot vandalism. Example, if he claims that Chakrabarty was in The Amazing Spider-Man, he probably already added the name to the Spider-Man article, so that if you try to lazily double-check, you'll be like "Oh, there's Chakrabarty. Guess it's legit." Don't be fooled! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - it looks like they are using 2409:4061:603:2f36::2a42:80b1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and doing the same for Paran Bandopadhyay - although they still added Chakraborty here - If I'm right someone with mass rollback clean up? - Arjayay (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I just came here to report the same ip and new target. I reverted all the edits to Paran Bandopadhyay's filmography but haven't gone through the film articles edited by the IP - a mass rollback would be excellent if possible. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Mass revert released. Thank you, everybody. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Another indicator: Here, they add people to the infobox |starring= parameter who don't even appear to have named roles in the film, i.e. are cameos. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Svetlana Gulakova is another target. IMDB has her down for one film, which is consistent with this December 2017 version of the article, which says that she began her film career in 2017, but the IPv6 crew is reporting 68 films across six languages. Clearly vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

2405:205:6194:A95A:0:0:2AF7:18AC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be doing the same with Mithu Chakrabarty - no sources that I can see - Arjayay (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

2405:205:6194:A95A:0:0:2AF7:18AC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now promoting Bharat Kaul - Arjayay (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Latest promotional/fantasy additions

Rather than keep adding new names under the Rudranil Ghosh section above, I think we need a separate section, if not a rolling list:-

• Wldn ss has been adding Shangeeth Sathyanathan to numerous articles, and created an article Shangeeth Sathyanathan (editor) which has been prodded. All edits and the entire article were unsourced, and the six edits I checked were all untrue, (award winners, where the real winner was replaced by the fake) so I have deleted them all. - Arjayay (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)-

User now indeffed and page deleted as hoax - Arjayay (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Arjayay: I'm going to create an abuse page for the Rudranil Ghosh Vandal. This one's going to be tough to control, I think because of the wide range of IPs he uses. If you see any suspects, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

{{Film India}} has been deleted

The Film India template, {{Film India}} has been deleted, was deleted several years ago. I suggest that the "Film India template" section be removed from the task force page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian cinema task force See (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Template:Film India) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of

Pedavi Datani Matokatundhi (film)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Pedavi Datani Matokatundhi (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedavi Datani Matokatundhi (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Indian actors in new Chinese film

Can someone help identify the Indian actors from the film trailer and add their names to the article Dying to Survive? Thanks in advance. Timmyshin (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Khan(s), the biggest movie star(s) in the world

I have been thinking about this since a very long time. I know there has been numerous articles about how Aamir, Salman and Shah Rukh Khan are individually considered "the biggest movie star". How is that even possible? One source claims Aamir is, another Salman and a different one Shah Rukh. But these sources forget that "the world" is NOT just South Asia and bunch of NRIs living in UK, USA and Australia. None of these Khans enjoy the Hollywood level stardom, which by the way is in itself questionable in today's times thanks to franchise films. Don't these Khans need huge following (with huge BO numbers) in UK, North America, Japan and Europe? If the public in these countries are not even aware about their existence to begin with, how the hell they individually became "the biggest movie star"? None of them enjoy the popularity (in the whole world) of the level of Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, Robert Downey Jr. and Leonardo Dicaprio. Downey Jr. has like 5 all time highest grossing films and Dicaprio has the second highest grossing film, which also happens to be the most popular movie in the world. So how could these Khans be considered as "the biggest movie star(s)" over them? We need to look into these kinds of claims. What are your thoughts?Krish | Talk 16:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read SRKs article, particularly the "In the media" section? An excerpt reads, "has been called the world's biggest movie star in other international media outlets.[6][223][229][230] According to a popularity survey, 3.2 billion people around the world know Shah Rukh Khan, more than who know Tom Cruise.[4]" Bollyjeff | talk 23:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to hear other editor's comments on this considering Shah Rukh Khan's career has been on slide since 2014. May I ask users like

Pavanjandhyala and Vensatry, among others.Krish | Talk

05:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles like these are subjective. And Wikipedia is exactly against those.

Pavanjandhyala

15:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So calling them the "biggest star in the world" is not subjective? I mean different publications write different names. It also needs to be updated. For example Angelina Jolie's article says that she "was" considered the most beautiful woman at one time, but not anymore. Similarly, Shah Rukh Khan was considered the "biggest" star like 5 years ago and now even Aamir and Salman are called the same. Also, why Bollywood articles have to be more fluffy? I don't see these kinds of stuff included in Hollywood legend' articles. If we really want to be neutral we need to say "one of the most popular in India" and quote the money they have made at the box office not these questionable claims.Krish | Talk 16:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In Aamir Khan's case, the reason why he is considered to be be the world's biggest movie star is due to the fact that he is a huge star in both India and China, which together account for nearly 40% of the world population. So Aamir has a strong claim to being the world's biggest movie star. On the other hand, the claims for Salman and SRK may be somewhat exaggerated. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

