WikiProject Film
General information () Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

Film: Indian Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

	India Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Dear Indian cinema experts: Can someone from this project give some advice to the creator or this submission? I have tried. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indian cinema task force, I saw this talk. The way he written article may be not accepted by Wiki guidelines in the Project Film. But to write article on the title "Kuladeivam Rajagopal", please review the references below :

• Blast from the past: Kula Deivam 1956, The Hindu, Cinema Plus, December 4, 2010 19:57 IST .
• MGR Remembered, Part 1, Ilankai Tamil Sangam, Sachi Sri Kantha, December 12, 2012
• RANGOON RADHA Story

Isn't enough to start a article on this title? --Inbamkumar86 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to create the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these references (thanks Inbamkumar86!) and a few more to a new version of the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kuladheivam Rajagopal, contributions there would be great. Anne or others, maybe you could take a look? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Box-office India.com has changed their site appearance and format introducing and implementing a new system of subscription. This subscription system uses monthly or yearly payment of $9.90 or $79.90 respectively. Only members with subscriptions are allowed to view details. Previous articles like this one are dead, that is just out of millions. There is a web-cache present though. However articles can be accessed through the home. New consensus has to take place and immediately. Soham 17:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like if you cannot find a cache version, then you have to search their site for the data again, or find it somewhere else. I could get into the main page, but the search doesn't seem to work yet. Maybe it will get better after some time. What a pain!! BollyJeff | talk 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if their search function works they will not provide the articles for free, man its a business! Soham 04:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. SRK's fans will figure out how to get the numbers out even without subscription. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No doubt they will . What about others? As a matter of fact BOI produces actual figures while SRK fans are always on the lookout for exaggerated figures, in absence of BOI they'll run amock! Soham 05:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, help needed! Let's start fixing the Box Office India links by either replacing them, or easier in the short term, by adding archived versions. You can use the Checklinks tool here: [1]. The documentation is at Wikipedia:CHECKLINKS. When you run the tool, most of the BOI links will come up red. You then open up the plus sign, and click on 'Wayback Machine' and search for a working version by opening them in a new window. When you find a good one, copy the URL, click on 'Replace link', paste it in and click okay. When you have found all you can, click 'Save changes' at the top of the page. If we have a few volunteers, we can at least knock out all of our FAs and GAs listed at WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Notable articles. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 20:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes GA or Fa's should be attended first. So when is the starting time? Soham 04:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, its not an official thing; just do what you can when you can. BollyJeff | talk 13:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Soham 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the FAs are done now except a couple links on Preity Zinta, Lage Raho Munna Bhai and Kahaani. BollyJeff | talk 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that often times India Today links show up as dead when they are really not. Try not to tag them unless they are really dead. BollyJeff | talk 17:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, a word of advice I saw some TOI links dead surprisingly, if you find some replacement use it. For the 2 TOI links I found one was at wayback with the other one not even being in WebCite so best of luck for TOI's archives. Soham 15:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes you can find replacements with the search tool of the site in question, or just search Google for the article's original title. BollyJeff | talk 16:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, where are we supposed to get box office information for new films? BOI was our #1 source, and now it's essentially gone. BollyJeff | talk 16:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently added hundreds of Stub-Class articles to this project, because they were previously missing stub tags and/or project banners on their talk pages. However, I've also noticed that there are a large number of articles about Indian people that are tagged with the parameter |cinema=yes. Per WP:FILM, the Film project does not include actors, directors and filmmakers. Those people are covered by adding the parameter |filmbio-work-group=yes to the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner instead. This applies to all of the film task forces as well, and of the other task forces using the parameters |cinema=yes or |film=yes, none of them include articles about people. Therefore I just wanted to let this project know, that I plan to remove this parameter from all of the biography articles, so that the film categories will only contain articles about films. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to understand all of this stuff, but did you see the statement under 'Tagging and assessment' at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force? This this correct or not? Also under 'Tasks' at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film it says to add "|cinema=yes to the project banner for film-related articles in ...WikiProject India", which includes this taskforce / work group. I am very confused. BollyJeff | talk 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the assessment page for this task force states: "Indian cinema may include domestic films, films made by Indian filmmakers abroad, films produced or co-produced by Indian companies, and foreign films shooting in India". Those are all articles about films, and should include the |cinema=yes and |Indian=yes parameters. However, the assessment page says nothing about including Indian actors, directors and filmmakers, because those articles should NOT have the {{WikiProject Film}} banner on their talk pages, and consequently should not have the |cinema=yes parameter on the {{WikiProject India}} banner. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be sure that our group covers both films and actors. Is there anything else that we need to do? Do we need to add our banner/tag under bios or film bios? Thanks. BollyJeff | talk 16:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to make sure that this task force covers film actors, without including them as part of the film project, would be to have a new parameter added to the {{WikiProject India}} banner or {{WikiProject Biography}} banner, which directs those articles to this task force. Otherwise, those biography articles will not be included once the |cinema=yes parameter is removed. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see our banner at {{WikiProject India}}. Will that be good enough? I cannot edit that template. BollyJeff | talk 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link on the {{WikiProject India}} banner for this task force is tied into the |cinema=yes parameter. I understand that the template is locked, but any editor can submit an edit request. What you need, is a new parameter (such as |filmbio=yes for example), which would take the place of |cinema=yes on the {{WikiProject India}} banner for any articles about people. If such a parameter is created, please let me know, and I will be glad to help make sure that all the biography articles are properly tagged! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is beyond my pay grade. Is there anyone out there in the group that understands this? It looks like we are going to loose visibility on filmmakers if we don't do something. BollyJeff | talk 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a shot tomorrow. Soham 17:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Soham. Any possibility of action on this? BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The next day never came, let me first untangle it. —Soham 13:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Nope, this is beyond my pay grade too. —Soham 13:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand what the problem is. And i have done quite a lot of article assessments. Can the problem be simplified and re-presented? The current status is that template on WikiProject India has a |cinema=yes parameter. This adds the talk page in Category:WikiProject Indian cinema articles and other subsidiaries. This has nothing to do with WikiProject Film and it's banner. The "Indian cinema task force" is practically more a subset of "WikiProject India" than "WikiProject Film". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Fortdj33, i noticed that you have been using AWB to remove |cinema=yes from talk pages of Indian biographies that are connected with cinema. Did you get consensus for it at some different venue? I see nothing of that sort settled and finalized over here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for removing the |cinema=yes parameter are explained above. I understand that you feel this task force is more important to {{WikiProject India}} than {{WikiProject Film}}, but the fact remains that this is a film task force, and is subject to the same criteria as all other film task forces. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever reason you have is just suitable for theories. Article in purview of this task force have never been of interest to global Film taskforce. And thats not just with article editing. We don't see any crowd of non-Indian editors in AfDs or FACs or RMs. The only interference, and it truly is interference, comes when such standard codes are to be applied. We simply want to have a list of all articles which are biographies and which are related to Indian cinema. Now because of your AWBing we can't have it. And this has nothing to do with article page but has to do with article's talk page. Its a maintenance category which is, let me guess, probably meant for maintenance. Now how on earth is that possible without it having been transcluded in a category? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any frustration, but the truth is that the majority of articles about Indian actors and filmmakers do not have the |cinema=yes parameter, because it should only be used on articles about films. There are thousands of biographical articles that AWB simply skipped over, because they did not need to be updated. I am only removing that parameter from the handful of articles where the parameter was incorrectly added. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something that was not done many times is no reason to not do now. Nor is it a reason to call it wrong. I don't know how AWB is "skipping" articles but i can see many biographies still under INCINE. According to you, are you done with all removals by now? Whatever..... it still doesnt solve the problem on how do we get all the articles that are biographies and are concerned with Indian cinema?? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have nominated Gulzar for front page ITN section and on Wikipedia: ITN/C people supported it but there are urgent need of improvements to make it appear on front page. Issues are discussed on Wikipedia: ITN/C#April 12, please help. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thalapathy (2013 film), a redirect to Thalapathy (2013 film), has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 20#Thalapathy (2013 film). It was created as a duplicate article and is the name of a song from the film it now targets, which together with a couple of other things makes me suspect that there might be some plausibility. Input from people knowledgeable about Indian cinema would be especially welcome at the discussion. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello task force! Anybody have any ideas on where to find a reliable source for box office gross totals for Drishyam? There is an ongoing dispute about the gross, and we're having difficulty finding reliable sources. The ones that have been repeatedly submitted seem sketchy to some users. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please get some comments on this: Talk:Shahrukh_Khan#Proposed_move? I am almost ready to take this article to GA, but the title has to be settled first. BollyJeff | talk 01:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does usage of {{Bollywoodhungama}} template in external links section of a film is a violation of external links policy. A user had removed the template from the articles My Name is Khan and Kick (2014 film).--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to please get some input from this community on the issue of various films adding content like, "This was the first film in 1999 to achieve Blockbuster verdict" and similar statements. Here are some examples where I have seen it occur:

The film was an 'All Time Earner' got highest verdict...Equivalent to All Time Blockbuster Today

The film attained the Blockbuster verdict.

Gunga Jumna grossed around INR70,000,000 with nett gross of INR35,000,000, thus becomes the Highest grossing film of 1961 with verdict blockbuster.

Daur collected around INR 5,40,00,000 thus becoming the second highest grossing film of 1957 behind the critically acclaimed Mother India with the verdict blockbuster.

(A table of verdicts, including "Super-Hit", "Semi-Hit", etc.)

I don't think that merely being sourced is enough of a reason for this content to be included. This strikes me as WP:UNDUE, because presumably it's one entity making these verdicts, (Box Office India?) which means that an "undue weight" is being given to their assessment over the assessments of others. For example, in Western film, we don't state as fact "Showgirls attained the rotten verdict" merely because one site called it rotten. Especially problematic, is that this content is typically stated as though it were a fact, as opposed to being presented as a subjective evaluation attributed to a specific source, presented with the appropriate context, like in a Critical Response section with various other balanced reviews.

Proposal: Remove from Bollywood articles unduly weighted "verdicts" that attempt to state as fact any such subjective determination as to the film's success or failure until the content can be presented in a way that covers various interpretations and presents a neutral point of view.

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I propose that we don't simply state that the film was a "blockbuster", "super hit" etc. We say, something like "the film was declared a blockbuster by the film trade website Box Office India". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into the phrases "went on floors" and "go on floors" a few times. The only places I find those phrases in Wikipedia or through Google is in the context of Indian cinema. I do not know what the phrases mean and I suspect that most non-Indian users don't know either. What does it mean? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 04:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of films, "went on floors" and "go on floors" refers to the beginning of pre-production. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too have never heard of this expression. Can we agree that this idiom may not be universally understood, and is perhaps not consistent with proper encyclopedic tone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was rude. Cyphoidbomb I agree that these phrases aren't encyclopedic, and we should avoid using them. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"went on floors" 2,12,000 results, "go on floors" 23,20,000 results. (Concise is not rude. & WP:NPA.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this discussion was that "most non-Indian users" aren't familiar with the phrases. And yes, if you had previously posted a reasoning for your "no", then it wouldn't have been rude. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Google hits I get for these phrases are fewer than what Dharmadhyaksha is reporting, and I don't know how many of the "go on floors" hits are referring to floor wax. But regardless of popularity, there is the more important aspect of suitability of tone and universal comprehension which was not addressed by the concise user. The word "doesn't" has 448,000,000 Google hits, but we typically avoid contractions in encyclopedic writing, for example. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "started production" is more universally understood by English speakers around the world than is "on floors", and should be the preferred usage. BollyJeff | talk 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have something like Template:Indian English. We can add that template on all Indian film related articles. That should probably solve the problem of sudden trauma the readers might face by reading about floors. We dedicatedly preserve American and British forms of English but devotedly also try to curb other forms. What's so wrong if some readers don't understand what the term means? They can look it up somewhere. Maybe we can create a redirect of these terms to Filmmaking. Am sure a vast majority of the Indian readers, which is not a small negligible count, today won't understand the Latin term "a priori" used in today's FA blurb. And the case is not such that the phrase is spilling out onto other article. Its common to use it in Indian English media (demonstrated by Google hits) and so it is used likewise in India related articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing the use of a template that attempts to explain minor writing variations, such as "colour, realise, analyse" from (perhaps America's) "color, realize, analyze". The fact that Indian articles use completely different slang is of no importance to us, because we shouldn't be using slang in articles anyway. I think this is the third time I've expressed this idea. Articles must be accessible universally, so terminology must be universally understood. For example, we do our best at WikiProject Television to avoid usage of the seasons "Summer, Spring, Winter, Fall/Autumn" when announcing new TV series, because, per WP:SEASON Summer in the Southern Hemisphere occurs at a different time from Summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Yeah, we could create a template to explain the disparity, or we could change the usage to something more encyclopedic, and to something more internationally friendly, like by using "July 2014" or "third quarter 2014" instead of "Summer 2014". Likewise, with "go on floors" we could change that to a more encyclopedic statement that is more universally understood and doesn't require additional research, like "began production". I respectfully propose that your option is not a rational solution, as proper encyclopedic English should be the default, be it USA-flavored, UK-flavored, or India-flavored, but I think also that you must first demonstrate that "go on floors" is proper encyclopedic Indian-English. I believe you are at a major disadvantage in this regard, especially with the glaring lack of reliable sources for Indian Cinema.

