Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

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

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Indian 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 This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force. India: Cinema 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 This page is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup.

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) 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 Belgian 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 invite plot cleanup stub userbox

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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

WikiProject Film was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 September 2012.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I've observed that many users often refer to WP:ICTFSOURCES when assessing the reliability of sources used in articles related to Indian films/actors. I believe it's time to completely update the current list located at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Many of the sources listed there are involved in press releases, paid branding, and brand posts. The last discussion on this matter took place eight years ago, and within this timeframe, the credibility of many sources has likely changed. Therefore, I'm initiating a new discussion to update the list. I'm pinging @JavaHurricane as they discussed this matter in the NPP discord channel a few months ago. I'm also pinging users who participated in the previous discussion for their input. @Bollyjeff, @Cyphoidbomb. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most of the sources are biased and paid. A certain concrete guideline must be set and preferably an RfC must be done to single out the actual tracker websites.

Also, I should add that in down South, such tracker websites do not exist. Sites such as Pinkvilla only track the movies only if the movie makes headlines. Hence, that should also be kept in mind. The discrepancies between the actual collections and the publicized collections by the producers have caused multiple edit wars in many pages, especially in Malayalam movie pages. So, if we can get a consensus on that, it would be great. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I am starting this RfC for the abovementioned reason – to analyse the authenticity and reliability of current ICTFSOURCES, and to reassess and update the sources enlisted. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald, I plan to share my detailed thoughts when I have a bit more free time. In the meantime, would you mind listing the sources we typically use and sharing your opinion on each? This would be really helpful for streamlining the process and finding even better sources. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good plans here to update the list. I think also it should be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ. The table format is more in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, allowing for rationales and links to past discussions on each source. Something I've been meaning to tackle for a while. --Geniac (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer:, shall we revisit this RfC this weekend? Summer box office need a good guideline and pointers. What I was thinking is, let's just pick apart the ones under reliable section and scrutinize every single one and try to reach a consensus. A level 3 heading for each, which will help future editors to link faster and search faster. Savvy? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started an essay for better source analysis, which when completed, can incorporate this RfC results and can be transcluded into the page, or can even be made as an opinion/guideline essay. I am thinking of a table like WP:RS/P in alphabetical order for faster and easier navigation. Anyone can drop by and help out with suggestions or edits. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, this is EXCELLENT. I think once complete, it will be easier to update in the same manner WP:RS/P is based on any future WP:RSN thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have created a shortcut WP:ICTFSA (Yes, a pun on essay and Source Analysis as well). More sources can be added onto it from ICTFFAQ or after consensus from here or RSN. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Herald. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add a section for Indiantelevision.com as well. Please refer this. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 12:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now please add your views and comments too :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Please do not edit the verdict line when there is no clear consensus in RS/P, or on RS/N or any talk pages. Only the clear consensus discussions are deemed automatically reliable.

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

I see this being added to pages on the same day the articles come out. Gives me the impression of possible COI. Regardless, there seems to be discussion that it is not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About us shows that the site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy. This itself makes it unreliable I think. RangersRus (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald:, is there a time period for commenting you are hoping for? Wondering if some of these such as those discussed already at RSN should be added to the list. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a specific time period in my mind. But the ones who's reliability or unreliability is established, we can close the subsection and add it to the list. Ideally, an uninvolved editor should close, so maybe we can ping some admin or someone who's active here for that. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on WP:RSN to get verdict on these sources moviecrow.com, 123telugu.com, Indiaglitz.com, cinejosh.com, behindwoods.com, thesouthfirst.com, latestly.com. Still what you think of these sources? @CNMall41: @The Herald: RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Cinejosh I see the others as usable. But maybe I'm wrong about Cinejosh. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too have doubt about cinejosh.com but also for moviecrow.com (does not have any information on this site about the company. Maybe a blog or personal site). 123telugu.com has been considered unreliable for boxoffice numbers and as a whole site unreliable but had no final stance to completely put it on the unreliable list. Indiaglitz also has nothing on the company information and the contact us link takes you to homepage. This too seems a personal site or a blog. Others too I have doubts. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

123Telugu can be used for general film-related updates and independent interviews. This site have many articles that are related to smaller Telugu films doesn't have in the mainline media. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question is reliability. The site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy and this puts the reliability of this source in question adding onto what is said here by an administrator Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_8#Reliability_of_123Telugu.com_-_123telugu. RangersRus (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Specifically BOLNEWS which is used 400+ times as a reference on Wikipedia. Cannot find editorial standards so unsure if reliable or not. Although the network is out of Pakistan, it has many references for Indian and other non-Pakistani cinema.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a recent RSN discussion which indicates it's generally unreliable. It was also added to WP:NPPSG as unreliable based the discussion. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

