Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 8

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.

Hi,

Lately, dubbed soundtracks are being removed by various editors from the film article (but not soundtrack article) with the following reason:

The dubbed tracks were removed because they were not necessary in the article. If there was enough content in the soundtrack section where another article can be stemmed from it, we could then added the dubbed tracks to that article. However, in the current state of the article, the dubbed tracks take up so much space that it might as well be considered as dead space in the article

However, the above argument is not consistent with

Pinging invoved editors: @Kailash29792, SP013, DareshMohan, MNWiki845, and Theoder2055: -- Ab207 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ab207 I am pretty sure I used this reason for the Mahaan soundtrack as there was a lot of information present in the soundtrack but it was not enough for a separate article and so with that reason reducing felt necessary with removal of dubbed tracks in that article but seems like a lot of IP's are using that reasoning now. Still however, I am half and half on the decision of having dubbed tracks in articles but I am open to a discussion on this topic. SP013 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:QUOTEFARM -- Ab207 (talk

) 18:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar

Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a handful of different Filmfare Awards for different Indian cinema industries; and the last paragraph in the intro of

Filmfare Awards East is also linked from Filmfare Awards (disambiguation). But the intro paragraph of the article says

"Filmfare Awards Bangla is the Bengali segment of the annual Filmfare Awards [...] The first installment of the awards were held for Bengali, Assamese and Odia films in a ceremony on 29 March 2007. The award ceremony was discontinued for Two Times respectively 2013, 2015 and 2016, then again continued from 2017 and now only given to Bengali Film Industry."

I interpret this to mean that the awards have changed their name from "...East" to "...Bangla", but I can't find any coverage of that in any sources! The Filmfare Awards official website at filmfare.com has sections for the Bangla version, called "Joy Filmfare Awards Bangla". The "Joy" is clearly just a sponsor thing, but the change from "East" to "Bangla" seems pretty clear.

So I have two questions to the ICTFers: is winning a Filmfare Awards Bangla a reasonable claim of notability? (The draft in question is Draft:Utsav Mukherjee, about a screenwriter who won the Best Dialogue award.) And secondly, can anyone find a source or two to verify the name change? It looks like it happened in 2020^{[original research?]}. That first paragraph in Filmfare Awards East needs to be rewritten in any case, and if the awards have changed their name the article should be moved... but it would be nice to be able to source it! --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards East/Bangla is relatively new compared to its Hindi and Southern couterparts (the current one is just 5th edition, so it's not claiming continuity from it's older variants). So I doubt if anyone can be notable merely by winning this award. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks – that makes sense to me. --bonadea contributions talk 10:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• en.janbharattimes.com

Despite its title, Jan Bharat Times is NOT a published newspaper or an established media house. Therefore, it does not by default get the assumption of reliability as per

Their about us says it is in business since 2016 and has an editorial board. But the type of article articles they publish does not inspire much confidence. As it's easy to mistake this for a newspaper, it is being used as a citation in many film articles. Propose to add this in the list of unreliable sources unless there is any reasonable objection. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Is cinemacrush.com a reliable source for film credits, cast and crew, release dates, etc? I have a discussion going at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CinemaCrush. Jay (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It is now archived at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 376#CinemaCrush. Jay (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The following lists

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila

were redirected through non-admin closure after just a few votes and redirected to the main pages (with no clear consensus at all in the second one). I believe that if the pages had been more visible to the community (for some reason, no list appears in the Alerts page in this project), more users would have offered their input or tried to improve them. Moreover, other lists of songs in other languages (Hindi and Urdu) by Runa Laila were redirected as well despite not being included in the said AfD. I'm not sure what can be done about it (maybe

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik resulted in deletion after only one vote to delete it. I asked the closing admin to revert her verdict, so it's open for discussion now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle is nominated too. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• This could not be more blatant
  WP:CANVASSING... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs
  ) 16:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:APPNOTE

when it clearly says in the first line,

Appropriate notification

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

--Venkat TL (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Given how every person here has voted the same type of "Keep singer is notable" or "Keep other similar stuff exists"; it is beyond any doubt that this is a partisan audience. People should refrain from notifying partisan audiences. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making such accusations about a community altogether (yes, ICTF is a [WikiProject] community) when you encounter !voters !voting against you. I can assure you, we are here only to improve the articles around Indian cinema broadly construed. Your comments maligning everyone is inappropriate — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:PLAYPOLICYing is now not restricted just to WP:NOT and its extensions but also to WP:CANVASS which you are grossly misinterpreting just to attack someone who dared to disagree with you and whose perspective turned out to have greater agreement. Shahid • ^Talk2me

17:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You wouldn't be making me laugh if you were complaining about "bludgeoning" after you yourself deciding you wanted to die on this hill, and then made a point of continuing with your non-policy based arguments in a long thread only to then complain how me responding to you and showing how your arguments are wrong is "bludgeoning". Simply saying that something "doesn't fail WP:NOT" and "similar pages exist" (as you have been consistently doing at AfDs) is nothing more than a proof by assertion. Claiming that I should stop because it's "bludgeoning" is only a further attempt to impose this proof by assertion (by forcefully attempting to shut down the challenges). If you were engaging in actual, policy-based reasoning and not simply looking for excuses to keep song database listings on Wikipedia (which is an encyclopedia, not a song database), we would never have come here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said, it's not policy, it's

WP:WIKILAWYERING. You have been warned to stop bludgeoning on several ocassions: [1][2][3]. Please do not make false accusations and be responsible for your nominations and respect others' opinions. This is a friendly note now. Shahid • ^Talk2me

18:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• It is not canvassing to alert relevant wikiprojects. Anyway, you can take these AFDs to deletion review and ask them to reopen them with those familiar with the subject able to participate, mentioning it on any relevant Wikiproject. I reverted a redirect for
  List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila. Can someone look at it and other articles like this, make certain they are in the proper categories, and have on their talk page a link to this wikiproject? Dream Focus
  19:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• WP:DRV. Shahid • ^Talk2me
  10:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a nice list that can be expanded with our films, if not already ;) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Among Indian films:

1. 72 films cancelled their theatrical release
2. 124 films were delayed.
3. 67 films had their productions suspended.

Takes a mammoth effort to add all these with sources. I guess its far more easier if that page is renamed to List of American films impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.^{[just kidding]} Don't think many Indian films fall under "Simultaneous theatrical and video on demand (VOD) releases," so that's a section we are spared of. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

After removing the blue colour Special:Diff/1097048635, the Reply - Discussion tool now working on this page. Please do not add it back. The aesthetic changes should not be added at the cost of convenience. I am not opposed to the blue colour but it is more important the reply tool should work on this page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Vijay's Beast grossed 153 crore worldwide per Manobala while it's 236 crore per Pinkvilla.

Ajith's Valimai grossed 153 crore per Pinkvilla but 232 crore per Manobala.

Basically, tracking has become a joke in Tamil Nadu with self-proclaimed analysts already picking their side in the box office wars. Other sources are blindly publishing these figures without any fact checking. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Rank in press freedom for a reason. --Venkat TL (talk

) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, agree. Vijay vs Ajith collections is one such case of extreme scenario, so wanted to point that out. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ab207, thanks. I just checked Manobala's twitter timeline. Seems to be a big Ajith fan. Involvment with Ajith's PR team may not be ruled out either. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@

tracing back to Manobala as unreliable but it got little response from the community and fierce resistance from Ajith's supporters. -- Ab207 (talk

) 09:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ab207 your proposal was a good one and should have been accepted. I was not aware, and I would have supported this proposal. We dont know what is going around in the background, but whatever it is, the end result is that Manobala is churning out conflicting data related to Ajith. This affects the neutrality of Wikipedia. In future if you bring this again on RSN or this page, remember to cite this example too. Venkat TL (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, thanks for your support. Planning to propose it again. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Firstpost is owned by Network18 Group and has always been considered reliable, especially as far as the box office of Indian films is concerned. They always avoid publishing inflated figures.

This source

https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/bigil-petta-viswasam-kanchana-3-nerkonda-paarvai-kaithi-power-kollywoods-theatrical-takings-in-2019-to-rs-1000-cr-7736851.html

has been on the page Nerkonda Paarvai for almost 2 years and nobody has had a problem with it. Now this account called Arjayay thinks Firstpost is unreliable because it is not listed at ICTF. This person was removing the source without even bothering to start a discussion on the talk page first.

Ab207 Tayi Arajakate

Deliberate on the matter and help me out by listing Firstpost at ICTF.

(103.161.144.216 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC))

Firstpost, being a mainstream news/entertainment website, should be reliable for the purposes of ICTF, imv.

This whole "First Post Not Reliable Sources" ([4], [5]) thing seems to be started by Glenn Maxwell Maxi, evidently to pump up the box office of Viswasam and Nerkonda Paarvai by removing the lower estimates.

@IP: Taking it to talk page should've been the first course of action, instead of rapidly reverting others' edits. Your personal attacks and abuses on Arjayay are inexcusable in any case. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Agree that First Post is a reliable source with no major issues. Differences in box office takings are common amohg reliable sources in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ab207 Atlantic306 Can we list Firstpost among reliable sources then? (103.161.144.216 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC))

@

WP:ICTFFAQ is not an exhaustive list, but considering recent vandalism surrounding it, shall I include FP there? - Fylindfotberserk (talk

) 10:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added at

WP:ICTFFAQ per this - Fylindfotberserk (talk

) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

For Telugu cinema, Idlebrain.com and 123telugu.com are the number one media sources that have all the information and reviews. They have English and Telugu website versions. Why is there no mention of them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force? DareshMohan (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Ab207. I am in favour of DareshMohan's views. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Idlebrain is definitively a good repository source for pre-2010 Telugu films. 123Telugu.com run by Shyam Prasad Reddy of Mallemala Entertainments who is respected figure in Telugu industry, so it should be reliable for film-related purposes.

Neither of these sources publish box office figures which is were most corruption happens wrt Indian films. So needn't worry about. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As per "WP:ICTFSOURCES", Koimoi is not a reliable source. Many film articles including "Gangubai Kathiawadi", "Vikram (2022 film)" mentioned critical review published by Koimoi. So, should I remove them from every film article which contain review by Koimoi like this or keep them there?. (@Venkat TL, @Ab207, @Fylindfotberserk, @ScottishFinnishRadish)I would like to ping some users to get their comments also.Grabup (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove them if other reliable sources are present. If it is the only source supporting something very important, then leave it with a 'better source' tag, RS is not available for the moment. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, Thanks for your opinion. Let other users comment their opinions. Grabup (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome. Tweaked a little. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(reposting my comment from teahouse) Better to avoid when you have other quality reviews, neutral when there are fewer reviews. Every review is an

WP:RSOPINION after all. -- Ab207 (talk

) 18:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

So whether collections based on Koimoi can be used or no - when it is the only source. Kataariveera (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Film fans,

This article was created by a sockpuppet and is now being edited by a questionable account so I thought I'd ask the experts here if they could review this article and see whether or not it is a legitimate new film or just a vanity project. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The Hans India is a reliable source giving correct informations.

Ab207 and Atlantic306 Please discuss and add The Hans India in ICTF. 103.166.244.59 (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Print media is generally considered reliable per

WP:NFSOURCES

, be it in any language. Don't need ICTF to say that. Few editors seem to assume that not being present in the list means that it's not reliable and vice versa.

I think it's better to add a clause that the list is non-exhaustive and is meant as a sample of generally used reliable sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. We have an article on an Indian cricketer called Madan Joshi, born Faizabad on 7 November 1936. That article links to several Indian film articles as there is a Madan Joshi who is an actor and screenwriter. The age seems about right - does anyone have any idea if this is the same person or not? The article is currently up for AfD and it would be interesting to know if it is the same chap or whether there are two Madan Joshis Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If out of the thousands of dialogues in the film, a few are shot in a different language then the CBFC can give straight certificate (assumption).

Example at hand:

So do you cite what the director claims or the truth that the film is dubbed? What if the director changed his mind, how is that reported? Is there any way the wording can be changed by citing the film itself (simultaneously shot → partially reshot). For example, give timestamps where the dialogue are in sync (that is the only option). DareshMohan (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@DareshMohan That's a grey area for sure, considering some partially reshot films are marked as dub while others as straight.