At various times over the last several years, all three of these gentlemen have been sited as the biggest, best, highest earning, most popular, etc. star in Bollywood, or the world by various sources. Some of those sources turn out to be opinion pieces by the way. Regardless, we should figure out a way to give them all some credit, without trying to pit them against each other from year to year. What do you think about saying something like this for all three: "Khan was at one point in his career considered the biggest star in Indian cinema". This is a statement that can last on Wikipedia long-term, though not necessarily reflect the current trends. Comments? Bollyjeff | talk 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that line mostly fits SRK, whose peak was years ago. Whereas for Salman and Aamir, they are currently still at their peak, with Salman the biggest domestic star and Aamir the biggest international star. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Conversion of money from INR to USD

Hey guys, I think that the conversion of money expressed in INR to USD is unnecessary and problematic, especially for list articles. In list articles( like List of highest-grossing Indian films and List of highest-grossing films in India) the box office gross is mentioned in USD apart from being mentioned in INR. The problem arises when a film like Padmaavat(2018) which grossed more in India than Dhoom 3(2013) according to INR terms, ends up having a lower gross in USD terms, which looks weird. Apart from this, in general, the reader would not know if the converted figures(in USD) show how much the given amount of money was equivalent to at the time of release or at some other point of time in the future(say 2017/2018). So, I think it would be better to stop this conversion and rather provide the money which is crores in millions/billions if needed for viewers outside India. ~Rajan51(talk) 12:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A lot of this sort of thing is just blindly copied from article to article. While it may be useful in some cases to convert to a widely understood currency like USD, like to provide some context of film grosses compared to Hollywood blockbusters, I don't believe that we are required to saturate articles with these conversions to US dollars. Per

WP:MOS, "In country-specific articles, use the currency of the country. On first occurrence, consider including conversion to US dollars, euros, or pounds sterling, at a rate appropriate to the context. For example, Since 2001 the grant has been 10,000,000 Swedish kronor (€1.0M as of August 2009)." Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 15:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to the domestic Indian box office, you may have a point that there might not be much point to USD conversions, since the standard currency of the Indian box office is INR rather than USD. But when it comes to the worldwide box office, that's a different story, since the worldwide gross figures essentially combine the domestic Indian box office numbers (in INR) with overseas box office numbers (where USD is the standard currency). Because worldwide gross figures are not limited to just India, I believe there is a point to including USD figures along with the INR figures. While it can lead to some confusion due to inconsistent exchange rates, the List of highest-grossing Indian films article includes a brief note explaining why this is and how the exchange rate has changed over the years. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

USD is the standard currency primarily in North America. In China(¥) or Australia(A$), the standard currencies are different. So, I don't see why USD figures need to be mentioned for an Indian film. ~Rajan51(talk) 4:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Chinese, Australian and other non-American sources often give USD conversions (such as China's EntGroup). USD has become a standard currency for the international box office. Even most Indian sources give overseas gross figures for Indian films in USD, rather than INR. The worldwide gross figures are essentially INR domestic gross + USD overseas gross. That's why I feel both INR and USD should be mentioned when it comes to global gross figures. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but they are not needed for mentioning the box office gross in India in film pages and also in List of highest-grossing films in India. ~Rajan51(talk) 5:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for articles only dealing with the domestic Indian box office, there's no need for USD figures to be mentioned. But as we've discussed at Talk:List of highest-grossing films in India, we may need to make an exception for foreign films, as most older films only seem to have reported USD figures. Maestro2016 (talk)

Ok, but when we are using yearly average exchange rates for conversions, I suggest we use the data published by the Reserve Bank of India[15]. The data published is for financial/fiscal years. ~Rajan51(talk) 5:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own Template:To USD and Template:INRConvert are good enough for dealing with currency conversions (from 2011 onwards). Maestro2016 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That report gives data from 1973, not just 2011. And RBI is India's central banking institution, which controls the monetary policy of the Indian rupee. So their data is likely to be more accurate than what might be used here at Wikipedia. Besides if we have those templates for currency conversions from 2011, then why do we take values from CIA and OFX? ~Rajan51(talk) 2:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Neerali#Dispute_on_the_names_and_order_of_Starcast

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neerali#Dispute_on_the_names_and_order_of_Starcast. DBigXray 12:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Bharath BJ

Would someone from this WikiProject mid taking a look at

WP:MOVEd because some of the sources refer to the subject as "BJ Bharath". -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I have created that article, the name consists of initials hence some references have used them in the beginning. However I have redirected similar names to the main article. ~TheUnbeatable (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

New Indian Express

Can we add New Indian Express as a reliable source? Hence it is bifurcated from The Indian Express which is considered as a reliable source. TheUnbeatable (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course. Is it not already listed on the RS list? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to review Manusangada film page

I Kindly request you to review Manusangada film page . It is in Review waiting state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manusangada

Thanks in advance! — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 05:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Rudranil Ghosh vandal

Hello. Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 6#Rudranil Ghosh. They seem to have targeted Tota Roy Chowdhury as early as January 2018 so the article history now lists many of their IPs. Recently, Jimmy Sheirgill has been targeted. Some of the IPs are:

• 2405:205:6488:a713::2d2:30ad (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:205:6100:FBB7:0:0:1E83:8B1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:205:638B:6FD2:0:0:D8D:A8A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:205:631C:341:0:0:2717:50A5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:205:6490:fc0e::5d6:48ad (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:205:639B:CC54:0:0:22B:58A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

That amounts to a lot of contributions to revert... Although the Jimmy Sheirgill ones by 2405:205:6488:a713::2d2:30ad could be nuked I think. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I need to amend this, because after second inspection I realised that the edits made by *58a0 in January/February are correct (maybe not all, but mostly). Nevertheless, I still believe the edits of the 5 other IPs listed above are vandalism, and many have not been reverted. This is typical. I am not planning to do any reverting myself, as I feel this requires extra pairs of eyes. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking Chethan Ramarao

Chethan Ramarao has acted in more than 350 films. A large number of films require a link to his article. I have done a few. Can anyone do it with help of bot or manually?-Nizil (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Spicyonion.com

Is spicyonion.com a reliable source for box office figures? Specifically, is [16] a reliable source for the box office gross of

WP:RSN, but it's widely cited by Wikipedia, so some examination is overdue. --Worldbruce (talk

) 07:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is 100% non-reliable, I don't know why some users even use it as a source. But it can be used as a source for poster uploads. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: I agree with Kailash. Not reliable. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Film dubs

All,

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As a further note,

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I recently saw this dub addition and reverted it. I don't know if it's the same user or not, but I removed it on the basis that we don't typically include dub actors' names in film or television articles. A major American film that might be dubbed in a score of languages: Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, German, French, Italian, etc. Why would we track all of the voice actors who dubbed those roles? It would be a colossal task of questionable academic value. Let IMDb track that. Dubbing is a normal practice, there's nothing exceptional or noteworthy about the actors who dub, barring some exceptional circumstance, like if a Hindi actor really loved a Telugu film so much that s/he volunteered to dub it. Maybe an argument could be made that at the English Wikipedia we might care about who the English-language dubbing artists are for a film, but for non-English films? I don't understand the attraction. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Star Parivaar Awards

There is a clear consensus that the Star Parivaar Awards should not be included in television articles and articles about the actors who appear in these shows.

Cunard (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

This RfC is about the Star Parivaar Awards. Star is a television network in India. They regularly hold an award ceremony to praise television series that air on their network, and television actors who portray roles in these series.

Should the Star Parivaar Awards be included in television articles and articles about the actors who appear in these shows? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No – "independent" awards have (potential) notability; "in house" awards do not. This is equivalent to an "Employee of the Month" type award – at most, that might, under certain conditions, merit a quick mention in prose (if mentioned by multiple independent secondary sources), but it doesn't even belong in an 'Awards and nominations' table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• I go about this another way. If an award has a Wikipedia article then that award should be included in relevant pages. If you think the award is not notable, then nominate if for deletion. Currently Star Parivaar Awards exists so I would support adding that to any article. --Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - as per IJBall ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 23:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - as nominator. This is a self-aggrandising, promotional award that only serves to promote shows and actors on this network, and with promotion being a huge problem in Indian TV/Film/Biographical articles, we are effectively acting as an extension of Star's marketing department by including this crud. If the awards were inclusive of all shows on Indian TV networks, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but since it only celebrates people and shows within its walls, it has zero independence. It's the equivalent of me noting on my curriculum vitae that my mom gave me a "Most Handsome" award or a "Smartest Child" award. Totally meaningless and self-congratulatory. Re: Gonnym's comments about notability, the issue isn't actually about notability. If someone added the The awards are notable and yeah, we have an article about it. The issue is about whether or not an in-house award should be counted in the Accolades section of actors' biographies, or if we let TV shows brag about the various in-house awards they've won. Imagine if in film articles we included reviews from the film's director or producer. Yeah, they might be notable people, but their opinions should not be counted when writing about overall critical response. They have conflicts of interest. Their opinions are not independent or objective. Same with Star Parivaar. Why would an encyclopedia care what glorious praise a network heaped upon a TV series it was intrinsically linked to? (Note: If you're wondering why this is in the ICTF talk space, I wasn't quite sure as to the best place to open this RfC. It's TV related, but it's also Biography related. While it's not specifically Indian cinema-related, this was the only venue I knew of that had enough people I thought would care about Indian entertainment.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• No unless the awards were decided by viewer votes or some independent system but that does not seem to be the case for these backslapping own awards, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No per above. (Summoned by bot) Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 15:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• No for the above reasons. These seem to basically be a
  Ravensfire (talk
  ) 17:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• no(Summoned by bot) per nom and above, awards in the self interest of a single company are cruft. I hold the L3X1 Awards once a decade, and those aren't notable even though several people are forced to hear my opinion on the matter. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

---

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.