Per BOI's About us page, "The figures on the website are not taken from producers or distributors of the respective films but independent estimates from our sources and then cross checked through cinema collections." If true, this suggests that they're not acting as mouthpieces for the production companies (i.e. acting as a primary source by proxy). Archive

In mid-2019 we discovered that BOI's budget figures included print and advertising costs. (See this discussion) Worldwide, when people reference a film's budget, they mean the production budget, i.e. the cost of making the film, not the cost of marketing it. So we should try to find a better source for budget than Box Office India. If we have no choice but to use BOI, then we should include notes that clarify that the budget figure is not consistent with other figures. Ex: "(Note: this figure includes print and advertising costs.)" or similar.

— WP:ICTFFAQ table

Now, this is still true because we still have no other proper tracker website for Indian movies, especially Bollywood. Biased or not, the BO figures are almost close to the reported verified amount. So I'll put this one as a reliable source. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Paid articles are published by Business Standard here. Articles which's URL contain "content/specials/" are sponsored. Grabup (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All articles in the Content/specials/ doesn't contain disclaimers, some contains, same like India Today. Here are some examples:

1. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/pioneering-thoughts-with-dipen-bhuva-a-fusion-of-healthcare-cybersecurity-and-ai-124040900630_1.html
2. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/hutech-solutions-announces-sanjeev-kulkarni-as-new-chief-product-officer-cpo-124040900662_1.html

Grabup (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

One thing to watch for (and maybe we just need a disclaimer if the overall source is found to be reliable) is anything marked as written by "DC Correspondent." These are contributor posts and often have a disclaimer that they have not been vetted by editorial staff. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

I brought this up at RSN a while back but only had one comment. It is being used a few hundred times as a reference but do not see it as being reliable. Bringing it here since it seems to have a lot of film references and we are addressing many of them now. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

It is used over 2000 times as a reference on Wikipedia. Here is their about page. I do not see editorial oversight and sounds more like TMZ in my opinion. Just at first glance I think it could be used maybe to verify basic information such as film roles but nothing for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

run by Komal Nahta; see here, for example

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1 ("Branded Content" discussion), 2

Comments

Used 800+ times in Wikipedia. Note that it is NOT overseen by Forbes editorial staff. It is (what I believe) branded as Forbes (likely from licensing agreement). It is actually owned by Network 18. It is used as a reference in many film and actor pages.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

In my experience with press release work, Hindustan Times stands out as a prominent website for publishing paid brand posts. It's crucial to note that any article lacking a specific author shouldn't be relied upon. Furthermore, it's advisable to avoid using articles with a disclaimer or those tagged as brand posts. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help us to remove these 42 Sponsored Hindustan Times articles cited on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been cleaning some of these up. I am also finding there are quite a few paid posts from other sites on those Wikipedia pages and sent three to AfD already. I would actually lean towards saying only using HT with staff written articles for verification of basic facts (release dates, etc.) and NOT for notability. And NEVER using anything that is paid, branded, no-byline, or otherwise falling under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

India Today has published paid articles within its "Impact Feature" section, with 50 articles currently cited. It's important to note that sponsored content should not be used as a citation. I encourage anyone to help remove them; I'm actively working on it as well. Grabup (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't included disclaimers in all of their Impact Feature articles, but there are some instances where disclaimers have been added to articles. "Disclaimer: The contents herein are for informational purposes only. If you have any queries, you should directly reach out to the advertiser. India Today Group does not guarantee, vouch for, endorse any of its contents and hereby disclaims all warranties, express or implied, relating to the same."