Citing timestamp with lip sync issue doesn't feel appropriate, even straight films have lip sync issues with other language actors. Only way out I see is to seek consensus at the article talk page. Wording can be tweaked if there's no reasonable objection.

For the purpose of infobox and categories, we might have to stick with CBFC. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Can The Times of India film reviews be whitelisted? The Times of India is listed as unreliable here (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Times_of_India). The film reviews itself have no bias toward India/non-India; this pertains only to press releases. The Times of India has a group of hired critics write film reviews, so they are not bloggers in any sense. DareshMohan (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN found that uncontroversial content such as film reviews were acceptable, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of The New Indian Express. The Indian Express is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, but why isn't the The New Indian Express listed. DareshMohan (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Its probably just an oversight Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Print media sources get automatic assumption of reliability per

WP:NFSOURCES. Needs consensus to deem it unreliable. -- Ab207 (talk

) 06:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

High-key Malayalam language newspaper. Why is it not listed here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force)? DareshMohan (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

A note should be added that all mainstream newspapers in any language qualify as reliable per

WP:NFSOURCES, and the following list is a representative sample only. -- Ab207 (talk

) 06:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The reviews (not sure about sources) are reliable because it hires notable critics such as R. G. Vijayasarathy.

The best example is Tirupathi (2006 Kannada film). Vijayasarathy wrote a review first for Nowrunning on 30 June 2006 and then wrote a review for the same film with different wording on 3 July 2006 for Rediff. If he reviewed the film first for nowrunning and then for rediff, then why is only rediff considered as reliable and not nowrunning?

Why is it listed as unreliable here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force)? DareshMohan (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is simply prejudice towards websites that don't have enough content to warrant a Wiki article. I find nowrunning to be quite usable, nothing questionable. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is complicated. My interest in Nowrunning.com began some time ago, when an editor was solely adding multiple references to their website, in an apparent attempt to promote the site, so I deleted several references at the time, and have deleted several since.
I think the problem is that

WP:RSEDITORIAL

:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Therefore, reviews are acceptable, as opinions, provided the reviewer is a "notable figure". Given Wikipedia's generic meaning of "notable", I assume this means the reviewer should have their own Wikipedia article? or how else do we determine their being a "notable figure"?
I assume the "discussion" that led to their inclusion on the list, was this comment by User:Cyphoidbomb, which is not really a "discussion", but nobody else spoke up at the time. However, I see no reason to reverse the exclusion, unless inclusion is solely allowable for the opinions of people with their own articles. - Arjayay (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Like Kailash said, there seems to be bias as to websites without wiki pages. There are enough sources on R. G. Vijayasarathy, etc. to warrant a wiki article, but if nobody makes one that doesn't mean he is not notable. DareshMohan (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't resolve our problem. I'm sure that every editor adding a review, would say that the reviewer they were citing was "notable". We can't create, and maintain, a list of "reviewers without articles that we think are notable enough to meet

WP:RSEDITORIAL

" how would we assess that? where would it be advertised/published? and would it be followed/enforced?
I see that "The following should not be considered reliable sources" list includes:-

• Film Companion.in - blacklisted due to spamming, see [7]
  . Individual articles by independently notable critics can be whitelisted

AFAIK only "independently notable critics" with their own articles are ever whitelisted, so I believe that should be our model. As with music reviewers, we do not have many film reviewers with articles, but perhaps that could be a spur to create more such articles? Moreover, if the article is rejected because the person is considered non-notable, then we, clearly, shouldn't be using their reviews. - Arjayay (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Even Film Companion reviews by Baradwaj Rangan seem notable. @PravinGanechari: Similar sites to Nowrunning, Chitraloka and Viggy (About us section), are there reviews reliable? (please explain why/why not) DareshMohan (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree with the path this is taking. In most cases it is not important whether a film reviewer is individually notable. What is important is the publication he is writing for - if that publication is a notable reliable source then the reviews count for notability. But if the publication is unreliable then the reviews are not acceptable unless the reviewer is independently notable. This is the case for example with The Hindu or The New York Times where the reviews are acceptable because of the publication but the reviewer may not be notable himself. The
  WP:NFILM criteria 1 means a critic is nationally known because he writes for a well known national publication not because the reviewer is independently notable. There have been discussions to that end, imv Atlantic306 (talk
  ) 00:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• A discussion took place at WikiProject Film here section 58 titled Newspaper Reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic306 , Also tell me some information about this website, is it reliable as a source

indiaglitz.com

filmibeat.com

mirchi9.com

Greatandhra.comPravinGanechari (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

In previous discussions by this project filmibeat, and Greatandhra have been determined as unreliable sources. India Glitz was previously determined unreliable but recently some editors have said it is reliable. Mirchi9 has not been discussed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Since my name was invoked above by Arjayay, (thanks for the ping), I have always tried to encourage members of the Indian cinema task force to discuss the various sources in wide usage, but discussions were generally ignored by the more prolific editors, who tended to do their work quietly in the shadows. In general, blogs/portals of any manifestation are not considered reliable sources, and anything the resembles a blog/portal, i.e. a faceless web presence with no clear editorial body and no clear assumption of reliability or expertise in a subject, should be considered suspect until otherwise established as a quality source. I think we all know that there are thousands of Indian entertainment sites that claim to be bona fide journals, but that are part of the widespread internet marketing schemes common in this subject area. Including a film review by an unknown on a site of questionable origin is not materially different than if you were to include a user review from IMDB. Since Wikipedia in general feels that sources are insufficient until they are proven reliable, this is why I added a site like newrunning.com to the list. I encourage you all to have the discussions and figure out which sources are valid or invalid in accordance with Wikipedia's quality standards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings to you all. Fyi, the Shefali Shah article is up for FAC. It was interesting to work on an article about an actor who isn't a star. Feel free to leave comments for improvement, if you like. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Raju_Srivastav#Look_alike_of_Amitabh_Bachchan_? Several users are edit warring to put this claim and other equally outrageous and inappropriately supported claims on this article. Please check. Venkat TL (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it ok to add List of mourners in Death section of popular actors?

Please check and respond on

• Talk:Rajesh_Khanna#List_of_people_who_paid_homage?
• Talk:Raju_Srivastav#Death_section

Venkat TL (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Some editors keep adding as a reliable source while some remove it as unreliable. From

Their About Us page makes sure to tout repeatedly how trustworthy and reliable their site is, which has the opposite effect, IMO. Especially when their Disclaimer page turns around and makes sure we know all the ways that nothing posted to their site can be trusted at all. On 20 March 2022, I emailed them to ask my standard question ("What is your staff editorial structure and what are the fact-checking procedures for information posted on your site?") and never received a reply. I wouldn't trust their alleged interviews; I see no by-lines on any of them, or really anywhere on the site. Geniac (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, all. There is an ongoing discussion about the neutrality of this article. Any input from you would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Ab207 (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ab207: I've reverted the tag removal, really a chain of fans are working hard there, I think you should seek some admin help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you much, Shshshsh. Will escalate if the issue persists. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There are five articles that use archived copies from filmcentro.com (which no longer exists). Of those, at least two articles, Allu Aravind and Gajendra Chauhan, use filmcentro to verify personal details like date and place of birth, parents, siblings, children, etc (e.g., [8] and [9]). Is filmcentro considered reliable for those personal details? – Archer1234 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say no. They appear to be just another nameless, faceless content scraper. The bottom of the page claims they are a "trusted source". Which immediately indicates to me that they're not. Geniac (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It recently came to me that referring Zee News, and its whole branch of Zee channels, would be a conflict of interest for films which are associated with Zee Studios as they both are controlled by Essel Group. Does Zee have any editorial protocols regarding this? (At the least, IMO, it would appear that one produces and the other promotes). I would argue that we need to not use Zee citations in films by Zee Studios. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It depends on what exactly is your concern. You can always use Zee News and allied as sources for fact checking and non-controversial stuff. You may want to take it cautiously when you are using it as source of calling a film "block-buster" or such. The problem with refraining from using COI sources will be that you may not find any at all for few topics. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, fact checking and non-controversial is allowed. Definitely not for reviews and review of reviews and eventual summarization. If COI sources are the only ones that have sourcing [elsewhere] and no independent sources could be found, that topic perhaps need to undergo a notability evaluation — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

There has been a growing discussion on Akshay Kumar, where one user insists on giving Kumar's citizenship more heft and importance than, IMO, it deserves, that too in the lead. I would like to have more opinions from people who work on articles realted to Indian cinema, particularly BLPs. It's crucial to our project and to the debate of the place personal life and politics have in our articles on actors. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@

very non-neutraly. Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c

) 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: I'm afraid the link for WP:NPA is not very fitting. Neutrality is another thing which I agree with. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I've changed it now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Can someone do some cleanup work? There are no sources that reports reliable box office numbers of Malayalam films, yet pages such as

@DaxServer, Ab207, and Kailash29792: Beast has collected ₹250 (US$3.10) crore against a budget of ₹150 (US$1.90) crore.^[1] In Vijay, the main lead of the film it is considered as successful. But in Pooja Hegde, the female lead of film it is considered as unsuccessful. Please see this:[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], These all sources says Beast is a successful film. 103.166.245.232 (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

There's an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saathi (1991 film) which I find particularly interesting and would like more people especially from our group to offer some views on. I really wonder what people here would think and whether opinions on such AfDs for or against deletion depend strictly on how they interpret policy or based on something else. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make you all aware of the following pages, which are up for deletion, because for some reason the Alerts page wouldn't include them as it should. It so happened that I came across one of them by chance, but anyway. For your information and for those interested of course, the following lists are up for deletion (this isn't a full list of the nominated lists, which can be found on Category:AfD debates (Media and music)).

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Andrew Kishore
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Geeta Dutt
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by M. K. Thyagaraja Bhagavathar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by P. A. Periyanayaki
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Sabina Yasmin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Sangeetha Katti
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam

Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an example of

WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I guess only adding sources can save them. Kailash29792 (talk)

12:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The Alerts list will be updated tomorrow and will include them. These are nominated after today's run and thus are not yet available on the alerts list — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer: No, not all of them have been nominated today, that's why I'm saying. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Most likely because the talk page banners don't have the ICTF specification like Talk:List of Tamil songs recorded by Vani Jairam. Perhaps botops @Hellknowz or @Headbomb can shed some light on this? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force subscription is reporting only pages in Category:WikiProject Indian cinema articles. (Something like Category:AfD debates (Media and music) isn't used by the bot for anything.) The articles mentioned are not tagged with any banner/workforce that would categorize it as such, so the bot doesn't report it. The bot does use pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India, so it does appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts. But the bot has no way to know that this is further specific/of interest to Indian Film WP/TF. There is no reliable way for the bot to detect these other than for someone to tag the page with the correct banner. Unfortunately, this is the case for many AfDs. Delsorts largely mitigate this, but delsorts are very broad and the nominations can get lost in the noise. I am not sure that I have any better advice on this, the bot is just using what is available to it. I would suggest following Film/Cinema alerts and tagging any pages of interest so they are reposted for this project. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer@Hellknowz@Kailash29792: Above all, I cannot undersrand why so many articles belonging to the same group are put up for separate AfDs if even the rationale is the same across the board. For example, List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra is up for deletion and then all the other pages, for every language, is nominated separately. Does anyone know what the right course of action to have them combined would be? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I had the same thought. Probably

t · m · c

) 17:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually

t · m · c

) 17:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Usually if minor films are deleted there is no issue but two Indian films starring big actors have been deleted Saturday Night (2022 film) and Kaapa. If articles keep getting deleted, can they be recreated in the articlespace or in the draftspace? Sad how major film articles got deleted.

The first film starred Nivin Pauly and the second one starred Prithviraj Sukumaran. I am sure someone can back me up to say that these people are well known. DareshMohan (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@DareshMohan: This is the result of Kailash's complaint above of systemic bias against articles related to Indian cinema. Indian articles are being targeted across the board by deletionists. This is no bad faith on them, this is a broader problem which has spread all across the project. While notability is not inherited, there have been films which I was quite shocked someone would ever consider them non-notable where and a simple Google search would show why. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Criteria for Speedy Deletion - G5

- the articles which are created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block and when those articles did not have any substantial edits from other users. These are not "systemic bias".

