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

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 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]

I think it'll only be a tough job keeping them out if a standard isn't maintained, and if regular editors allow them to remain. As for WT:FILM, most of the discussions about summaries are in the WikiProject archives, for example here and here. Indian readers may find value to the verdicts, but we shouldn't lower standards to cater to their unencylopedic interests. As you know, we are not here to promote films, we are not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are not a replacement for IMDb, but we are here to present objective, neutral content that can be properly sourced, and that has some academic merit. "Verdict: Blockbuster" has no academic merit that I can discern. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If several newspaper/reliable sources call the film "hit" or "superhit", do you think it will be ok to use that?

The reason why the website Box Office India is used (as opposed to any of the other websites) is that during a past discussion (I forgot which one, probably one FAC of an Indian film article), someone asked the validity/reliability of such film trade websites. We were able to show that Box office India has been used as a source in scholarly publications several times. So, we decided to stick to Box Office India.

Also, if a film became hit or super-hit (or unpopular or flop), that is an encyclopedic information about the film. Indeed one of the main reasons producers make films is to make money, so I believe it is not only appropriate, but useful to have the trade info. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain with objective rationale what "hit" means? What about "super-hit"? "Blockbuster"? Flop? At least fluffy, promotional statements like "100 crore club" can be quantified and verified (sometimes, if you believe the source). But "hit" is subjective, and all those other shades of subjective language aren't any more helpful. There are major problems with the way Bollywood film articles are written, and many of those problems come from the fact that there are so few reliable sources. I'm a little confused why this isn't more serious to the Indian cinema task force, and why the task force doesn't seem too interested to bring Bollywood articles up to the level of Western film articles. It seems to me that many of these film articles are simply extensions of the poorly written blogs upon which most of the information is based. These are still films, and they are still subject to MOS:FILM. If it is the aim to write encyclopedic articles about these films, then I think we need to cut the promotional language and start writing articles properly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct that there is no definition of hit, superhit, flop etc. These are totally subjective terms. The best solution would have been numerical figures of the film's production cost and revenue earned. Unfortunately, there is hardly any transparent data available on Indian films in these regards (cost and earning).

Since there is lack of objective data, many such films are described as hit, flop etc, sourced to reliable sources (such as newspapers), including the website Box Office India (which, I admit, is a rather arbitrary choice, but backed by the rationale that this website has been used in scholarly publications).

I just read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Box_office. It mentions, " Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why, but editors should avoid drawing their own conclusions about the success or failure of the film." We lack objective sources in Indian films. In that case, isn't it ok to depend on subjective sources (well-circulated newspapers, magazine etc)? If not, I am unable to think about an alternative way (a weak alternative could be the length of theatrical run n first release; again, difficult to get transparent data for Indian films, especially older ones). If we do not mention any such things, the important aspect of the film's popularity/business will be missed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the lack of clear data from problematic sources necessitates, or even allows for, the use of subjective content as an alternative. If data can't reliably be attributed it should be omitted, not replaced with weak subjective content. If the reliable source doesn't explain the meaning of its verdicts, how can anyone determine the academic utility of the verdicts? At best, such subjective content could be included in a film's Reception section as we would do with any reliable reviewer, but we would preface such statements with "Box Office India declared XYZ film as a 'Blockbuster' based on profits of $10,000,000 against a budget of $1,000,000." But as you note, if the data isn't available to explain the review to readers, what good is it? And surely one source's opinion shouldn't be presented in the lead as a fact the way I see it so often. Since Wikipedia is increasingly becoming a venue for companies and ventures to try to promote their products and projects, I think we really need to take a hard look at the flimsy content we allow in articles, especially in the Wild West of Bollywood cinema, where reliable sources are scant, yet so many fly-by-night editors are intent to promote, promote, promote, or cut down the competition. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not aware of any other articles covering national cinema labelling films as "blockbsuters", "hits", flops etc. The problem here is that the labels are being treated as factual data where this doesn't seem to be the case. For example, the criteria for Crystal Films, Golden Films, Platinum Films and Diamond Film are objective and define an actual standard, but this isn't true of the Indian labels. I think it would be acceptable to include these judgments as part of box-office analysis where they can be attributed accordingly, but I agree with removing them from tables which include hard factual data. Betty Logan (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am okay with that assessment. BollyJeff | talk 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree. Those epithets can be removed from tables. In reception/box office section of individual films (and perhaps in the articles of actors etc), those terms can be used with proper attribution.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all have seen lengthy discussions happening about whether a particular source is reliable or not. If we have a proper resources section on our Project page then there will be no need of these discussions which consume so much time.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we can include