Indian Society of Cinematographers spam

I've noticed a recent campaign (maybe July to present) to label various people, typically cinematographers (for obvious reasons), with the label ISC, linked to

Indian Society of Cinematographers

. The labels/links usually get added after the person's name in the infobox and lead, and sometimes the person erroneously uses the |title= parameter of the infobox to indicate this. Here are some examples: [19][20][21][22][23][24] Anyway, it's not epidemic, but if you see these, please let me know. I'm not aware of any existing community preference to do this. This is something they do in movie credits, like indicating a casting agent as John Doe, C.S.A., but this societal affiliation is not a college degree or a royal honorific or title, so I can't imagine we'd ever include it in such a way as to make it look like it is one. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Rob Cain

In these edits[25][26] at

Kabali financials, where he put the worldwide gross in the 500 crore range despite IBT putting it in the 286 crore range. So if anybody has any opinions about Rob Cain, maybe it's wise to express them so we know what to do about him going forward. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 20:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Under NO circumstances should anything cited to the forbes.com blog (/sites/*) should EVER be described as from Forbes or even have Forbes anywhere mentioned. It's absolutely NOT Forbes, it should be only attributed to Cain. That said, his bio on the page seems solid, but probably would make sense to kick this to a full

Ravensfire (talk

) 16:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:R. Balu Mahendra

It's probable that some of his edits are wrong. Please verify.Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: Yes, this edit is clearly false. I suspect that this is false as well. I don't see Vijay's name at IMDb, and he'd be a strange person to leave out of a cast list, on account of how well-known/recognisable he is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Don Seenu Soundtrack.jpg

Can anyone tell if this is the movie poster are for Don Seenu? The official website is dead, and there don't seem to be any working archives, while the IMDb page is showing something else. A Google Image search shows the full version of the file being used here, but that doesn't look like a movie poster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Based on the sheer number of similarly formatted poster-looking images one can find on the web, can we say for sure which is an official poster? What's the context of your question? Are you just trying to figure out how to label such an image? What about "promotional poster" instead of "theatrical release poster"? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cyphoidbomb for taking a look. I was just trying to determine whether this was the correct file for the article's infobox. It was originally licensed as {{Non-free album cover}}, but it's not be used in an article about the movie's soundtrack album and doesn't appear to be an album cover. It's not a big deal per se, just trying to clean up the file's license and non-free use rationale a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I think it's fine so long as it identifies the film, which it appears to do. Although I found a much sexier one where he has his hand on his hip and a beedi in his mouth. And what's this all about? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks again for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a

requested move at Talk:List of Hindu mythological or devotional films that may need your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there

  01:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Million/Billion or Crore - Amount of Bugdet and BOX

Which should be admitted in Indian Film articles?

Some of where used Cardinal number: Enthiran, PK (film)

Others used INS: 2.0 (film), Baahubali 2: The Conclusion

Which is acceptable for Indian Films? Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 06:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Although using Indian numeral system isn't illegal, per

MOS:COMMONALITY, "for an international encyclopaedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." So millions is preferred to crores. --Kailash29792 (talk)

06:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just wondering about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Also found this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_157#RfC_on_use_of_"crore". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Late reply from me, but if someone changes million/billions to crore, I typically don't fight it, largely because it's easier for me to verify content when sources say crore. I don't want to do math if I don't have to. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hebbuli

Hey, does anybody know anything about Hebbuli? The News Minute is saying that it crossed 100 crore, but I can't find any corroboration of figures that high in other references. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: [27] and [28]. Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 04:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What are these sites? Just looks like more of the same regurgitation. Are there multiple well-known sites that share this 100 crore opinion? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Bollywood Life

Bollywood Life is a reliable source per many views. It is owned by

Zee Business ([33]). If you rejected for its gossip side, let me tell you that many reliable sources have their own gossip side. Ex: [34] and [35]. If we cite Bollywood Life from its news side, then it should be acceptable/suitable for the Indian article. Thanks, Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk

> 05:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A legitimate news outlet that has a gossip column is not the same thing as a gossip magazine being held in the same esteem as a legitimate news outlet. And trying to establish reliability based on ownership or foundership is not fruitful. For instance, the globally respected

Kabali box office gross figures, inflating them by at least 200 crore in an absolute mess of journalistic integrity. All sources have to be held with high scrutiny--we can't just assume that fancy, well-known sources are correct all the time. Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 07:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is something common in reliable Indian sources... not the legal term, but the definition given by Wiki. There is rarely any definitive info on a film's box office performance because trade analysts pick fruits from poisonous trees. Even if one obtained fruits from a clean tree, I would still say—even when using an RS—something like "Petta grossed more than 230 crores according to an estimate made by Sreedhar Pillai", because trade analysts are blind men surrounding an elephant. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: We will not cite Bollywood Life as financial figures. But we can use Bollywood Life as release date, statements and reviews. Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 08:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do you really think reviews from a site which is considered as Gossip Column important??. Sid95Q (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we need more feedback from other users before making a determination about what to use from Bollywood Life. Personally, I'm less concerned about release dates and statements, although anything we would consider to attribute to a site like that, we'd have to be very careful about avoiding rumours. Gossip sites specialise in that. "The film is rumoured to kick off next January..." I also would absolutely avoid it for

Biographies of Living People (BLPs). Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 15:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

It is currently at PR, I hope someone here notices it and posts comments. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Malayalam films