Since this is G5 deletion and not an outcome of an AfD discussion to delete, you are free to recreate them in mainspace. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer: This doesn't change the fact that systemic bias does exist. Trust me, as someone who's responsible for numerous WP:HEYS at AfDs (and several of my DYKs are article which were earlier put up for deletion), I can assure you there is such bias. But I'm positive this will fade away with time. By the way, everyone is free to recreate any deleted article if they believe this time notability can be established. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I was just referring to those two articles — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Can absolutely attest to the systemic bias that Shahid is pointing out. Plus, editors who have no idea about Indian cinema and its differences from Hollywood films are routinely enforcing their "rules" on them. But I will also say that sock-puppetry & fancruft being so high, it is difficult to maintain the quality of these articles. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Yes, my friend, but thanks to editors like yourself the state of Indian articles on WP is much more promising. I wish for more editors concentrating on classic Indian cinema though. This could make a great change. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Another such deletion request has popped up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal (2023 film). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Aspects, please understand that in Indian cinema, songs are a part of a film's score. Removing song composers, as you did here, among others, is incorrect. To give an example with a Hollywood musical film, it would be like removing Benj Pasek and Justin Paul from The Greatest Showman infobox. They composed the songs, while John Debney and Joseph Trapanese composed the score. Both are a part of the film. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at @Aspects' edit history [15], there are a ton of such changes — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ravensfire please read my comment here. Krimuk2.0 (talk

) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This is probably best raised at the main

Film Wikiproject. The template is very clear that the parameter is for the background score composer. Oddly enough, there are quite a few examples from other countries where the songs are important to the film (8 Mile (film) and A Star Is Born (2018 film)

being two very easy examples in American cinema, see most of the recent Disney animated films as well), but the parameter is for the background score. Toss in over use of bolding (NO! It's NOT needed there!) and I'm very much against something like this absent discussion.

I would start a discussion on the film project about the change, give the proposed format for the change and get the larger consensus there. Due diligence by finding prior discussions and being ready for issues raised there would be helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"but the parameter is for the background score" -> where exactly does it say that song composers should not be mentioned in the infobox for a musical film? It talks about "film score" which for a musical film is both background score + songs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"Original music score" is the background score of the film. Ravensfire (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That's incorrect. For example, look at the nominations for the Academy Award for Best Original Score from the 71st Academy Awards - for a musical film such as The Prince of Egypt, the score comprises both the songs and background score. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how this argument has come about. Is it new that we're including composers in the "music" parameter? Of course composers should be there. Every single FA on film does that. Just as the infobox suggests, film composers appear exactly under the title "music director" in Indian films and not "additional music". Songs are of the most prevalent characteristic features of Hindi/Indian films, all of which are either musicals or, off late, have original songs presented in them in other ways. I must say then, if composers do not have a place in the infobox, I don't know who should. Now, as for Template:Infobox film, I think it could be interepreted many different ways, or it should be changed to reflect the realm of Hindi films, or another parameter for "music director" should be added. At the moment, however, music directors should be given their place in the music parameter. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sadly this is exactly what happens when people who have no idea about Indian film/culture impose their ideas on them. And that I have to give examples of American cinema to make my point. Incredibly sad, but not surprising! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

True. So far we've always followed the same pattern in infoboxes - all our infoboxes in FAs and GAs follow it. And that's why the composers should be restored on Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

And yes, @

Ravensfire, in Indian films, the songs are, indeed, part of the musical score. It just happens that in Hollywood there are often songs in films which are not original (known as soundtrack albums) and have not been composed specifically for the film. In Indian films, they are always composed for the film inquestion. Shahid • ^Talk2me

20:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(outdent)It was my edits that started the discussion and I always linked to Template:Infobox film which states "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and songwriters should not be included. Separate multiple entries using either {{ubl}} or {{plainlist}}. Link each composer to their article if possible." When reverted without an explanation, I placed a hidden note of "Per Template:Infobox film only the original music score composer should be listed.", which usually was then not reverted. I feel this discussion really should take place at the template's talk page since it would be asking for a change in documentation there. As for if all of the FAs and GAs of this task force using composers in the infobox, only two of the 25 FAs and 39 of the 192 GAs have separate score and song subcategories listed in the infobox. Aspects (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Aspects: Again, this is probably a cultural thing as Krimuk said, but in Indian films, the songs are part of the background score, they are all original and are most of the time composed by one set of people. The composers are credited as "music directors". This isn't the case of arbitrary soundtrack albums in Hollywood. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have started an rfc here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Per this, many films are falsely promoted as bilinguals although they are either 100% dubbed or only one dialogue in the entire film was reshot. A recent example was Michael (2023 film) where the film was promoted as a Tamil film although the film is 99% dubbed. How does the CBFC award straight certificate to dubbed films? An example of this is NOTA (film) in which the Telugu CBFC certificate does not say dubbed although the film is entirely dubbed. DareshMohan (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess proof from other reliable sources is the only way to do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

What do we do with the following articles:

• Casino (upcoming Tamil film) (looks low-key)
• Theeyorkku Anjael (looks low-key)
• Pagaivanuku Arulvai
• Sippai
• Sumo (film)
• Kallapart
• Adho Andha Paravai Pola
• Soorpanagai

DareshMohan (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Let consensus decide if a film's failure to get made/be released still warrants an article. Like Marudhanayagam, Engineer, The Alien, Silver & Black, Gambit, Godzilla: King of the Monsters in 3D or Batgirl. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Using trailers to verify cast lists

 –  — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

www.indiaglitz.com use to be considered tabloid news so last time I checked here, it was under the unreliable source section. Now I don't find it there under that section or neither in the reliable source section. What's the status of the website? should references from that website be allowed? Aadirulez8 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

is https://theprimetime.in/ a credible source? Please help Aadirulez8 (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Except Kannada films & kannda film news they are active Skancc (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

We should have a discussion on the reliability of Boxofficeworldwide I sometimes consider them reliable but don't have any conclusion yet. Tousif.15 (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say not reliable. Their articles have no by-lines. Their "About Us" page lists no names of owners or editors. Just another nameless, faceless info scraper. Geniac (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Just like BOI😑,well i know one name abhinandan singh who host there youtube channel interviewing celebrities. Is it good enough to use them for bollywood. Tousif.15 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please save the Deccan Herald archives? Kannada films such as Darshan (2004 film) have reviews but the link (https://web.archive.org/web/20140413022251/http://archive.deccanherald.com/Deccanherald/apr112004/mr3.asp) does not work. DareshMohan (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried https://www.deccanherald.com/archives but it is of no use and doesn't seem to provide links to old articles.

On another note, I use Internet Archive extension in my browser and enabled auto-archive, so that when I visit any URL (excluding some, can be configured in settings) it will check the archives and will start archiving — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at

Is M3DB (in Malayalam) a reliable source for biographical details and for film credits? See Neena Kurup for an example. There are 340 pages on English Wikipedia that link to M3DB: [16], although some of those are from image file pages to show the source of images. I do not read Malayalam, so it is hard for me to evaluate, even using a translation program. The history page makes me think it is just a Malayalam version of IMDb, which, as you know, is not a reliable source. Appreciate any thoughts or insights. Thanks.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 02:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Using Google Translate, I see their Help page encourages people to "add/correct any small information you know to the database as soon as you register an ID." So definitely not reliable, IMO. Geniac (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

msidb.org (English: https://en.msidb.org) calls itself the "Malayalam Music & Movie Encyclopedia". There are 100 or so articles that include a link to en.msidb.org, although some of those could be just links in the external links section rather than used as a reference. It accepts user submitted entries (e.g., for movies: [17]; for short movies [18]). As a

Agreed. Geniac (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Is https://www.malayalachalachithram.com/ reliable? Its "Our Team" page [19] says this:

MalayalaChalachithram.com is an internet cooperative that provides comprehensive information about Malayalam Movies, Songs and Movie Artists of all Movies that have been made to date. This site would not be the huge success it is without the cooperation of all of you, but we list below the most active administrators and contributors of this project, arranged in alphabetical order.

This leads me to believe it is just like Wikipedia with

Agreed. Geniac (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Clarification on notability of films currently filming/in post-prod. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments would also be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger 3 (2nd nomination). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

For reference on the RSNP list:

WP:IBTIMES. I agree that wider consensus is that it is generally unreliable, and ICTF cannot override that. Therefore, it should be considered unreliable by ICTF. Geniac (talk

) 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it to unreliable section in

WP:ICTFSOURCES — DaxServer (t · m · c

) 18:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Is Vikatan (https://cinema.vikatan.com/) a reliable source for biographical information about actors and filmmakers? Here is a diff where it is used to verify the baptism of Vijay (actor). It is also used to verify the religion of his father and mother. This is the link cited at Vikatan: [20]. Note that in the title displayed in the browser tab, it says "விஜய் | Latest tamil news about vijay | VikatanPedia".  — Archer1234 (t·c) 01:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Profiles generally may not be, but the website as a whole is. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Poking around a bit and I find that this came up once before where you had commented here: Talk:Vijay_(actor)/Archive_3#Shoba_is_tamil_not_malayali.

Only three Vikatan profiles appear to be used in mainspace [21].

• Three articles linking to the Vijay profile Vijay (actor), Christianity in Tamil Nadu, and List of Indian Christians
• Two articles linking to the profile for Sai Dhanshika, although not for personal biographical information, just for film credits.
• One article linking to the profile for Maridhas Malaichamy. This last one, in particular, seems sketchy, especially after you read the article for Maridhas Malaichamy. How would he have gotten a profile with so little information and how much vetting did that information go through to get published?

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 03:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Anupama Chopra's Film Companion is one of the best, if not the best source of film journalism in India, and I find that it has been blacklisted on Wikipedia? How did this happen, and what can we do about it? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice and timely response! Shshshsh and others are already aware for over a year, but no effort to whitelist the site has been fruitful. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please save your sarcasm for someone else. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree @Krimuk2.0. I did complain about it a year or so ago but I was told there was no way there would be blacklist removal because a couple of users were just sapamming it non-stop and they speculated that it might be paid action to increase its traffic. I think since a lot of time has passed, we could ask to give it another chance and lift this ban. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's. How do we go about it? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. But from what I understand, it probably will never be removed from the blacklist MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2022#Film Companion — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Can they whitelist it only for certain experienced editors? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it works that way. On another note, I've asked for two URLs to be whitelisted MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2022/11#Film companion but no response on that — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

One effort could be to discuss this on Wikipedia:Village pump for a better understanding of how this could be removed the blacklist? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

We could ask them for something like this:

The website filmcompanion.in was blacklisted due to frequent spamming by certain users. However, it's one of the few reputable sources of film journalism for Indian cinema, and a great loss to some of us editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force who work on Indian film-related articles. I would like to ask if it's possible for the site to be whitelisted for me, and other editors of Indian cinema Shshshsh and DaxServer, who would use the site wisely and without any malicious interest. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There's apparently an sboverride permission to override the blacklist. There're very few discussions about it [22]. Not sure what happened to it

Phabricator: T36928. Let me ask in Discord — DaxServer (t · m · c

) 11:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

https://discord.com/channels/221049808784326656/221060705078476801/1093500167577149480 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully, if this is removed from the blacklist it won't get spammed relentlessly again. There is a good reason why it was added in the first place. It's a good source, but when there's excessive promotion, there are consequences. Ravensfire (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but who should bear the consequences, the spammers or us? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Fyi. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just saw your edit, I categorically agree that it is an RS — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• I know a couple of folks at FC (acquintance-of-acquintance etc.). Now, I have not the slightest of clue about SEO but if this spam is directed by FC, maybe, I can request them to stop? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have requested un-blacklisting at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Filmcompanion.in. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this, but I'm not gonna hold by breath. Cultural appropriation and anti-Indian cinema bias on Wiki is at an all time high these days. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, I wish you all the best for success and please push the admins over there as the request may get archived without being adhered to. Krimuk2.0, while your statements are true about these anti-Indian cinema biases, you might get blocked for being vocal about it. Remember how you and I were threatened with this on Tiger 3's AfD? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not gonna stop speaking the truth. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There is

Here is an example of such a Hindustan Times article published today: https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/adipurush-box-office-day-6-collection-250-crore-india-101687400771000.html

And here is such an Indian Express article published yesterday: https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/adipurush-box-office-collection-day-5-prabhas-kriti-sanon-ramayana-tuesday-drop-8676295/

And I have seen some Wikipedia users give references to these articles along with the box office figures reported therein for the film Adipurush. Is this acceptable or not? If yes, it would mean sacnilk is no longer considered unreliable. I request other users to comment on this, thanks. Cinephile4ever 13:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we consider

WP:FRUIT, which is not a policy but essay? Kailash29792 (talk)

16:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the essay, I agree with it, so I say we can consider it in this case. But, my question is, would it also make the current reliable sources like Hindustan Times, Indian Express and others which use sacnilk figures in their reports unreliable too? Cinephile4ever 16:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, a discussin has been started at

• The RSN discussion has been started afresh, and can be accessed here. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

In this archived discussion, a single user named Ab207 started the discussion at 20:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC), and ended the discussion by saying india.com is unreliable at 08:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC). This is lesser than a day of time. How can this amount to silent consensus? In this article, it says, "Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus." This user has not even waited for a day for other users to comment and reach a consensus. So I suggest this user's edit of considering india.com unreliable by taking liberty himself be reverted. Cinephile4ever 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I think the reversion is disruptive. You don't wait 1 year 3 months and 26 days to object and not seek discussion about something that has been consensus (even a "silent consensus") that long. Seems a bit

WP:POINTY to me. Instead, I would have expected substantive reasons to have been provided here on the talk page for objecting (arguing the points that @Ab207

: made), seeking a new consensus for its removal.