As for your example with a priori, that is a Latin term, as you likely know, and Latin is universally understood as a root language of all the world's Romance languages from Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese etc, which also heavily influenced English, and is commonly used presently in Medicine and in Law, so its use is not quite as trivial as your argument for the slang usage of "go on floors". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've gone through all the "List of Bollywood films of YYYY" articles and removed from the summary tables at the top any mention of "Verdict" or "Blockbuster/Super-Hit/Hit/etc". I have no idea why people keep adding this promotional tripe as if they were facts, but I strongly believe the addition of this nonsense gives undue weight to the opinion of one entity, since it is probably one entity that arrives at these unencylopedic, subjective verdicts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." I believe that the verdicts of Box Office India, if used as a source in Indian Cinema articles, should be allowed because they are considered a prominent source in the field. It is hardly accurate to say that their views are in the minority. Do you think that that they are incorrect to say that some highest-grossing film was a blockbuster and that this goes against the general view of the public majority? Now, if they said that the lowest-grossing film was a blockbuster, that would be a minority view. BollyJeff | talk 15:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bollyjeff, one source does not a majority make, but I understand your point. If we disagree about whether or not WP:UNDUE is the correct governing policy, I hope we can at least agree that these are POV statements. These assertions are almost always presented as facts rather than as opinions, are virtually never attributed to the one source (BOI?) that makes these claims, and are usually prominently placed as if BOI's voice were the only voice. This, to me, is not inconsistent with WP:UNDUE. As a parallel in the world of Western film, we would never say "Brad Pitt's 2014 movie Fury was fresh!" simply because Rotten Tomatoes dubbed it so, and I doubt we would ever include a "Verdict: Fresh/Rotten" column in any well-patrolled article. WikiProject Film is even opposed to summary statements like "The movie received generally positive reviews". So "verdict" is unencyclopedic, inconsistent with WikiProject expectations, it's not attributed to a specific voice, and it serves to elevate the film using inappropriate promotional language. Why would we ever, in a summary column, include the opinion of only one source as the de facto conclusion of a film's success/failure? Further, there are major trust issues with any source that reports box office totals, what with rampant corruption and dubious inflations/deflations of grosses. Less than a year ago, Times of India stopped reporting box office totals for this reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exactly see that consensuses are discouraged in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response. In fact, it says "...using best judgment to determine consensus." Anyway, I understand your concern, but apparently these "verdicts" are much more important to the Indian readers than for Hollywood films. That is why you keep seeing them added. They appear in some FAs as well, so it can't be that bad. I agree removing them when unsourced, but its gong to be a tough job keeping them out, and I think that they can be useful when properly sourced and used in moderation. BollyJeff | talk 18:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]