After a years-long absence (it had been deleted after an AfD), List of highest-grossing Malayalam films exists again. Wasn't there a community consensus to not have individual ethnic industry articles like this? List of highest-grossing Telugu films also exists. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any. But jamming all List of highest-grossing [Indian language] films lists into a single page (List of highest-grossing Indian films) is not very helpful either since it will just add to the clutter. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this is kinda related, It would be better to restore this too "List of highest-grossing Tamil films", Having only less problematic sections and This page's "Top grossers by year" section and regional gross figures (which are often reported by media than the world wide figures) are good information that can't be included in "List of highest-grossing Indian films". Panda619 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A fundamental problem with lists of this type, is that Wikipedia winds up getting into the business of ranking these films. The various industries need to provide lists and books that say "This was the highest-grossing Tamil film of 2005, this was the highest-opening weekend for a Telugu film" etc. If all we are doing is finding references that say "this film made ₹NNN", then Wikipedia is getting into the ranking business, and we are engaging in original research. And I still think that calculations like this, where we're pulling estimates from various sources, using different methodologies, is problematic as well, because Wikipedia winds up being the creator of figures that are not published anywhere else. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Well I think there are good amount of references like that in List of highest-grossing Tamil films, Such as IBT Times have reported like Top 10 opening day gross in TN in one article itself, "Top grossers by year" section also has references like that except for few and I do think those type of calculations are problematic but right now Wikipedia has too many articles with similar calculations in Top grossing movies to Top selling manga, book and this list "List of highest-grossing media franchises" is totally made up of such calculations, where I have seen even reputed/reliable news medias (Comicbook.com, San Francisco Chronicle) using figures from this list and that report is used in Wikipedia articles again as source, circular reporting. Panda619 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Dubbed films has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dubbed films, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with its 48 subcategories. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Taran Adarsh's tweets

Recently, there seems to be a increase in the direct citations of tweets from Taran Adarsh's Twitter account regarding box office, screen count, etcetera for Indian films. I believe that we should abstain from doing so, and only use his tweets when they are cited by reliable publications, ie. cite a secondary source quoting his words. Reason being he is someone who was accused of having a conflict of interest by Box Office India if this is to be believed, BOI expressed qualms. Note the timing of this tweet, and a subsequent article from BOI worded like a reply to it, which again suggests Adarsh is the supposed fraudster. One should be wary when citing potentially contested information. Also this. 2.51.191.30 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

History of Indian cinema article

I've begun copyediting

History of Indian cinema (currently a redirect to Cinema of India). Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis

15:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Assistance required

Hello. How does one reassess articles on Wikipedia after expanding them? I worked on this article and don't think it deserves the current stub classification. Help? Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I assessed it at B class. Bollyjeff | talk 22:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources question

Hello! I see a source being used in articles that is not on either the list of sources to use or avoid from our main page. Thoughts on this source? I'm not feeling strongly about it being reliable; see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_checklist.

1. https://www.behindwoods.com/

I remember being told some time ago that its not good. Bollyjeff | talk 19:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It should be used only for content like exclusive interviews. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Osianama on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the

reliability of Osianama (osianama.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Kalpana Mohan Page. — Newslinger talk

08:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Devalokam (film)

Can someone please improve this article and protect it from being deleted?--Joseph 💬 18:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@

PROD nominatinos are for uncontroversial deletions that are not likely to be contested. Since you are contesting the deletion, PROD is not the correct nomination process. Can you find more sources that discuss the film? It seems likely that it would be important since it is Mammootty's first film. That would be the best way to strengthen the article. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 04:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The problem is as it's a dropped film, not much sources are available on the internet. Official websites of Mammootty and MT have mentioned the film. Cinematographer Ramachandra Babu has shared some memoirs and images in his blog. And the award-winning director P. N. Menon has shared his memoirs in autobiography Nirakoottukal. I've added all the above sources in the article. Recently I saw a YouTube video released by Monsoon Media which talks about the film. As per the video, Mammootty has shared his experiences while working for Devalokam in his memoir Chamayangal [ISBN: 9788122611182]. I believe that's a reliable source too.--Joseph 💬 07:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Gowry Lekshmi

It is unfortunate that this article is nominated for deletion. All sources listed are independent sources, except for a YouTube link for her song. She composed a film song at age 13 and is the youngest female music director in India and has composed or sang in multiple notable films. The article might need more fleshing out, but the subject is notable. 137.97.129.109 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review for Raja Harishchandra

I have started peer review for India's first feature film Raja Harishchandra here. I am planning to take it to FAC in the near future. However, I dont have any previous experience with FACs so thought of putting PR first. I would appreciate if you can put your comments. Any constructive criticism is appreciated. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Box Office India budgets

Hi all, does anybody share my suspicion that Box Office India includes print and advertising costs in their budget figures? I feel like their budgets are often much higher than other estimates. For instance at Kesari (film), we have a range of 80 crore to 126 crore, the the lower figure coming from Business Today and the higher figure coming from BOI. 46 crore is a pretty significant gap, and I'm trying to figure out why. Anybody got any opinions? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