I assume that you are editing in

good faith

, but I encourage you to slow down a bit. I think you are moving too fast and making mistakes in collaborating in a constructive manner.

I am going to restore the consensus on india.com that was removed. I look forward to reading here the substantive reasons why it should not continue to be listed as unreliable. I am certainly open to the possibility that the situation and circumstances that existed previously may no longer exist.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I only noticed now, that user took liberty within lesser than a day. If I had noticed that 1 year 3 months and 26 days before, I would have objected it then. Im Cinephile4ever 16:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That so called "silent consensus" was reached in Feb 2022 (I won't accept it as a consensus because it isn't). I became an editing user only in March 2022 when I created this account. If I had seen the time of that user of lesser than 12 hours to reach that so called "consensus" before, I would have done the same for the pinkvilla discussion I started within lesser than 12 hours too, and not be trying to talk some common sense to people here. Sigh. Cinephile4ever 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I think we get that you object. Upon what basis would you have objected back then? Is india.com reliable? Where, in AB207's post, were the points made not correct or are no longer an issue?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Upon the same basis I object now. You can't close a discussion saying you take liberty within lesser than 12 hours, not even allowing other users to comment. Cinephile4ever 16:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cinephile4ever, I think that you are missing the point. We get that you don't like that Ab207 did not wait longer. But if he had waited longer, would you have argued against his view that india.com is unreliable? If so, upon what non-procedural basis?

Do you think india.com is reliable? If so, explain why the points that Ab207 made were not then or are not now valid?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You tell me how a single user deciding something within lesser than 12 hours and not even allowing other users to comment is consensus in the first place? Cinephile4ever 04:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to completely stop using India.com. Articles regurigating producer figures (which was why the discussion occured) can be simply recognised as such, and is something TOI and Indian Express have also done in the past despite their reliability. India.com has interviews with celebrities too, considering their parent group these should be perfectly fine.2001:8F8:172B:41ED:2D5E:DC11:DD06:64BE (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

According to https://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/mohanlal-s-lucifer-storms-into-rs-200-crore-club-first-for-malayalam-cinema/story-vTm7JXaAdz0FWFTllE4n2I.html, Lucifer (2019 Indian film) is the first Malayalam film to gross 200 crore including all business. The article also says like that. But as per https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/malayalam/tovino-thomas-starrer-2018-becomes-first-malayalam-film-to-reach-rs-200-crore-milestone-8652435/lite/?utm_campaign=fullarticle&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=inshorts, 2018 (film) is the first Malayalam movie to gross 200 crores. Can somebody please correct everything. List of highest-grossing Malayalam films is also wrong. Please correct. Pinging Archer1234, Kailash29792, DaxServer, DareshMohan and Monhiroe. 116.68.101.209 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote can be added addressing this discrepancy. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"According to a report in Manorama, the film has collected ₹175 crore from theatres and fetched ₹13 crore from its digital streaming rights. Its satellite rights were sold for ₹6 crore and it made another ₹10 crore from TV rights in other languages." Lucifer never hit 200 crore. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:3D54:3EF9:BA79:5A29 (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this site, and it is only used in 6 articles - any opinions? - Arjayay (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks amateur to me. They don't even have an "About us" page. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Their newsletter subscription link is broken. I don't know how they're reaching 20 million users with 0 Facebook followers, 19 Twitter followers, and 12 YouTube subscribers. Just another nameless, faceless website. Geniac (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Would some members of ICTF take a look at

@Kailash29792: Can u guys take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haraa (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puthiya Mugam (unreleased film). This is not Wikipedia:Canvassing (I am not asking u to vote). Is it a mistake to nominate for deletion?

I am surprised that Puthiya Mugam (unreleased film) even has an article. The film never really released any trailer officially either. DareshMohan (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Is pinkvilla a reliable source for box office information? Cinephile4ever 13:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added notices of this at

WP:RSN, WP:WikiProject India, and WP:WikiProject Film.  — Archer1234 (t·c

) 13:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Take this article for example: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/highest-grossing-kollywood-movies-all-time-vikram-nears-400-crores-worldwide-1148728

There was a list of top 10 highest grossing movies worldwide from Kollywood but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

Here's another article from pinkvilla where they have deleted originally published content: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/highest-grossing-films-year-2022-india-kgf-2-rrr-heavy-lifts-year-few-big-hits-many-misses-1166473

They had given a list of 10 highest-grossing films at the Indian box office for 2022, but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

Another article of pinkvilla where they have deleted content already published by them: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/all-time-top-ten-highest-grossing-movies-india-kgf-chapter-2-second-1082046

They had given a list of top 10 highest-grossing films in India, but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

Another article of pinkvilla where they have deleted content already published by them: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/box-office-all-time-top-grossing-indian-movies-worldwide-rrr-rises-third-topping-rs-900-crores-1061675

They had given a list of top 10 highest-grossing Indian films worldwide, but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

They have deleted at least 10 box office figures each from these aforementioned 4 articles, which totals 40 figures. And these figures must have been referenced in many Wikipedia pages too. Now if a user goes to any of these pages and clicks the link of any of these pinkvilla articles, they will not find any of these figures because they have been deleted. How can one trust a website wherein you see content one day and you don't see it the next day?

So based on the above evidence, my opinion is that pinkvilla is unreliable for box office information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinephile4ever (talk • contribs) 13:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Modifying an already-published article doesn't necessarily indicate unreliability. Do we have any indication of why they have done so? Can you find the previous version on web.archive.org? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have an indication of why they have done so. I think they must have "modified" their articles by deleting the main content itself to indicate that they aren't "necessarily" unreliable. How about we ask the editors of pinkvilla to find the previous version on that archive site? Cinephile4ever 14:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Updated end of year numbers were published here, https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/top-highest-grossing-films-at-the-indian-box-office-in-2022-kgf-chapter-2-tops-followed-by-rrr-and-avatar-2-1205238 Inomyabcs (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I find this placing wrong, you better give this in your reply Cinephile4ever 15:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was corrected. I wasn't entirely sure and left a conciliatory edit summary. My apologies. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This editor is attempting to relitigate "

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thebiguglyalien (talk

) 15:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No consensus was reached, that's why this RFC. We need more users opinions to reach consensus. So no dropping of stick. Cinephile4ever 15:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright so if content "disappears" from Wikipedia because of some users engaging in unexplained content removal, will Wikipedia continue to be reliable? Cinephile4ever 15:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright RfC withdrawn (this stick dropped). Let's see if we can reach consensus in the previous discussion (that stick not yet dropped). Cinephile4ever 00:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable right? Teluguone.com is blacklisted. DareshMohan (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Both look unreliable. Cinejosh is run by a single person. TeluguOne lists only an HR person and various unnamed contributors on their About Us page. Geniac (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to

Take this article for example: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/highest-grossing-kollywood-movies-all-time-vikram-nears-400-crores-worldwide-1148728

There was a list of top ten highest grossing movies worldwide from Kollywood but now they have deleted it so it's not visible. This is not professional, I don't know any other website which deletes its previously published content.

I believed Pinkvilla is generally unreliable as it is a

WP:Perennial sources? Kailash29792 (talk)

13:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean add to sources which are not reliable? If yes then sure.

talk

) 13:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinkvilla also changes its previously published content. Take this article for example: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/vikram-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-highest-grossing-tamil-film-all-time-1183986

They first reported a worldwide gross 432.5 crore, domestic gross 307.6 crore, overseas gross 124.9 crore. Then after a few days, they changed these figures same article. Now it shows worldwide gross 430 crore, domestic gross 306.5 crore, overseas gross 123.5 crore.

No professional website changes or deletes content from their already published articles. So, pinkvilla is not professional and not a reliable source for box office figures.

talk

) 01:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier this year, before this edit on 26 February, which moved Pinkvilla from unreliable to reliable. It would need a new consensus to revert that move - Arjayay (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I consider pinkvilla unreliable, and user Kailash29792 said he also believes it is unreliable because it is a tabloid site. Take for example, publications like Hindustan Times or Times of India or Indian Express or India Today or News18 or Business Standard or any other reliable source listed in this page, they never delete or change their originally published content. Pinkvilla is the only site which deletes content in its already published content and changes content after a few months in the same original articles, which makes it highly unreliable. It will be better if other users tell their opinions too so we can reach a consensus to move pinkvilla to the list of unreliable sources. Thanks.

talk

) 10:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, per that discussion it can be used for general info like interviews. But like Cinephilekrr I too say avoid using it for box office info. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed the issue mentioned above by

Cinephilekrr

in Pinkvilla articles written by Jatinder Singh. However, other authors at Pinkvilla such as Himesh Mankad and Rishil Jogani are generally reliable for box office. Do not support making Pinkvilla unreliable altogether.

(BangaloreNorth (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC))

Here's another article from pinkvilla where they have deleted originally published content: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/highest-grossing-films-year-2022-india-kgf-2-rrr-heavy-lifts-year-few-big-hits-many-misses-1166473

They had given a list of highest-grossing films at the Indian box office for 2022, but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

talk

) 00:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Some more articles of pinkvilla where they have deleted content already published by them:

https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/all-time-top-ten-highest-grossing-movies-india-kgf-chapter-2-second-1082046

https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/box-office-all-time-top-grossing-indian-movies-worldwide-rrr-rises-third-topping-rs-900-crores-1061675

They had given a list of highest-grossing films at the Indian box office, and a list for overseas, but now they have deleted, so both lists are not visible in these articles.

talk

) 00:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who the author is, the website pinkvilla deletes content already published by it. So it is highly unreliable, and they might delete articles published by other authors like Himesh Mankad and Rishil Jogani too. Also, we are not talking about the reliability of individual authors, we are discussing the reliability of the site pinkvilla, and since it deletes content already published by it, it is highly unreliable. No other website deletes already published content.

talk

) 00:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Authors give their articles to various sites. It is the site which publishes them. The author cannot publish or delete. It is the editorial board of the site that has the power to publish or delete. So from the above articles, it is very clear that the website pinkvilla deletes content originally given by the authors and published by it, which makes pinkvilla highly unreliable. No other reliable or professional website deletes content originally published by it.

talk

) 01:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see these removals of content as a reason to designate Pinkvilla as unreliable. Publishing false information without due diligence or without editorial oversight to correct mistakes would be reasons to designate it as unreliable, but I am not seeing that here.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would they delete their content then? Must have been false information without due diligence as you say. Name any other website which deletes its original content like pinkvilla. I have found out 4 articles in which they have deleted at least 10 box office figures each, which totals 40 figures. And these figures must have been referenced in many Wikipedia pages too. Now if a user goes to any of these pages and clicks the link of pinkvilla, they will not find any of these figures because they have been deleted. Deleting previously published content is ridiculous and not done by any other publication. There must be more articles by them wherein content must have been deleted by them like these 4 articles I have mentioned in this discussion. How can you trust a website wherein you see content one day and you don't see it the next day? There cannot be any better reason to find a source highly unreliable. So I suggest pinkvilla be moved to unreliable sources as soon as possible.

talk

) 11:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

As seen in this

Cinephilekrr

to stop edit warring on pages while a discussion is in progress.

