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

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
• Behindwoods.com
• Andhra Box Office
• 123telugu.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]

IndiaGlitz's reliability is being discussed at WP:RSN#IndiaGlitz.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, Behindwoods.com's reliability was discussed recently, but the discussion attracted very little attention and had been archived here. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 12:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unnecessary to list all these. The reliability of all print sources (newspapers, magazines and journals that are available in hard print) are unquestionable. It is the web sources that need to be looked into. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 12:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oneindia.in and Koimoi's reliability should be discussed at WP:RSN.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shailendra, you can open a discussion there and invite people for comments. The only way to fix this issue once and for all is to consider the views of various editors and arrive at a consensus. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 12:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sriram Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oneindia.com, we can use Oneindia.com as a reliable source.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:25, 30 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]

This is closed, but I may open a second one in the future. BollyJeff | talk 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second PR is open here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive2. BollyJeff | talk 22:31, 8 February 2015 (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]

Hey guys PK (film) is a pretty high-profile article in need of rational editors, preferably ASAP. I'm currently dealing with a couple of users (one has been indeffed) who are filling up the Critical response section with (in my opinion) excessive accolades from politicians and filmmakers, and it's kinda starting to reek of the usual Bollywood promotional fluff. See this current discussion I don't particularly care if my perspective is right or wrong, only that the article is brought up to normal Wikipedia standards. It would be appreciated if you'd please add the article to your watchlists and participate in the discussions. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did try removing the excessive quotes from politicians and filmmakers only to be accused of political conspiracy. I gave up to avoid an edit war, but I can try again, given that the user has now been blocked. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the reliability of Oneindia.com is going at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oneindia.com. Please voice your opinions.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I could use some NPOV eyes at Badlapur (film). I'm noticing some odd behavior in the critical response section, for example. I'm trying to present neutral reviews that highlight the good and bad, (the complaint of misogyny has come up a few times) but I have noticed that one recent addition was curiously pushed down with a large block of chatty, essentially irrelevant (and improperly formatted) text. There are other matters that I believe I explain in my recent edit summaries there. Since my biggest interest is that we don't let COI editors promote, I'd like to get more balanced eyes there if you have time. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've opened a discussion at RSN about whether or not cinechicken.com, a RottenTomatoes copycat review aggregator for Bollywood films, could be considered a reliable source. The link is here and I invite you all to participate! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove the Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards from all Indian film articles. As it would affect a number of articles, I would like to establish consensus before going forward with it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as requester. These awards are determined by an internet poll of the viewers of a particular website. The website concerned say that they do lots of checks such as IP, email, cookie verification to make sure it's one person for each vote [[1]] but it's still an internet poll. The awards currently do not have a separate article on wikipedia and I think it will be unlikely to have one as the awards are to my knowledge only discussed on the website which awards them and not in any secondary sources so aren't notable. Cowlibob (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90, Shshshsh, Bollyjeff, Ssven2, Vensatry, and Dr. Blofeld: Pinging some regular contributors to Indian cinema articles. Cowlibob (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would tend to support on the basis that if there is no article on the award, the award has not yet been determined to be notable. The fact that it is an internet poll also gives me pause. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about IBN Live movie awards? They are still in Ranaut's FL. If you are saying that other does not talk abouit BHSCA then, how can someone ask me to remove Hello Hall of Fame Awards, which are covered very much by Indian media.—Prashant 16:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is only about this particular award. The IBN one which I wasn't aware of till now looks to be also an internet poll which is only covered by IBN and not secondary sources so could also potentially be removed as non-notable as well but that's for another discussion. The "Hello" awards are a completely different issue and you should discuss that on your FLC not here.