To put it simply, whenever there are conflicting budgets provided by different sources for the same film, I say how much each source estimates the budget to be. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As would be the correct approach. But I'm starting to think that if TOI is reporting production budget + P&A, that would make it incompatible with all other sources, not only in India, but worldwide. I don't have any proof of this, but it is a question that's come to mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it's true. A Google search threw up Box Office India's website, "[Budget] is the approx cost of the making and releasing of the film. Production budget plus P&A (prints & advertising)". DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, awesome find, DeluxeVegan, thanks for looking for it. This is a big bummer. It would seem to me that BOI is no longer useful as a source for budget, since budget across the known universe means "production budget". How could they be so shortsighted? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A simple note stating that the amount denotes production + marketing budget should suffice, if we must use the BOI source. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a suitable workaround if a proper production budget source can't be found. I hope that we all agree that (like with Kesari) in a world where there is a BOI gross+P/A source and one that presumably doesn't contain P/A costs, we would not use BOI in that event. I shudder to think of how many articles have these inflated budgets. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Character maps of remakes

Such templates shouldn't even exist, right? Yet there is Template:Manichitrathazhu character map (nominated for deletion),Template:Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana character map, Template:Kireedam character map, Template:Bodyguard character map and Template:Gunga Jumna character map. Wouldn't it be better if they simply served as navboxes mentioning only the films and their languages, not the characters? Cyphoidbomb and Krimuk2.0, please share your thoughts. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Rough response: Though I'm not a big fan of needless tables in film articles, I don't have a huge problem with these tables, so long as they focus on remakes, not dubs. But I'm open to other opinions and will decide accordingly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, like Kailash, I don't really see the point in these character maps either. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Is a template like

navbox, and lists only the films and their languages, not their characters. If it is acceptable, we can convert these character maps into navboxes. Kailash29792 (talk)

07:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this works. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No objection. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Filmcompanion.in

Filmcompanion.in - Is this a legit site whose opinion matters? I've seen it spring up here and there and I'm a little skeptical. See this for scope. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It definitely looks like RS to me. Or will it at least matter with regards to

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? The site was founded by Anupama Chopra, it's reliability has never been questioned, and even Baradwaj Rangan writes for it as a full-time member. --Kailash29792 (talk)

03:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I appreciate the feedback, Kailash. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

While FilmCompanion.in certainly is reliable in my opinion, I suspect there is some sort of paid editing going on here. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Bengali actor Joy Badlani - Does he exist?

Hi all, an anonymous editor contacted me on my talk page about this, but many months back I was dealing with some IP vandalism at Joy Badlani, and a few other articles, where some pernicious editor was inflating various people's credits. Like here you can see that Badlani is alleged to have worked in Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil and Bengali, which seems like it would be a big stretch for most Indian actors. The recent Anon believes that the vandalism has spread to IMDB. See Joy Badlani's page. Anyhow, I'm not finding a lot of trustworthy information about this guy, so I'm curious if any of you know whether he actually exists or not. I found this TOI source which has his name down as one of the main players, but I watched pre-release event on YouTube but didn't see the mustache man on stage. Here is listed as one of the "stars" of Sarkar, but I can't find any clips of him in that film. So, does he exist? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

He does exist, but probably doesn't appear in all these films. I was trying to pin down where I had seen him as the face seemed familiar to me, and realized he was in an advert for the series

Colors Rishtey, but that's about it. DeluxeVegan (talk

) 10:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Page move by blocked sock puppet

Is this move OK? I'm confused since "Hindi-films" seems like a better wording than "Bollywood".

Copied discussion from User talk:Cyphoidbomb#Page move by blocked user suspected of sock puppetry as suggested

Page move by blocked user suspected of sock puppetry Sir is this move OK? I'm confused since "Hindi-films" seems like a better wording than "Bollywood". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC) @Fylindfotberserk: They probably should have discussed the move though, since it is potentially controversial. Note also Lists of Telugu-language films exists. The move, however, may widen the scope of the list, since any Hindi-language film produced in another nation might be allowable. I don't know that the argument that "There is no conclusive evidence to say the term Bollywood refers to only hindi film industry.....in some sources it refers to entire Indian film industry" is a very strong one. I think it's well-established that Bollywood refers to the Hindi film industry, and other sources being ignorant of that fact doesn't sway me. But in principle it's not an awful move. Why not ask Kailash or one of those ICTF power editors? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Zee Rishtey Awards

Another "In house" awards like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_6#Request_for_Comment:_Star_Parivaar_Awards, Where a network give award to their own series and actors who portray roles in these series. So should these awards be included in TV series, actors and related articles. -Sid95Q (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Is a key difference here that viewers get to call/text in their votes? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Source Question: scooptimes.com

Hi,

I have come across an edit removing a source that I had inserted in Sura (film) with the comment: "Scoop times unreliable source removed". As a passing editor on the several Indian films, mainly to revert changes that run contrary to the sources quoted, I would like to know if Scoop Times is unreliable in general, or there are specific areas of Indian films that it can be quoted upon?

The same source is cited in a couple of other articles, one of which, Maanbumigu Maanavan, is PP-protected based on the edits/reverts made over the box office takings, as displayed in the source. The second article is Coimbatore Mappillai.