(BangaloreNorth (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC))

Users Ab207 and Tayi Arajakate have not participated in this discussion, and user Kailash29792 has already said he believes pinkvilla is not reliable because it is a tabloid site. I have said it is not reliable too. We both are saying it is not reliable for box office figures. Even you yourself said you see this issue in pinkvilla articles by Jatinder Singh and didn't say pinkvilla is reliable for these articles. So majority are against these pinkvilla articles which show deleted content and box office figures. So pinkvilla can be considered unreliable for box office figures now as per this discussion. And user Archer1234 hasn't replied yet to my previous message. Don't try to bring users who haven't participated in this discussion to decide. Pinkvilla continues to be unreliable as per this discussion now.

talk

) 12:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I request all users to comment on how anyone can trust any website wherein you see content one day and you don't see it a few days later, and on how you can trust pinkvilla when they have deleted 40 box office figures published by them in 4 articles previously.

talk

) 12:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I gave the link to the original discussion conducted in March 2022 about the reliability of Pinkvilla above. If you missed it, here it is:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 7#Reliability_of_Pinkvilla

Users Ab207, Tayi Arajakate and Kailash29792 were in favour of making Pinkvilla reliable then.

And I stated that I have noticed the issue you mentioned. Nothing else.

Other than desperately fighting against Pinkvilla as if the site has done you some harm, you have not provided any concrete reason yet as to why Pinkvilla should be unreliable.

Being a tabloid does not automatically guarantee that it is unreliable. For many tabloids like Daily Mirror (

WP:DAILYNK

),

Morning Star and Evening Standard, there is still no consensus on whether they are reliable or not.

(BangaloreNorth (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC))

I have given more than concrete reasons, have you even read my messages here? I didn't say pinkvilla is tabloid, user Kailash said it is. And he said he believes it is not reliable. Why are you bringing previous discussion here? Those users haven't even commented here. Don't try to support a website which deletes its own content, which makes it highly unreliable, and read my reasons again here.

talk

) 12:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is not yet consensus to change Pinkvilla from its current designation as generally reliable. Perhaps that could change, but absent that, it is premature and disruptive to remove citations to Pinkvilla using this discussion as the reason. No one of us has the sole authority to declare a new consensus has been reached, especially when there is clear disagreement.

Perhaps an

RFC

will be needed ultimately to resolve the discussion, but it is important to note that RFCs and polling are not votes. An uninvolved editor would need to assess the various arguments and close the RFC with their judgement.

From:

WP:NOTVOTE

It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important.

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User BangaloreNorth is not commenting on the current issue of deletion of content by pinkvilla. Instead he is bringing past discussion which has no relevance here. He is saying things I didn't say in this discussion and always talks about the previous discussion and its participants, who haven't even commented on this current issue in this discussion here. He is trying to distract other users from the current issue. He isn't giving his opinion and saying irrelevant things. So I request all other users to comment on the current issue of pinkvilla deleting its previously published content thereby making it highly unreliable.

talk

) 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In this discussion, 5 users have commented till now. Myself and user Kailash29792 consider pinkvilla generally unreliable and agree to avoid using it for box office information. User BangaloreNorth does not support making it unreliable altogether. User Archer1234 doesn't see removals of content as a reason to designate it as unreliable. User Arjayay hasn't commented on the issue. So to reach a consensus, comments of more users are needed.

talk

) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice it. I will have a look at it. Arj D Arjun (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

yes..Pinkvilla is indeed unreliable as it shows collections from different websites that might not be authentic. Harshit Kumar (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would post some examples of this.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Harharshit. Just a bump to see if you can provide examples where Pinkvilla shows collections from different websites that might not be authentic.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not completely against Pinkvilla's usage now. Let it be used for general info, not sensitive ones, box office figures or

exceptional claims. Kailash29792 (talk)

05:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• I reviewed the editorial policy and found it satisfactory to meeting a reliability standard. This statement reflects what we might possibly be seeing with the continual updates and removals:

  We understand that it’s important for our content to evolve just the way our world and trends do. Hence, the editorial team and Pinkvilla ensures that we update our content on a regular basis to avoid having outdated information reaching our readers. We also make sure that our content is accurate and devoid of any kind of errors.

  I do wish that they required a correction statement if a page has been updated.
• I reviewed the page sources of a few box office pages to see if I could get an old copy of the pages. Unfortunately, while I could see the <meta> tag for the original publish date and time, there was no obvious way to retrieve the original copy. There were also no hidden notes on any changes between versions.
  • This brings me to a special actions needed of using archive urls in the citations to capture the pages in question. There are two possible semi-automated methods using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to capture the live status: using a specially crafted bookmark or by using a python script based on the user's comfort level. One could also do it manually by using the WayBack Machine's form page. By adding the resulting save to the archive-url parameter, the archive url can be made active with adding url-status=deviated to the citation, reflecting that the original live page changed.
• My last item of note is that it would be extremely helpful if the motion picture industry in India made these box office reports public. This is about where half my time went into today, trying to locate these reports through the guilds or trade organizations. I would say, that it might be more useful to come up with a priority list of media websites that seem to have a better presentation than Pinkvilla. I was pretty impressed by Indian Paper Ink's presentation of Adipurush's box office results. Inomyabcs (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This statement from their editorial policy states that they will update outdated content. But they're deleting content without any explanation. Updating and deleting are completely different things. They say they'll make sure their content is accurate, but my point is there is no content at all. See those 4 articles I've mentioned in my previous comments in this discussion and you'll find the main content completely deleted. So this is acting against their own editorial policy. How can pinkvilla be a reliable source if they don't even follow their own editorial policy and delete content without any explanation?

talk

) 22:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User Archer1234 says he doesn't find removal of content as reason to designate pinkvilla unreliable, and views of user Inomyabcs are such that unexplained content removal is also a kind of update. These views are dangerous to general editorial practices. It would mean anyone can delete anything from previously published content without giving any explanation. Do we consider unexplained content removal as update in Wikipedia? We don't. We revert unexplained removal of content on a daily basis here in Wikipedia. Every edit removing content must be explained even in Wikipedia. Unexplained content removal is never accepted anywhere according to general editorial practices, and pinkvilla is no exception. That is why no other publication deletes content like pinkvilla deletes. So I request these users to review your opinions. I also request other users to comment on the unexplained content removal of pinkvilla in many of its previously published articles as discussed here making it highly unreliable.

talk

) 03:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it optimal? No. With the amount of coverage regarding Indian box office figures, there are enough sources to confirm any statement Pinkvilla makes. So even if the original material disappears, there are enough secondary sources to confirm the original material. Like I described above, there are immediate steps that can be taken to preserve Pinkvilla's material. I don't think this rises to the level of needing to blacklist the site from the topic of box office numbers. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The original material doesn't disappear by itself. They delete the content. You yourself said you couldn't find any original figures of the contents deleted by them in the above mentioned 4 articles. How will anyone be able to preserve them now? And it is not editors of Wikipedia that need to preserve, it is pinkvilla who must preserve their original content. And how many users do you think would take these immediate steps? Most just see the box office numbers and give the link. What happens to those references made in Wikipedia pages now which link to those 4 pinkvilla articles where they have deleted those 40 box office numbers? Are you going to give secondary sources to those figures? And what sources can confirm "any statement" pinkvilla makes? Give examples here. And even if there are enough sources as you claim, then why trust pinkvilla which deletes its content which no other sources do? It is much better to give the links of those other sources and their box office numbers because they don't delete their content like pinkvilla does. We can always go back to the links of those sources and find the original content there as it was published. Pinkvilla is the most untrustworthy source because they are the only site who delete their content. Cinephile4ever 11:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This argument by Inomyabcs is invalid, because we are discussing the reliability of pinkvilla and not other sources. It's like saying, when we are discussing the reliability of Times of India, there are same figures given by other sites like Hindustan Times. Simply because another site has the same figures doesn't make the the site in question reliable. So the solution offered by Inomyabcs is not at all optimal. Wikipedia users can't be asked to preserve content deleted by the content providers themselves. It is common sense that if a content provider deletes their own content without any explanation and without following their own editorial policy, it makes them automatically highly unreliable, especially when no other publication deletes like this. It doesn't require much discussion. So the solution to make pinkvilla unreliable for box office figures, and use other reliable sources which don't delete their content is much more optimal and better and easier for all Wikipedia users, as agreed by 3 users of this discussion so far, including myself, user Kailash29792 and user Harshit Kumar. Cinephile4ever 12:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Invalid, huh? You know if you are going to email and canvas for responses, you better understand that others may not agree with your view point. There are thousands of dead links all across Wikipedia, it is the nature of the Internet. It doesn't mean the information wasn't reliable at one point, especially if it can be verified by others. You just illustrated the Times of India and Hindustan Times. I'll give you another example, the film RRR on the list of highest-grossing Indian films is supported by 31 citations. Three of those are from Pinkvilla and of those the first one is now dead, but the later two are still live and can verify the numbers better than the first dead one. Again, for me, in this topic, there is no pressing need to term Pinkvilla unreliable. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't email or canvas, I just requested for comments from various users who are most involved in editing Indian film related content here. Dead links are not the same as removing content originally published without any explanation. Again you are digressing. Give any example of any other publication deleting content without explanation like pinkvilla, instead of giving examples of dead links, which are not relevant to this discussion. Cinephile4ever 14:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I can see where you might think I am off-topic. Let's try this. My definition of unreliable is different than yours. In the context of how I read WP:RS, Pinkvilla's information is verifiable and while their editorial oversight could be strengthened, I could make the argument that the editors and authors do fact-check. If I interpret your stance correctly, it is that because the information is not available to you at a later date, you can't depend on it (yes, a synonym for reliability to be sure but not explicitly outlined in WP:RS). I propose the following: keep Pinkvilla as generally reliable, but with a note stating that other sources are preferable. Inomyabcs (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. 3 users in this discussion including myself, user Kailash29792 and user Harshit Kumar consider pinkvilla generally unreliable, especially for box office figures. 2 users Archer1234 and BangaloreNorth don't consider pinkvilla unreliable altogether. 1 user Inomyabcs considers pinkvilla generally reliable but other sources are preferable. Based on this discussion, the consensus can be updated that for box office figures, other sources should be preferred since pinkvilla deletes box office figures earlier reported by them. Cinephile4ever 04:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have updated to avoid pinkvilla's box office figures as per this discussion.

And one last thing to add. Here's another recent article by pinkvilla: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/2018-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-biggest-malayalam-film-of-all-time-1226013

Look at how ridiculous they are in reporting two box office figures (176 crore and 177 crore) for the same film "2018" in the same article. And when I checked the Wikipedia page for that film, some Wikipedia user had given the figure of 176 crore. Then I corrected by giving a reliable source. This is how most Wikipedia users edit content here. They don't even read the article fully. They just give the figure that is visible at the top of the article. And user Inomyabcs talked about asking Wikipedia users to preserve pinkvilla's deleted content.

Another thing I noticed is user Archer1234 had also contributed to that film's Wikipedia page, and it seems even he didn't notice this. And it was him who talked about how publishing information without editorial oversight to correct mistakes would be reason to designate pinkvilla as unreliable. And now he has got his reason. Pinkvilla publishes information without even correcting mistakes as seen in this article which makes it unreliable as per the argument of user Archer1234. Cinephile4ever 06:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's another recent pinkvilla article of the same kind: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/ponniyin-selvan-part-2-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-earns-nearly-rs-350-crores-globally-1225415

They are giving 3 figures for the same film "Ponniyin Selvan 2" in the same article: nearly 350 crore, 345 crore, 345.50 crore. And 2 figures for domestic gross: 215 crore and 215.50 crore. Cinephile4ever 09:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

How is that consensus? Based on what you just said, 3 users support making Pinkvilla unreliable and 3 do not. Why are you so desperate in declaring Pinkvilla unreliable Cinephile4ever ? Is it because you have a sockpuppet investigation going on against you and because you know that you will likely be blocked in two or three days ?