• The Times of India by The Times Group
• Daily News and Analysis by Diligent Media Corporation
• The Indian Express by Indian Express Group
• The Telegraph (Calcutta) by ABP Group
• Hindustan Times by HT Media
• Mint (newspaper) by HT Media
• The Hindu by The Hindu Group
• The Hindu Business Line by The Hindu Group
• Mumbai Mirror by The Times Group
• Outlook (magazine) by Outlook Publishing India
• India Today by Living Media
• Indiatimes by The Times Group
• Rediff.com
• Sify
• Bollywood Hungama by Hungama Digital Media Entertainment
• Box Office India
• CNN-IBN's IBN Live
• NDTV
• Zee News owned by Essel Group

--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's a good list. Remember though, as noted above, verdicts from BOI must be attributed, and not used liberally or taken as fact. BollyJeff | talk 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more:

• International Business Times by IBT Media <--- Maybe not, its it downloading trojans
• The Economic Times by The Times Group
• The Express Tribune by Lakson Group
• Mid Day
• Business Today (business magazine) by Living Media
• Business Standard
• Filmfare
• Screen (magazine)

-- If these are all approved, we should add them somewhere on the project's home page. BollyJeff | talk 00:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good. I can add some more:

• The Tribune
• The Statesman
• Deccan Chronicle
• All publications by Magna Publications
• Deccan Herald
• The Financial Express

I agree, it will be good to have a consolidated list of these names on the project main page. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film has a unique Resources page at WP:FILM/R where this info is kept. Not saying that your idea isn't a good one, just pointing out an existing, comparable resource. Since you are all more familiar with these sources than I am, it would be very helpful if task force members might try to guide other users as to which resources are best for what type of information. For example, at WP:TVFAQ there is an attempt to list sources that might be decent for TV viewership information. One thing that is very problematic with Bollywood articles is the box office gross reliability, and as I have pointed out a few times (courtesy of TRPoD) Times of India stopped reporting box office totals because of rampant corruption. So a spotlight kind of needs to be shone on these "reliable sources" and discussion should occur to determine whether they are, in fact, reliable, instead of just unilaterally saying that they are reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we are discussing about reliable sources, I want to ask whether Koimoi and Oneindia.in are reliable or not?--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot remember exactly why, but in the past the answer has been "no" on these two. BollyJeff | talk 10:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some potentials for the un-reliable category:

• Koimoi
• Oneindia.in
• IndiaGlitz
• Andhra Cafe
• IdleBrain.com
• Andhrakaburlu.com
• Upperstall.com
• Cinegoer.com
• Kollytalk.com
• *.allindiansite.com
• Nowrunning.com
• Indiglamour.com
• Radio Sargam
• KeralaDaily
• Behinwoods.com
• Any kind of "blog" in most cases. BollyJeff | talk 01:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi is being heavily used at PK (film), which is a pretty high profile film right now. Although many of the Koimoi references have been replaced with Rentrak refs, they seem to come and go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate feedeback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive1. BollyJeff | talk 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada films in need of eyes to add and/or translate sources. If you can help, please look in.

Midida Hrudayagalu] (1993) (ಮಿಡಿದ ಹೃದಯಗಳು)

Mojugara Sogasugara (1995) (ಮೋಜುಗಾರ ಸೊಗಸುಗಾರ)

and a whole series of stubs on the late Vishnuvardhan's films need help.

Seethe Alla Savithri (1973)

Shrimanthana Magalu (1977)

Shani Prabhava (1977)

Chinna Ninna Muddaduve (1977)

Bayasade Banda Bhagya (1977)

Sandharbha (1978)

Sose Tanda Soubhagya (1977)

Nagara Hole (1977)

Hosilu Mettida Hennu (1976)

Nee Thanda Kanike (1985)

Anna Attige (1974)

Onde Roopa Eradu Guna (1975)

I believe that through WP:OEN and WP:INDAFD notability can be established, but I do not have the language skills. Please assist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fans of Indian film! A discussion is taking place at the admin noticeboard where you people may have some useful input: Noyster (talk), 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]