Main page

Discussion

Participants

Alerts

Announcements

Main article

To-do list

Assessment

Notable articles

Hindi cinema recognised content

Malayalam cinema recognised content

Tamil cinema recognised content

Telugu cinema recognised content

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: Cinema 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. This page is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup.

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

Of late, I've been coming across budget figures of Indian films quoted in 'million' rupees. As the unit 'million' is seldom used with the Indian currency rupee, quoting budgets only in million rupees can be confusing to the average Indian reader. I suggest that both units are retained, i.e, if the budget is rupees thirty crore, then the infobox (and paragraphs) shall have the figure quoted as ₹ 30 crore (300 million). Thus, the main Indian standard unit is retained to avoid any confusion for the average Indian reader, and the same figure is represented in the bracket in millions.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most elegant way would be to quote crores of rupees and millions of US$, to be more comprehensible to an international audience? Le Deluge (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'List of highest Grossing Indian Films', Baahubali: The beginning tops both Telugu and Tamil tables with a reported gross of ₹ 650 crores. But, isn't ₹ 650 crores the combined gross of both Telugu and Tamil versions? While I understand that the gross of dubbed versions shall normally be included in the gross (as it is dubbed from the same film), I feel it is wrong to include the gross of a separately filmed version in the gross figure of one language. Baahubali was filmed in Telugu and Tamil languages. Only the Hindi and Malayalam versions were dubbed.

For instance, in the highest grossing Tamil films table, the gross figure of Kabali is given as ₹ 350 crore. This figure is the total gross of the original Tamil version, along with the dubbed versions in Telugu and Hindi, which is okay, since the film was originally made in Tamil. But Baahubali: The beginning was originally filmed in 'two languages; Telugu and Tamil. So, when Baahubali: The beginning is placed in the top of the table with a gross figure of 650 crore, it is grossly unfair, since the figure includes the collections of the simultaneously shot Telugu version. The Telugu gross figure cannot be counted as a Tamil film's collection (since it is NOT dubbed) and hence should not be included. Similarly, the Tamil gross figure cannot be counted as a Telugu film's collection! The combined figure cannot come in both tables since the other films in the tables only include the gross figure of the language in which they are originally filmed (along with the versions dubbed from them if any). PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly right and I don't think there's anything that can be done about it since there are no official box office sources which break down the gross by language. In fact, I think the whole page and all its related pages (this, this, this and perhaps more) are a total waste of space as none of the sources mentioned in those articles as references are reliable, in my opinion. As long as there isn't an official box office source in India, none of those gross figures can ever be considered true. - Nirinsanity (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Box Office India is the most credible independent BO researching website, but unfortunately its research is mostly limited to Hindi films. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with boxofficeindia.co.in, which I wouldn't trust one iota. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen cast lists like this, where people include among the cast the names of people who perform item numbers. Does this make sense to anyone? It seems that the cast would intuitively refer to people who are participating in the story, not necessarily the dance routines. It seems a stretch to consider dancers "cast". I could absolutely see the utility of including noteworthy people in a section on music, though. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just applying my narrow western thinking to eastern subjects. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So these item numbers appearances are pretty important, and usually feature a famous central performer who should be mentioned. The background and secondary dancers, not. I am not familiar with the example that you cited though. Bollyjeff | talk 20:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are requested at Talk:List of highest-grossing Telugu films#Share collections. The issue is whether the table for Distributor's Share is within the scope of an article on highest-grossing films. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing an article on Mazhar Khan (actor) 1905–1950. However, Mazhar Khan (actor) (22 July 1955 – 16 September 1998) already exists, while Mazhar Khan is the disambiguation page. Both Khans were actor-producer-director. What would be the best naming convention in this case? Kaayay (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add an appropriate WP:QUALIFIER: Mazhar Khan (actor, born 1905) and Mazhar Khan (actor, born 1955). Betty Logan (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this is getting really bad. We lost admin Ricky81682 to sockpuppetry, we lost Nairspecht, and now we've lost Inside the Valley, Charles Turing, and Essex-1799 who were all confirmed to be sock accounts of one another. It's unclear if that means sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. This is extraordinarily bad for a number of reasons, including that it creates a greater workload on all the people who work on Indian cinema articles. I hope that whomever is left will consider banding together a little more strongly here, participate in discussions, and if any of you are socking, STOP IT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, please keep an eye out for the introduction of box office "verdicts" in articles. I found this guy who introduced a lot of these[1][2][3][4] today. But I also feel like there's been an uptick in the introduction of this hyperbolic language. "Super hit", "blockbuster", "failure", etc. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a bunch of them. Maybe an edit-filter for "more than two occurances of [some specific words and phrases]" would catch editors adding them to the filmography tables (actors, production-companies, ethnicity-by-year, etc) but not false-positive of cited refs for a single film's own article? DMacks (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{INRConvert}} is heavily used at List of highest-grossing Indian films, List of highest-grossing Tamil films, List of highest-grossing Telugu films and a number of similar list articles. Should the template be cut from these pages? The previous discussion on this seemed to dislike the template in general for needlessly converting to US dollars. To illustrate the problem, at List of highest-grossing Indian films in the Global Gross Figures table, note 3 Idiots, a 2009 film, is being converted to 2016 US dollars, because the template assumes that a current value is going in and produces a current value in its result.

If we use {{INRConvert|395|c}}, the result is ₹395 crore (US$47 million) ← Remember that the template is converting 2009 Indian rupees into 2016 US dollars.

If we use {{INRConvert|395|c|year=2009}} formatted for inflation, the result is ₹395 crore (equivalent to ₹993 crore or US$120 million in 2023).

In the second example with the inflation calculation, the resulting text is bulky for a table, and List of highest-grossing films, a similar article, doesn't attempt to adjust for inflation, so it's unclear why these similar articles would. Please indicate your !votes as either Keep or Cut. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut - as proposer, for the reasons mentioned above. The conversion templates are not producing accurate information, converting to US dollars is arbitrary, and it's unclear if there's precedent to use Wikipedia-based mechanical conversions for inflation in film gross list articles. That last part has the feel of original research to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Cut - having read the discussion linked above, I agree with every reason to remove the conversions. We really shouldn't be misleading our readers with incorrect info, and converting to US dollars is not likely to be helpful to a majority of readers anyway. We want to decrease the Western bias, not add to it. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Cut - Is fundamentally a false comparison, serving no useful purpose. Do you convert rupees to dollars at the original exchange rate then add US inflation, or use Indian inflation and convert to dollars at todays exchange rate? Furthermore,we know that almost all the gross figures are only estimates to start with. - Arjayay (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reliable place top find the Filmfare Award wins and nominations for a given film? It is so frustrating that the Filmfare website does not archive these, at least that I can find. They only show the previous year. There was a website that had them up to 2005, but that is now permanently gone and no archives are available. The only thing I can find is http://www.awardsandshows.com/ but it's not clear if this is reliable. Please help. Bollyjeff | talk 03:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That site appears to be a mirror website. Perhaps this could help. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I have used that before too. It goes from the beginning to 2005, which is pretty good. The source is not rock solid though, is it? Who is Dhirad? Bollyjeff | talk 13:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across User:Anwar Hossain jany which is a single-edit account which appears to be a biography of an actor born in East Bengal in 1931. It's a long way from my expertise, but I imagine that someone who won a Lifetime Achievement Award is probably notable - would someone care to look into it and see if the article is worth rescuing for mainspace? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]