(BangaloreNorth (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

I am not a sockpuppet, I won't be blocked and you know it too. Actually 4 people say other sources are better than pinkvilla for box office and I'm sure another user will agree too after seeing the above articles. Also why don't you say anything about a user named Ab207 who declared india.com unreliable within lesser than 12 hours and not even allowed other users to give their opinions? How is that consensus? You kept on bringing that user and the previous discussion which are irrelevant here. Why don't you comment on the current issue in a relevant manner? If anybody is a sockpuppet, it should be you. You must apologise to me for knowingly making false accusations after they find out I'm not a sockpuppet. Cinephile4ever 09:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please name those 4 users. Inomyabcs was of the opinion that Pinkvilla be kept reliable. Why are you twisting the words of other people to suit your agenda? Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect? Of course you have. If not, why would you be begging other users for support on their talk pages Cinephile4ever ? Or should I say Arjun19990012 or MovieBuffIndia. Whatever. (BangaloreNorth (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

1. User Harshit Kumar considers pinkvilla generally unreliable.

2. I consider it unreliable especially for box office figures because they delete them after publishing.

3. User Kailash29792 said pinkvilla should be avoided for box office info.

4. User Inomyabcs said that other sources are preferable for box office figures than pinkvilla.

These are the 4 users.

And I'm sure user Archer1234 will agree to avoid pinkvilla for box office figures too, because they give different figures in the same article for the same film, and their editorial board does not correct mistakes as per the evidence above, which makes pinkvilla unreliable as per the user's own argument.

That leaves only you now.

I'm not twisting anybody's words. Read their comments again here. I have said exactly that they have said.

I don't have any agenda. Even if any other site had done the same things as pinkvilla, I would still be saying the same.

And you are attacking me personally, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. So stop doing it. Cinephile4ever 10:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You know what. You are not even worth my time and energy. Or anyone's for that matter.

WP:SPI will deal with you now. BangaloreNorth (talk

) 10:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have complained about your personal attack and false accusations against me to administrators who will deal with you now. Cinephile4ever 10:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ooh score BangaloreNorth (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you had to deal with that. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It is premature to declare a consensus unilaterally when there is obvious disagreement. It appears we are in

WP:POINTY. Tread carefully lest you find these behaviors reported to administrators. — Archer1234 (t·c

) 12:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah well how can one expect consensus in a "territory" of no common sense and just personal attacks. I should have known better. Sigh. Cinephile4ever 12:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Inomyabcs has made a good point and an interesting proposal. I'd like to see the exact language to be used to characterize PV with respect to BO. Absent other information being presented with respect to PV's reliability, I think the language should be clear that it not be used as the basis for wholesale removal of citations of PV for BO, especially for instances where PV is the only source. That doesn't preclude removing citations for other reasons (e.g., more up-to-date information has been reported, excessive citations (REFBOMB), etc.), just that the guidance is not to remove on this basis alone. As I said, though, I'd like to see some proposed language for the consensus before lending full support.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

How about we ask the editorial board of pinkvilla for an "interesting" language for this "interesting" proposal? Cinephile4ever 14:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF  — Archer1234 (t·c

) 15:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't updating the consensus to avoid box office figures from pinkvilla mean that other sources must be preferred for box office figures which is the interesting proposal of user Inomyabcs? I can't think of a better language. If someone can, glad. Also I can't think of an instance where pinkvilla would be the only source for box office figures of any film. Cinephile4ever 00:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. What I have been trying to get across though, is that if we declare Pinkvilla as unreliable all links have to be removed even live ones that can be verified with other sources. By asking for no new links, we can keep existing references and hopefully we can get them archived in something like the wayback machine before those are dead as well. Inomyabcs (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the existing consensus now: "Pinkvilla.com - Generally reliable for film-related content (Discussed here; avoid celebrity gossip)"

I updated the consensus by just adding the words "and box office figures" after the word gossip. I meant to keep pinkvilla generally reliable for other film related content like interviews, etc, and just to avoid it for box office figures. I felt that would mean other sources be preferred for box office figures, which is not just the proposal of user Inomyabcs, but also myself, user Kailash29792, and user Harshit Kumar. And if user Archer1234 agrees (I'm sure he will), his too.

I thought that was a consensus, and I still think it is. But I'm not going to update it again only to get it reverted again. So let user Archer1234 reply, and whenever someone feels like a consensus is reached, they can update it with a better language or the same language I used. Cinephile4ever 01:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh and btw did our beloved user BangaloreNorth decide not to spend their time and energy contributing with personal attacks and "highly relevant" comments, I just miss the laughs. (Note: this comment is just my mind voice) My mind wanders. Cinephile4ever 04:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this but have some things to deal with "in real life". It will also help me to step away and reflect on the points made when not in the heat of the debate. I intend to post something later today. Keep in mind that this is not an urgent matter and that

there is no deadline, so, patience will be helpful. In the meantime, I do encourage editors to continue the discussion with any new points that have not already been made. I think the discussion would also benefit from participation by more editors who have not already commented.  — Archer1234 (t·c

) 15:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Before you comment, check this article again: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/vikram-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-highest-grossing-tamil-film-all-time-1183986

There are 2 worldwide gross figures (432.5 crore and 430 crore) and 3 Indian gross figures (307.6 crore, 307 crore and 306.5 crore) for the same film in the same article.

Does this make pinkvilla unreliable as per your own argument that "publishing information without due diligence or without editorial oversight to correct mistakes would be reasons to designate it as unreliable" in your own words user Archer1234? Cinephile4ever 03:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I will check the article and let you know what I think.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok Cinephile4ever 16:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I also request users Inomyabcs and Kailash29792 to comment on the mistakes without editorial oversight in the aforementioned article. Cinephile4ever 02:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be a bit more helpful if we have some more examples related to editorial oversight (and also ones other than box office figures since Pinkvilla might be unreliable for other topics). 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 04:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you asked here's another example for editorial oversight, they've given 3 worldwide box office collection (350 crore, 353 crore, 353.5 crore) for the same film Adipurush in the same 19 July 2023 article: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/adipurush-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-prabhas-starrer-earns-rs-350-crores-worldwide-1230874 Cinephile4ever 03:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's another example for publishing with errors without editorial oversight, they have given 3 India gross figures (980 crore, 980.4 crore, 992 crore) and 2 worldwide gross figures (1187 crore, 1198 crore) for the same film KGF 2 in the same article: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/kgf-chapter-2-final-worldwide-box-office-collections-1144719 Cinephile4ever 06:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinkvilla could be termed as a reliable source with respect to box office figures. But, it is generally reliable only for Telugu and Hindi films. I agree that the website updates/changes few figures, but this is done mostly for the Tamil and other major industry films, where the box office tracking system is not much organized. Yeah, even for Telugu and Hindi films, figures are altered, but when compared with Tamil films this is very low. I find Tamil box office tracking system problematic, even most of the Tier-2 (medium and low budget) Telugu films have good tracking system (atleast for Andhra-Nizam and North America markets). Altering the figures for Tamil films is done on regular basis (and for Tier-2 films, there is no proper tracking system at all). Not just pinkvilla, many sites actually reports new figures every time, for better understanding go through Tamil film box-office related pages, you see there is a vast difference between the range of the figures. This is all because of no proper box office tracking system. Pinkvilla doesn't exclusively have Chennai or Hyderabad-based team to look into the box office system, exclusively. Thus, I feel they rely mostly on the 3rd party figures, which in case of Hindi/Telugu films are almost reliable but not with the case of other language films. The entire scenario is also same with the Malayalam films. They too don't have proper tracking system, which led to several vandalism edits on the related pages. Only few big-star/budgeted films getting good tracking in Tamil, Malayalam or other industries. As Cinephile4ever mostly edits Tamil film content related pages, he found the website problematic. There is nothing wrong with his point of view, but try to understand the updating/changing figures to suit reliability is nothing wrong. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So Jayanthkumar123, you're saying that pinkvilla is generally unreliable for box office figures of Tamil films, is that right? Cinephile4ever 05:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not my opinion. I have said that due to no proper tracking system, such incidents happen where the figures that are reported earlier could be updated/changed, to be reliable. Most of the websites have same issue with respect to Tamil films. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

But you said, it is generally reliable only for Telugu and Hindi films. So I thought it means it is generally unreliable for Tamil films. Also, I don't see any other website like pinkvilla deleting or changing box office figures, so give examples. And did you see the 4 articles I have mentioned in the start of the discussion. They have deleted 40 box office figures of various Hindi, Telugu and Tamil films too. So I feel they are not reliable for those films also. Cinephile4ever 05:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is they're not updating/changing to be reliable. They're deleting without any explanation to be unreliable. No other website does this, because they know they should not delete without any explanation. And they also publish with a lot of mistakes like in the article I mentioned above relating to the box office of Vikram movie. So as per the argument of user Archer1234, pinkvilla is unreliable for publishing with mistakes without editorial oversight. Read that article too, they have given 2 worldwide box office figures and 3 Indian box office figures for the same film in the same article which is laughable. It makes them highly unreliable because no other website publishes such laughable content with so many mistakes. Cinephile4ever 05:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's all be clear about this discussion. Updating/changing box office figures is done by all publications as per the latest information. That is not the issue here.

The 2 issues in this discussion are:

1. Pinkvilla deletes content without any explanation, as you can see from those 4 aforementioned articles, where they have deleted more than 40 box office figures of Indian films, including Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada films. No website deletes content without explanation like this, because they shouldn't.

2. Pinkvilla publishes information with a lot of mistakes without any editorial oversight, as you can see from the aforementioned article of Vikram movie's box office collection, wherein they have given 2 worldwide gross figures and 3 Indian gross figures for the same film in the same article. This type of ridiculous reporting is also not by any other website.

These are the issues why pinkvilla should be considered unreliable. Cinephile4ever 06:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright I'm leaving this discussion because I can't be saying the same thing 40 times to every new user commenting here. I can only hope common sense will prevail some day. Cinephile4ever 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to notify all, the recent changes at Dharmendra seems to be full of puffery supported by unreliable sources largely. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Another article that has been bloated [23]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Is there a good way to find films with three+ reliable reviews through Google Hits? Currently many Kannada films (low-key) may lack articles. DareshMohan (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Have no idea. And wish we had done this 10 years ago when sources may have existed. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to share your opinions on this AfD nomination:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 13#Suriya Filmography Telugu

(Trisha'sNemo (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC))

This company uses other websites to host its content such as Nowrunning.com, Sify.com, news18.com and indiaforums.com. Anytime the content explicity says by IANS or by an IANS writer such as R. G. Vijayasarathy, the source should be considered notable. DareshMohan (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I use |agency=Indo-Asian News Service for content sourced from IANS to state reliability of the source. Sid95Q (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Same goes with Press Trust of India and other notable news agencies Sid95Q (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth is Aditi Shankar's page so long. Is there some people running it? It is full of promotional content and lies. DareshMohan (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I suspect a non-neutral tone/COI from this IP [24]. What do you think? DareshMohan (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Better to cross check the refs and see if the content matches. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I got irked when the same IP undid my edit. Can you protect the page (forcing the IP to make an account)? DareshMohan (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ab207:@Kailash29792: Why is this draft taking so long? She played three lead roles.

1. Jathi Ratnalu
2. Like, Share & Subscribe
3. The Jengaburu Curse

DareshMohan (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps because of

WP:Bureaucracy. If the name is vacant in the mainspace, why not move it right away? Kailash29792 (talk)

06:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

See this: 1. I/maybe you do not have the access rights too. DareshMohan (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I have been removing references to

1. In 2014, User:Bollyjeff listed this site as potentially unreliable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 5#Reliable Sources and our resources.
2. In 2017, User:Cyphoidbomb asked if this site is reliable, commenting that "On their About page, they say they're reliable, so naturally I'm suspicious", and questioned if Shyam Prasad Reddy should be considered a subject matter expert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 6#123telugu.com. There were no responses.
3. In 2022, User:DaxServer asked about this site at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 8#Reliability of 123Telugu.com - 123telugu. I responded in similar vein as Cyphoidbomb, pointing out problems with their About Us Page and Disclaimer pages. There were no further responses.