Anyone can create thatarticle. That's not a big deal. Is it?—Prashant 16:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For an article to be created, it should really meet WP:GNG so no it's not as simple as just creating it as if you were to, it would most probably be deleted as not notable. Cowlibob (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant It's only part of it. If notability hasn't been established, the award can't be assumed to be notable. The second important aspect (which is lost in my poorly phrased reply above) has to do with the fact that it's an internet poll. We don't, for example, care about IMDb user ratings, because it is an internet poll. We don't care about Rotten Tomatoes user ratings, because it is an internet poll. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per requester. I have never heard of this Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards. BollyJeff | talk 16:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have any problem in removing these awards. I didn't add Chopra's nomination from IBN Live for Mary Kom. But, I didn't think about the BH awards. Now, I know it is same as IBN Live.—Prashant 17:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Not because I'm hearing it for the first time. While the arguments about the reliability of Bollywood Hungama as a source seems to be a never ending one, I see no point in having these non-notable awards. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing it as well, if we unanimously agree to not include internet polls to any awards page. I agree with Cyphoidbomb, the notability of BH or IBN is not the question here, but the fact that online polls, no matter from what source, shouldn't be listed among other notable awards. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to expand the scope of this RFC to cover all such internet polls being barred from being included in awards pages/sections in Indian film articles as this has gained significant backing. Cowlibob (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While actresses such as Rani Mukerji and Vidya Balan continue to use their birth name after marriage, others including Kareena Kapoor and Aishwarya Rai use their married names Kareena Kapoor Khan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, respectively. Wikipedia policy tells us to use their common name when naming their articles, but almost all media outlets are now addressing Kapoor and Rai by their married names. Recently, Scalhotrod changed Kapoor's article name back to her birth name. Is that a convention we should follow, or do we continue addressing them by their married names? I believe this calls for a vote to avoid conflicts in the future. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all media outlets call them by their married name, and it appears that way in recent film credits, then it has become their common name. BollyJeff | talk 12:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stake in this one way or the other, but I became involved when the Kareena Kapoor article came up on the Special:PendingChanges list. I noticed that it had been moved, but no other care was taken to update the rest of the article. Sloppy editing like this is usually a sign of edit warring, which has been the case on and off on the Kapoor article, again via observation of its appearances on the Pending Changes list. If someone wants to update the entire article and source it properly, not just its title and Infobox, that would be a welcome change. One comment though, if most not just the most recent available sourced refer to her by her maiden name, then her married name is not common yet and this is a case of WP:RECENTISM and patience is prudent. Many actresses do not change their name after marriage because of the name recognition they have earned. As it stands now, the article lists BOTH names and there is a redirect at her married name. Readers will not be mislead nor will they not find the article if searching for it. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose sources indicate that a person wishes to be called by one name vs another. Then what do we do? BollyJeff | talk 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's similar to what happened with the Ayyan (model) article. There is a source that states that she wants to be referred to by Ayyan only and that is stated in the article, but it includes both the single name and her full name. And as per WP:MOS, her surname is used in the body of the content. There was even some short term edit warring to delete any mention of her last name.

In this instance, if there are sources that support your claim and article is to be moved back to Kareena Kapoor Khan, almost every instance of the use of "Kapoor" in the article needs to be changed to "Khan" for consistency with the MOS. As well as the change being cited and explained somewhere in the article body. The associated redirect will still exist and since Kapoor has simply amended her name by adding on "Khan", it will not matter with regard to searching. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why refer to her as simply Khan and not Kapoor Khan? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the article needs to be gone through and corrected for the change. If the article is moved to Kareena Kapoor Khan, then each reference to the subject needs to be changed to "Kapoor Khan" or just "Khan". I really don't care which, but per the WP:MOS, it needs to be consistent. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Often when people get married they incorporate their maiden name as their middle name. Can we say for sure that Kapoor is part of her last name, or has it become her middle name? This is less ambiguous when people hyphenate, i.e. if she were called Kapoor-Khan like Wendi McLendon-Covey, Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting and Sir Mix-a-Lot (kidding!) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I've opened an ANI report about a disruptive IP editor who tends to curse a lot and leave a lot of really incivil edit summaries. The editor also tends to force POV by deleting sources that he objects to, and he also engages in edit warring. The level of his hostility is somewhat odd, which is why I'm thinking he's been around for a while, maybe as a sock operator. If his behavior sounds familiar, please lemme know here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at some of the Bollywood's list of awards and nominations and found so many unnecessary awards list such as of Tabu, Urmila Matondkar, Asin, Anil Kapoor and lots more. These list have few awards listed. I don't think these pages are neccesary. I think they should be merged with their parent article or in the filmography like Kangana Ranaut (awards and role). Lot of western articles are like that, they put all the awards in the biography page itself. @Bollyjeff, Ssven2, Vensatry, Kailash29792, and Cowlibob: What you all have to say about this?—Prashant 11:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus or guideline somewhere saying how big the list should be before it needs its own article? BollyJeff | talk 12:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should see Reasons for merging.—Prashant 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of the lists that you mentioned, and I think they are okay. Having their own article lets them list all of the awards, whereas the main articles are listing only Filmfare and National awards by consensus. It would be nice to have some short introduction text before the awards link for those actors though. BollyJeff | talk 14:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parineeti Chopra's awards are also listed in the biography page. If you see Emma Watson's page, her awards and nominations are listed in the same page.—Prashant 14:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]