Also if scooptimes.com cannot be counted on for comments on box office showing, which other sites can I look at so that the necessary edits can be made? robertsky (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:ICTFFAQ, which has a more comprehensive list of sites. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 16:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: thanks for the clarification. Then with respect to this and the FAQ you have linked, should I remove the mention of box office data in such articles for Indian movies if I come across them instead? robertsky (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I'm so sorry again for the delay--I didn't get your ping. If a gross figure is unsourced or poorly sourced, then yes, please feel free to remove it. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

How to order languages in infoboxes and elsewhere

Re-raising the

WP:ICTF. - Fylindfotberserk (talk

) 04:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any indication of the languages on the poster or promotional material? Maybe trailer description from the official channel or something? In Saaho's case, the Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam trailers' description gives "Saaho Is Being Made In 4 Languages Simultaneously - Telugu, Hindi, Tamil and Malayalam"; all three trailers were uploaded by UV Creations. But the Hindi trailer uploaded by T-Series gives "Hindi, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam". Also, the Wikipedia article says the film was produced on in Hindi and Telugu, which contradicts the initial description. In such a mess, I would say alphabetical order makes sense. In other cases, not so sure. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

DeluxeVegan Exactly. These are the reasons why I'm inclined towards an alphabetical arrangement of languages. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetical arrangement, or any arrangement that doesn't put the "Industry" first, is going to be a constant source of complaint. At least until people forget about the film. You wouldn't believe the ruckus that was created when we dared to include Tamil as one of the two languages that the first Baahubali was shot in. "Noo! This is a Telugu industry film and those people deserve credit!" Big whine-fest. This is one of those rare areas where I could see us organising the info with Industry first, then Alphabetical. But I don't have a strong opinion about this and I wouldn't want to be the tie-breaker. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't T-series a production house too as per the lead? Since T-Series is Hindi-major, alphabetic is logical IMO. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

AndhraBoxOffice as a reliable source for Telugu box office

AndhraBoxOffice.com is a trade website for box office collections and pre-release business figures of Telugu films. It is being quoted by film journalists at publications like The Hindu, Livemint, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, IB Times etc. They have box office numbers for all major Telugu films of the past 10 years. Think it can be used as a source for Tollywood films. Please share your thoughts. — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 01:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Standard questions: Who runs it? Who is the editor? What are the contributors' credentials? If the answer to most of these questions is "I don't know", then no, we shouldn't use them, no matter how desperate the mainstream sources are for clickbait financial figures. For any of the ICTF regulars who care, this query stems from edits at Bharat Ane Nenu, where the above editor twice decided of their own volition to ignore what IBT estimated the film's gross to be, instead replacing it with figures that better matched their worldview.[36][37]. Because I guess faceless websites are better than websites run by known people? And in a world where there is no accuracy in Indian film financials, I want to know how Kekamohan is somehow able to vet the authenticity of the Andhra figures as being more reliable than anybody else's guesses, which is what they were doing in those two problematic edits. Hence the unfounded declaration "it is more reliable for Telugu box office than IB Times which is known for inflated boxoffice figures". So go ahead, Kekamohan prove that it is more reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@

Ravensfire: Opinions one way or the other? Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

AndhraBoxOffice is definitely not reliable because of its blog-like nature. If a reliable third-party source quotes it, then it is still not RS. Per WP:Fruit of the poisonous tree, "If information gained from a reliable source (the "fruit") traces back to an unreliable source (the "tree") then that information is unreliable as well." --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Never heard of this trade source. Their website looks blog-like and doesn't strike as a reliable source. Also, what is meant by "pre-release business figures" on AndhraBoxOffice? Are they including this in the final figure? DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Pre-release business is typically rights sales like music rights and satellite broadcast rights. These should never be factored into box office figures, since across the world, box office = money made selling tickets at the box office, just like budget = cost of making the film, not of advertising. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Dada Saheb Phalke Award/Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards

I just want to point out something. In few articles like List of accolades received by Padmaavat and Ram Kapoor#Awards where users added Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards entries and references but wrongly linked Dadasaheb Phalke Award. So I request all the editors to rectify this mistake as this issue is on a lot of Film, Actors and accolades articles [38]. Sid95Q (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare mentioned this on my talk page, citing this interesting article. Short story for anyone interested: Named after a legendary Indian filmmaker, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is a sub-award of the Indian government's National Film Awards. It's basically a lifetime achievement award. Other organisations have used Dadasaheb Phalke's name for their awards, which erroneously makes it sound like some actors have won one of India's most prestigious awards, when that is rarely the case. Some news organisations don't make this distinction, like here where Times of India says that 34-year-old Ranvir Singh is winning the award, when what he was presented with was the Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award. Something totally different. This is a problem, because there are many mom-and-pop organisations who use the Dadasaheb name to make a quick buck. We should probably figure out how we should handle this. Here are my thoughts:

1. Non-notable versions of this award should be removed. Like with any award mill, if we can't figure out who is behind it, then it should go. That also means that if there is no Wikipedia article about the organisation, it is presumably non-notable and should be removed. For example: At List of accolades received by Padmaavat, Ranvir Singh is listed as a Dadasaheb Phalke Award winner. Clearly incorrect, and I think the entire award should go.
2. If notable organisations, ex: major news sites have named one of their awards after Dadasaheb Phalke, then we can consider keeping the award, but obviously we should not be linking to the National Film Award one.