I feel that this site is unreliable. None of their articles have bylines. I can't find an editorial staff list on their site. There's no evidence the site isn't run by one person. User:Kailash29792, why do you believe that it is reliable? What do other users think of the reliability of this site? --Geniac (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That it is run by Mallemala Entertainments doesn't make it RS? DareshMohan and Ab207 what do you think? Kailash29792 (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Simply put, the lack of bylines does not dismiss a source as unreliable. Some 123telugu reviews have authors listed so it is not one person for sure. DareshMohan (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What is concerning is the lack of information about editorial staff, the about-us page that's basically an ad and the disclaimer that just about says don't trust us. Ravensfire (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not see this site listed in either the reliable or unreliable sources section. Can someone advise if this site is considered reliable or not?   ArcAngel   (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

They have a Leadership Team page, so that's a good start; they're not yet another faceless scraper. The Managing Editor appears to have journalistic education and experience, including some awards in the field. The company has many offices around the country, so that's a good sign; they're not just some large-looking website that's actually just run out of somebody's apartment. Checking some of their articles, I see some presumably paid press releases, and a bunch of articles sourced from PTI. That's what I've found so far. Geniac (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments are appreciated at this move request. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: So many Tamil television series without articles were redirected here a.k.a. the Laalkuthi bot incident [25]. I made the mistake a while back of redirecting the pages to Zee Tamil when they might of been actually telecasted on another channel (Star Vijay, Sun TV). Please fix them when you have time. DareshMohan (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The page is now too vast I can't ID which ones need redirecting. You can name at least a few of them? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There have been repeated additions of unsourced speculation about future projects, plus unsourced additions of character surnames. However, an admin refuses to protect the page, saying that all the reversions are coming from me. A different set of eyes would be appreciated. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Per this – "Diegetic", in the cinema, typically refers to the internal world created by the story that the characters themselves experience and encounter. So, I'd expect the films listed under "Common diegetic world" sub-headers in List of Indian film series should have some "in-universe relation", but is not the case for many. Could someone elaborate on this? A similar question was raised here. Thanks - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

On 4 May 2022, The Indian Express reported that Beast grossed over ₹240 crore[26]. But on 6 February 2023, they said the film grossed over ₹210 crore[27]. The number in decreasing after the days are increasing. Is this source trustworthy? Should this source be included in the film'sbox office? NaanReady (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is not just the problem with Indian Express. This is being done by so many other publications listed as reliable here, including Hindustan Times, Pinkvilla, etc. I quote an explanation given by user Jayanthkumar123 on 27 June 2023: "Pinkvilla could be termed as a reliable source with respect to box office figures. But, it is generally reliable only for Telugu and Hindi films. I agree that the website updates/changes few figures, but this is done mostly for the Tamil and other major industry films, where the box office tracking system is not much organized. Yeah, even for Telugu and Hindi films, figures are altered, but when compared with Tamil films this is very low. I find Tamil box office tracking system problematic, even most of the Tier-2 (medium and low budget) Telugu films have good tracking system (atleast for Andhra-Nizam and North America markets). Altering the figures for Tamil films is done on regular basis (and for Tier-2 films, there is no proper tracking system at all). Not just pinkvilla, many sites actually reports new figures every time, for better understanding go through Tamil film box-office related pages, you see there is a vast difference between the range of the figures. This is all because of no proper box office tracking system. Pinkvilla doesn't exclusively have Chennai or Hyderabad-based team to look into the box office system, exclusively. Thus, I feel they rely mostly on the 3rd party figures, which in case of Hindi/Telugu films are almost reliable but not with the case of other language films. The entire scenario is also same with the Malayalam films. They too don't have proper tracking system, which led to several vandalism edits on the related pages. Only few big-star/budgeted films getting good tracking in Tamil, Malayalam or other industries. As Cinephile4ever mostly edits Tamil film content related pages, he found the website problematic. There is nothing wrong with his point of view, but try to understand the updating/changing figures to suit reliability is nothing wrong." Cinephile4ever 06:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is to notify about the mass changes of financial figures from "lakh/crore" to "million/billion" by this IP - [28], contravening this consensus, according to which - ..it seems that the consensus is to retain such terms in India-related articles, provided that either crore or lakh is to be linked at the first mention in the article... Have a look into this. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of yo-yoing that happens, where an article uses one formatting, someone changes, then it gets changed over and over repeatedly. Is the IP right? Probably not. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the IP is an LTA. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, leave warnings for disruptive editing and after they ignore the level 4, report to AIV for disruptive editing. As they shift to new IP's and it's obvious, try AIV again (or the original blocking admin). Annoying, yes, but just like the other LTA's in this area. Ravensfire (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me which one is a reliable website?

I never said Deccan Herald is more reliable. I said both are equally reliable. Cinephile4ever 10:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You can go ahead and add Brahmastra in the list as per Bollywood Hungama. Cinephile4ever 10:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Please check

For films such as Heartbeats and other films such as Prema Khaidi (2002) of Vijay Raghavendra can @Editor5454: and @Srivin: find sources. DareshMohan (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Literally. @Srivin: @Kailash29792: Please throw in these articles to 1990s Telugu films to save from deletion. Reviews (http://www.zaminryot.com/archives/index.html) are found on page 7 or 9. Google Translate app on phone can translate it. DareshMohan (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Just wish Veera Narayana or Ab207 can get back to frequent editing and do the same. Also pinging Reo kwon and Fostera12. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Informed comment is welcome there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Could I get some extra eyes at Vikram (2022 film) over edits to the lead? It's a typical trivial edit-war, and yes, I'm part. Yes, I'm going to get a talk page going, but some additional input would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You are the one who used INRConvert template, which should not be used as per consensus, because it inflates to 2023. I rightly used the USD template for 2022. Cinephile4ever 04:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Use the right parameters on the INRConvert template. Ravensfire (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't use the right parameters, this is a 2022 film. And even if you do, you won't get the correct result for 2022 (because historical mode for the year 2022 doesn't work), that's why there is consensus not to use INRConvert template. And that's also why I correctly used the To USD template for 2022, which is not disallowed as per consensus. Cinephile4ever 04:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Is comscore a reliable source for Indian film articles? NaanReady (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

In 2019, Box Office India said the site doesn't provide accurate gross.[29] Thanks. NaanReady (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea seriously. It seems reliable, but BOI's comments suggest otherwise. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It is reliable for Hollywood/foreign films. Seems to be unreliable for Indian films. NaanReady (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Comscore is more reliable than any Indian newspaper in tracking system. It is mostly accepted by all prominent media agencies. They have trackers, and are known as a well-reputed company. If an Indian film hits the worldwide boxoffice, they track the WW BO of that film.

> Seems to be unreliable for Indian films.

What seems to be reliable for you then? If you can't digest the facts from a

WP:OR whether you accept or deny a fact. Wormholexx (talk

) 16:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. NaanReady (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

How reliable is the site in terms of box office collection? If it's not one of

It's not a blog. It and The South First are "new" companies maybe that writer from The Times of India like M. Suganth, etc. moved to. DareshMohan (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Srivin: @Kataariveera: It is important that we create a separate task with the goal of creating missing articles for Ramesh Aravind and Jaggesh films. Due to the lack of sources, only create articles post-2000. You can check their respective articles for sources. Any film with a single review is a great starting point. DareshMohan (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I say we start with regional film task forces. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Tamil cinema task force which must improve. Copy the template from this. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If someone is able to start a page for post 2000 movies and ping me, I suppose I will be able to find sources for them. Kataariveera (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kataariveera: Sri Srinivasa Kalyana (1952). [30] [31] [32] [33]. DareshMohan (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please create a page. I am unaware how to create a new page. I have a link of Dr. Rajkumar youtube interview where he explains about his role in the movie. Kataariveera (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kataariveera: Thanks for responding. Also, btw YouTube is not a reliable source but you can add it for older films [34]. Sri Srinivasa Kalyana (1952 film). DareshMohan (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Feel free to address major article issues. I see a need to create articles for films for Krishna filmography post-2000 since some reviews/sources exist. DareshMohan (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree YT is not reliable. But this one is an interview of the lead actor. So details told by him could be used I guess. Kataariveera (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: When this film releases [35], she should be notable. DareshMohan (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That film needs an article. At least start with a draft. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

For me she is already clearly notable, and according to what guidelines say, she may be considered so, but if she stars in another film, with sources, even better. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion a few months before, about industry tracker Manobala Vijayabalan in this talk page mentioning that he is unreliable, as he is biased on reporting box office gross of certain Tamil actors' films, as everyone knows and has been discussed on talk pages of some films too here on Wikipedia. There wasn't any objection by any other user for many days regarding the discussion, so as per silent consensus, I'll update in this article that he is unreliable.

On the contrary, another industry tracker Ramesh Bala appears to be a reliable source and not biased towards any actor(s). So I suggest we include him in the list of reliable sources here, since it will be better for the gross collections of South Indian films, which seems to be his primary focus on box office reporting. I request other users to give their opinions as well. Thanks. Cinephile4ever 08:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I give an example here:

I remember Ramesh Bala tweeting that the film Vikram (2022) had grossed Rs. 432 crore after 7 weeks (49 days). He also tweeted that the film completed its theatrical run after 113 days as on 22nd September 2022. It is very close to Rs. 435 crore as reported by Bollywood Hungama as on 10th October 2022. So I find his estimate more accurate than other industry trackers. Cinephile4ever 09:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll update in the article including Ramesh Bala in the list of reliable sources and Manobala Vijayabalan as unreliable. Cinephile4ever 13:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Both of them are unreliable and biased in reporting the box office gross of certain Tamil actors' films. They are below than sachnilk. They use racist marks against certain actors. Please don't bring some whackoos who declare themselves industry trackers and are biased towards actors they like. They are nothing if they don't have a Twitter account and their trolls. Better we focus on official info of production companies as they pay tax for what they get from box office collections. Wormholexx (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This would be the most absurd thing ever to do. Both are undeniably unreliable. DoctorVivin (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

As we all know, there are a lot of publications reporting different box office collection amounts for the same film, for many Indian films. I am giving three such examples of huge differences here, out of so many films:

1. 2.0 (2018) - difference of Rs. 200 crore: Rs. 600 crore by Bollywood Hungama (https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/box-office-special-features/mani-ratnams-ponniyin-selvan-1-surpasses-vikram-tamil-nadu-emerge-highest-grossing-film-time/) and Rs. 800 crore by India Today (https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/jr-ntr-ram-charan-s-rrr-beats-rajinikanth-s-2-0-s-lifetime-collection-in-10-days-1933121-2022-04-04)

2. Brahmastra (2022) - difference of Rs. 155.80 crore: Rs. 263 crore by Deccan Herald (https://www.deccanherald.com/entertainment/10-highest-grossing-indian-movies-worldwide-in-2022-1173800.html) and Rs. 418.80 crore by Bollywood Hungama (https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office-collections/worldwide/)

3. Krrish 3 (2013) - difference of Rs. 92.376 crore: Rs. 300.994 crore by Box Office India (https://www.boxofficeindia.com/all_format_worldwide_gross.php) and Rs. 393.37 crore by Bollywood Hungama (https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/box-office-collections/worldwide/)

I really think we need a new consensus so that we can use just 1 or maximum 2 reliable sources for box office of Indian films, instead of giving ranges with such huge ridiculous differences, citing 10 or 20 different collection amounts by 10 or 20 different sources. I request other users to give their opinions too. Thanks. Cinephile4ever 14:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cinephile4ever: Bollywood Hungaama and Box Office India are considered as reliable for Hindi films. This problem is only with South Indian films. NaanReady (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but even between these 2 sources as in the case of the Hindi film Krrish 3, there is a huge difference of nearly Rs. 100 crore. So, how do we determine which one could be more reliable? Cinephile4ever 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It may be due to "The site does not include collections from dubbed Telugu, Tamil or Kannada versions of Bollywood films." Krrish 3 was also released in Tamil and Telugu versions. NaanReady (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the site Box Office India does not include collections from dubbed versions of Bollywood films, then why would they report a higher box office Rs. 2,023.81 crore for the Bollywood film Dangal than Bollywood Hungama's Rs. 1,968.03 crore (difference is Rs. 55.78 crore). I think both the sites include all collections including from dubbed versions, and yet report different worldwide gross. So it's really hard to say which one could be more accurate and reliable. Cinephile4ever 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

See this. BOI said it. NaanReady (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I read that. Now here is another criteria. We all know sacnilk is considered an unreliable source, so it naturally follows that other sources using sacnilk box office are also unreliable, as per

WP:FRUIT. So, we can eliminate many sources based on this criteria, and narrow down to only a very few reliable sources which do not use sacnilk. Cinephile4ever

01:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Box Office India has started adding collections from all formats including dubbed and subtitled versions, from all releases worldwide including Russia and East etc., for all films in their site from November 2018 onwards: https://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=4396 Cinephile4ever 05:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the criteria to determine whether a source is reliable for box office could be to see if they change the collection amounts often. Like for example as you said in the case of the film "Beast", the same source Indian Express reported 2 different gross, Rs. 210 crore and Rs. 240 crore. I have seen many such instances of different amounts by the same source for the same film, like Hindustan Times, Pinkvilla, etc. So if we use this criteria to eliminate such sources reporting different amounts for the same film, we can narrow down to a very few reliable sources which don't change the box office gross for the same film again and again. Cinephile4ever 16:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah! That's good. I think regional sites' sources also can be taken as reliable. Thanks. NaanReady (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As per

WP:FRUIT, if the information found on a reliable source traces back to, is attributed to, or re-printed blindly from an unreliable source (in our case, sacnilk), without passing through the reliable source's fact-checking and editorial processes, then that information is likewise unreliable. Hence it is said in the essay to consider avoiding sources that trace back to unreliable sources. So, we should avoid many sources like Hindustan Times, Business Standard, etc., which blindly use the unreliable source sacnilk. We should only consider sources which never use sacnilk data in their box office reports. Cinephile4ever

01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Then The Times of India, Asianet News, etc. can be taken as reliable sources. NaanReady (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

No, even these 2 sources have used sacnilk data before:

https://timesofindia.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/box-office/jawan-box-office-collection-day-4-shah-rukh-khan-starrer-mints-81-crore-inches-closer-to-the-300-crore-club/articleshow/103569354.cms

https://newsable.asianetnews.com/entertainment/jawan-box-office-day-1-early-estimate-shah-rukh-khan-nayanthara-s-film-all-set-to-create-history-rba-s0lmil

To my knowledge, only a very few sources don't use sacnilk data, like Bollywood Hungama, Box Office India. We have to narrow down to such really more reliable sources. If you find any of these sources using sacnilk data for some films too, you can give example articles, so that we can eliminate them too. Cinephile4ever 03:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I will update the consensus to not use the sources which use sacnilk data in their reports, and also to not use the sources which change the box office gross already reported by them. I have seen a lot of sources reporting box office of Indian films in my editing experience of many films on Wikipedia here, and to my knowledge, only Box Office India, Bollywood Hungama fit this criteria. These sources don't change the box office gross already reported by them without any explanation, and they don't use data from sacnilk or any other unreliable sources. If other users are aware of any other source which fits this criteria, please let us know here in this discussion. For now, I will update the consensus to only use the box office worldwide gross reported by any of these 2 above-mentioned sources in the films' infoboxes and highest-grossing films lists based on worldwide gross, and if any of these 2 sources have not reported box office worldwide gross for any film(s), then any of the other reliable sources listed in this article can be used for such film(s). Cinephile4ever 03:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Here are more examples of other sources listed as generally reliable in this article which have used data from the unreliable source sacnilk:

Business Standard: https://www.business-standard.com/entertainment/srk-s-jawan-enters-us-top-5-in-box-office-after-grossing-over-12-1-million-123092000569_1.html

Business Today: https://www.businesstoday.in/trending/box-office/story/jawan-box-office-collection-day-21-shah-rukh-khans-latest-film-to-cross-rs-575-crore-in-india-today-399830-2023-09-27

CNN-IBN (News18): https://www.news18.com/movies/jawan-box-office-day-1-shah-rukh-khan-atlee-film-earns-rs-75-crore-beats-pathaan-8568423.html

Daily News and Analysis: https://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/report-jawan-box-office-collection-shah-rukh-khan-s-actioner-shows-huge-jump-on-2nd-saturday-crosses-rs-800-crore-3060920

Film Companion: https://www.filmcompanion.in/features/bollywood-features/jawan-box-office-collection-srks-movie-makes-indian-cinema-history

Firstpost: https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/jawan-shah-rukh-khan-opens-up-on-co-star-nayantharas-less-screen-time-in-the-film-says-i-also-felt-13159402.html

Hindustan Times: https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/jawan-box-office-collection-day-16-shah-rukh-khan-atlee-nayanthara-vijay-sethupathi-101695437361325.html

India Today: https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/shah-rukh-khans-jawan-beats-pathaans-advance-booking-record-details-2429984-2023-09-02

Indiatimes: https://www.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/jawan-box-office-collection-day-wise-total-615466.html

Mint: https://www.livemint.com/industry/media/jawan-box-office-collection-day-21-shah-rukh-khan-s-movie-keeps-minting-money-11695800082924.html

NDTV: https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/jawan-is-only-made-for-shah-rukh-khan-atlee-4397416

Economic Times: https://economictimes.com/magazines/panache/jawan-continues-box-office-winning-streak-with-rs-81-cr-day-4-collection-shah-rukh-khan-starrer-is-now-the-highest-single-day-hindi-grosser-of-all-time/articleshow/103565849.cms

Financial Express: https://hindi.financialexpress.com/india-news/jawan-box-office-collection-day-18-shah-rukh-khan-film-crosses-rs-1000-cr-worldwide-actor-books-a-double-record/3075086/

Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/jawan-box-office-collection-day-17-shah-rukh-khan-blockbuster-breaks-pathaan-record-biggest-hindi-movie-ever-8953498/

The Telegraph (India): https://www.telegraphindia.com/entertainment/shah-rukh-khans-jawan-expected-to-breach-600-crore-milestone-at-domestic-box-office-soon/cid/1969264

Zee News: https://zeenews.india.com/bollywood/jawan-box-office-collection-day-3-shah-rukh-khans-action-thriller-registers-highest-single-day-collection-2660484.html Cinephile4ever 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed is, both Bollywood Hungama and Box Office India have given increased box office estimates for some films in their later reports, but don't decrease the estimates like other unreliable sources. So in these cases, it will be better to give the increased estimate in their later reports as in these examples:

1. Bollywood Hungama - Vikram (2022):

Rs. 420 crore in the report dated 2nd July 2022: https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/box-office-special-features/vikram-lifetime-box-office-kamal-haasan-starrer-ends-theatrical-run-rs-420-crores-worldwide-gross/

Rs. 435 crore in the report dated 10th October 2022: https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/box-office-special-features/mani-ratnams-ponniyin-selvan-1-surpasses-vikram-tamil-nadu-emerge-highest-grossing-film-time/

Now we all know that the final box office collection for any Indian film in general can be determined after at least 5 to 6 weeks (35 to 42 days) of theatrical run. So in this case too, the first report dated 2nd July 2022 gives only the collection after 29 days, hence cannot be said to be the final box office (the film Vikram was released on 3rd June 2022). So we should consider the second report dated 10th October 2022, reporting an increased collection.

2. Box Office India - 2.0 (2018):

Rs. 655.81 crore in the report dated 14th February 2019: https://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=4721

Rs. 699.89 crore in their top grossers all formats worldwide report: https://www.boxofficeindia.com/all_format_worldwide_gross.php

This increased estimate could be considered as it may be due to the addition of collection from China or Japan release or dubbed versions. Cinephile4ever 06:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

In cases where there is difference between the gross collection reported by these 2 sources (Bollywood Hungama, Box Office India), it will be better to give such ranges in the infoboxes and list type articles too. In the box office section of the film's page however, we can always give detailed explanations of the different estimates by other generally reliable sources listed

here in this article. Cinephile4ever

06:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've opened a new topic discussion here regarding the reliability of DNA India - Daily News and Analysis from Zee Media Corporation DoctorVivin (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

In the past and present I have been adding cinema express(https://www.cinemaexpress.com/) links as references, but I see they are not mentioned in the reliable or not reliable sources list. So can we have a discussion on which list they fall under. So that in future I can be surer before putting them as reference. Aadirulez8 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

All admins, editors responsible for Indian Film pages please update the outdated box office numbers of

Here's the Pinkvilla source:

[36]https://www.pinkvilla.com/movie/salaar/box-office VarunKumar35 (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to open this talk discussion regarding the reliability of

Additional info: DNA also used info from sacnilk as seen here: https://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/report-jawan-box-office-collection-shah-rukh-khan-s-actioner-shows-huge-jump-on-2nd-saturday-crosses-rs-800-crore-3060920 DoctorVivin (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is going on in this page down below regarding ICTFSOURCES. You can comment it all there. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

While going through the articles of pre-2000

There appear to be a multitude of pages where the same nonsense has repeatedly been inserted, is there a way to fix this enmass (through a bot or the like), as the articles remain the socks egreiousness is all too apparent to the readers. Gotitbro (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like this

WP:OVERLINK of only her, and it's either a superfan or (more likely) a PR firm. The bolding theoretically is removable by bot, she should only be bolded on her article. Ravensfire (talk

) 05:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@

Ravensfire: Yes, please see if you can get to run a bot operation for that. That a sock network is able to so egregiously promote his POV does not look good. Gotitbro (talk

) 02:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Donaldd23: @Kailash29792: How reliable are Indiaglitz reviews? Why are Filmibeat deemed unreliable, their reviews are written by critics right? DareshMohan (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I think they are not RS, but they are still used in early 2000s articles due to scarcity of reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. The article is horribly lacking sources. Please update 🙏 I will not have the time to do the research, but pertaining to

Paresh Mokashi has been nominated for a 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. — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Task Force,

This might be an exercise in futility but over the years I've come across new editors who add themselves to Cast lists of films. It seems to happen more with films from India maybe because that is the center for so much movie creation. They aren't red links, which would be easy to spot, they are unlinked names.

So, if you are working on film articles, it would be great if you could check the official cast list and remove any names of individuals who do not appear on those lists. Given the fact that there are thousands of films and film articles, it would be a drop in the bucket but if you could be aware of this subtle vandalism, maybe it can be addressed one film at a time. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Liz isn't there a bot or edit filter that detects links in mainspace articles to draftspace? Could not that approach be used to identify mainspace articles with links to userspace? AfDs or special notices might need to be accounted for but seems like that might be helpful.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 03:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't answer that, the Bot Group probably could. I'll go and ask. But that's not the request I have, what I'm talking about is if I, Liz, was writing a promotional article about "John Tell" and then I added him to the cast lists of a lot of movies where he was an extra or was uncredited or maybe wasn't in at all! In my editing, I've noticed that many Indian films have large ensembles and many of the actors do not have articles written about them so it would be easy to do this kind of vandalism without anyone noticing. So, if editors are working on any film articles, maybe editors here could confirm the cast lists with a reliable source. Thanks for the response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTDATABASE and COATRACK even, doesn't seem to resonate with so many, primarily anonymous (IP), editors who want to add as much trivia as they can without any sourcing.  — Archer1234 (t·c

) 06:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Contribute to the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 03:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It is always annoying to find sources for so many released films without articles. I listed them at User:DareshMohan/sandbox#Need_articles. Anybody willing to help? @Kailash29792: don't know if creating stubs is worthwhile and making decent articles take time. DareshMohan (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating stubs with at least two reliable reviews will prevent them from being prodded or AfD'd. My current focus, even though I don't have all the time for it, is on properly formatting the refs for pre-2010 South Indian films. I also believe creating separate task forces for each South Indian film industry solves a mountain of other problems. This could serve as a good template. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Is TamilMDB (tamilmdb.com) reliable? It is linked 50 times, especially from

The site doesn't look perfect I agree, but it is more of a database than film news website. Maybe it's best used for info like release dates. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Recently I removed now dead website ibosnetwork.com from some articles and it is used as a source on various other articles. Was it considered reliable a source when it was active? This was their about us page Sid95Q (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)