Sorry for being overly educational in the text above. I thought I'd give the whole run-down for any non-Indians who might be interested in commenting. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Having researched this issue further over the past day, I have to agree with Cyphoidbomb that none of these awards are worthy of wikipedia article, and it's at best doubtful whether they are even worth mentioning in articles about the winning films/actors etc. I won't go into details at the moment but will note that the awarding organizations are iffy/unknown; the award categories, when available, are an indiscriminate hodge-podge; press coverage is essentially reprints of press releases (more often, in the form of photo galleries) related to the awards functions; consolidated data of the winners is often unavailable even from the organizers' websites (which is reminiscent of award-mills like ABI etc). Also confusion between these awards and the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is far from rare in mainstream media; in addition to the ToI article listed by Cyph, see this FirstPost piece or HT article. For this last reason, I think we should mention this controversy/confusion somewhere in mainspace, perhaps at Dadasaheb Phalke Award but that is a secondary issue.

I have listed a few such clone awards below. Feel free to add to the list and/or specify if you think if any of them are notable enough to (1) have wikipedia articles, or (2) mention in the winners' wikipedia articles. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I found this TimesNowNews.com slideshow, which says "The Dadasaheb Phalke Award is India's highest honour in the entertainment sector and is presented annually at the National Film Awards. Check out all the photos from the award ceremony below." The photos are just red-carpet snaps from the DP International Film Festival Awards. Horrendous. I agree that mentioning the confusion about copycat awards at the real award article might be worth considering. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think if the clone/copy-cat award is not notable enough to have article on wikipedia, then we shouldn't mention the award in articles. It will just confuse the readers. Many people still dont know that there is only one awardee for the Phalke Award, with no category. It is based on the awardee's contribution, let be singing, acting, directing or anything else related to films. Other awards awarded by the govt/body are called as "national film awards". So there are high chances that the readers might get confused "Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award" as the main, original prestegious award, or as some subcategory of the original award. It is better to remove the copycats completely. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have added a short section to the Dadasaheb Phalke Awards page about the naming issue. Arguably, the content doesn't merit a dedicated section but the lede was already too long to include it there and, if needed, the section can be a target for redirects from the redlinks listed below. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

---

List of similarly named awards
Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards; currently at AFD; see official website Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South; launching this year Dada Saheb Phalke Film Festival Awards; see official website Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award; see example Dadasaheb Phalke Film Foundation Awards; see facebook page

Reliable Source Question: cinetrak.in

Is http://cinetrak.in considered reliable source for box office figures, It is been used in some of

List of Tamil films articles.-- Panda619 (talk

) 13:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Panda619: I've never heard of it. I'd be skeptical of any professional source that uses a Gmail address. And I'm talking about one's personal life too. It's a three-year-old site, so it hasn't yet established itself as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, IMO. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, we don't know who's behind it or what their qualifications are or if there is any editorial oversight, the usual

WP:RS stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Following up on this, it seems the site could be trying to ride on Rentrak's coattails, as this is a reputable calculation presence who might actually be trying to do some good across this giant globe. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Budget

Are actor salaries typically factored in budget? Turns out Indian film trades don't factor salaries in production budget (atleast, thats my assumption from Mission Mangal's budget (link is non-RS) reports), so wanted to know if this is the international norm or not. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@

WT:FILM. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 14:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That website seems totally non-RS and yeah salaries are typically factored in budget, here some articles about Tamil actor salaries and budget, salary in Hollywood. Panda619 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

and about BOI, many of their budget figures have been inconsistent with other sources and inflated, as said in their website, they seem to even include marketing costs. so not sure about reliability of BOI, when it comes to budget. Panda619 (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, that was not the point I meant to get across. The non-RS link says "100 Crore is the estimated budget of Mission Mangal, Production Cost: 32 Crore, Salary Cost: 50 Crore, Prints & Advertising Cost: 18 Crore". BOI's film profile pages include P&A, but after the release of every film they write daily reports on its box office, which often includes the budget without P&A. Their budget+P&A and budget without P&A figures match up with the non-RS link's breakdown, so it seems like our options for budget are production cost without salary, and production cost with salary and P&A. But again, some actors opt for profit sharing, so the line isn't exactly clear. DeluxeVegan (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?

This Request for Comment about {{Infobox film}} formatting might be of interest to this project: RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Various "Crore Club" articles

We have 100 Crore Club, 1000 Crore Club, recently 300 crore club popped up (not using the same naming convention). Do we need all of these? These seem like arbitrary landmarks, especially 300 crore. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I do believe "300 crore club" is arbitrary. The media did create a lot of noise over the "100 crore club" back in the day (2006? 2007?) and continues to do so even now. Only two films, Dangal and Baahubali 2, have crossed 1000 crore worldwide, so it's less of a club and more of a "will more films cross 1000 crore?". The inflation section in the 1000 crore club article seems to step into OR territory. DeluxeVegan (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Relevant AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300 crore club Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Rfc at 2019 in film

Sorry for the late notice - You are invited to participate at the Rfc Talk:2019 in film#Request for comment, which may be of interest to this taskforce. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)