Examples:

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/piramal-finance-offers-home-loans-with-seamless-process-and-competitive-terms-2510232-2024-03-04

2. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/could-2024-be-the-year-gold-has-been-waiting-for-a-long-time-2503014-2024-02-16

3. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/breaking-barriers-celebrating-women-achievers-across-industries-2490394-2024-01-18

Grabup (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly the case; also note that the people in the byline at the bottom of the page will typically come back with marketing positions in the company. I've updated my entry here and will be happy to help remove these. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru, thanks for User:Kuru/fakesources; it's really helpful. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is gold. Thanks Kuru :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

There are currently 1000+ uses of Indiantelevision.com, the same owner as TellyChakkar.com. And this raises concerns on its reliability. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

There are currently 17 uses of Outlook India "business spotlight." I believe the publication would be reliable OUTSIDE of that but these are paid-for articles. I would support reliability but maybe a note in the box that says those marked as "business spotlight" or sponsored should not be used as a reference (in the process of removing the 17 I linked to above once I get the time). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The paid-for shall not be considered as reliable at all. Reliable outside the paid-for articles. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

Website editorial guidelines for reference.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With an editorial team and a published editorial policy, as well as an affiliate disclosure, Pinkvilla.com can be deemed reliable due to their reportings to be very close to the actual BO figures and other film related news. But, I'll still stay clear of the gossip section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How'd one determine an actual BO figure? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is go through the established RS. Most of the time, all of them stick to a particular figure (lets say X). Sometimes, they have discrepancies, and I use the figures as a range (est. ₹ X - Y crores). Pinkvilla almost always give the same figures as other RS and it is always less than the promotional figures tweeted by filmmakers and other primary sources. Hence, I use them as RS. (As they say, if it looks like a RS and posts like a RS, it is most probably is a RS , lol.) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

I brought this up at RSN a few months back. Looks like auto generated content from Twitter and also possibly paid. I would suggest adding this as an unreliable source.

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Similar to the note on Outlook India above, First Post has sponsored content marked as "brand wagon" (often included in the URL as well). I have no comment on the reliability of the overall publication but will say the branded posts should not be used in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Subsidiary of The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU)

Verdict

Y Reliable source

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:THEHINDU

Verdict

Y Reliable source

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:INDIANEXP

Verdict

Y Reliable source

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Similar to Outlook, The Tribune has paid articles "Impact Feature". Grabup (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:RS/P

Verdict

Y Reliable source

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

Zee News is owned by Zee Media Corporation. They also have other publications such as Daily News and Analysis. Not sure if we should address any of these individual or JUST Zee News for the purpose of the RfC. Just throwing it out there. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DNA is already added in the RfC above. I'd say while we are at it, let's review all the sources. India.com is deemed unreliable per this discussion. So, that's out. I don't know other publications under them. If there are any that are used frequently, by all means add them to the miscellaneous category below. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

• In addition to the aforementioned sources, the following references are also brought up multiple times and are used in various pages.

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

N

Comments

According to their website (About us page), they apparently use 4 sources; Hindustan Times, Film Companion, Live Mint and Desi Martini, of which HT and Mint are reliable per RSP and RSN. Desi Martini is a partner site for HT. Film Companion, I'm not so sure cuz the page doesn't mention anywhere about their sources or their origin or history, hence sounds dubious. But other than that, OTTPlay.com should belong in the reliable side of the spectrum. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming across this one quite a bit when sourcing filmographies. I think the main issue I have is that it is a commercial website and they benefit from aggregating news. A lot of the articles are bylined "Team OTTplay" so not sure if these are coming from the reliable sources or if they are original content from that site. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

WP:TOI

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

• Per RS/P The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. That puts TOI in either unreliable or no consensus region. It is generally unreliable for box office figures since I have seen them using Sacnilk.com and promotional figures a lot. They may be reliable for news articles, but IMO it all should be taken with a pinch of salt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help us to remove these sponsored articles published by Times of India, (1), (2). Grabup (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found another subsection with containing Lifesyle/Spotlight on The Times of India, this subsection is cited 185 times without drafts and 193 times with drafts. I found a article on the same subsection which contain a disclaimer “ The article has been produced on behalf of Globsyn Business” but other articles majorly does not contain any disclaimer.

*193 cited list

Article containing disclaimer Grabup (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

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) [1] and Tamil version of Marakkar: Lion of the Arabian Sea [2]. 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)[reply]

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

@Anoopspeaks: [3] [4]. Second film listed as dubbed here [5]. DareshMohan (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No.	Title	Year	Details	Length	ECP status	Ref.
1	Nota	2018	Tamil DIL/1/104/2018-Che U	146.41	Unreadable	cert cbfc
	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
	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
	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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks: It is best not for me to get too wrapped around this, I think. Kanthaswamy Telugu version has a straight certificate [6] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks: Thanks for all of your detailed responses. See [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9].

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [10] [11]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

There is probably a recency bias in terms of Kannada film articles. Sites such as chiloka.com and kannadamoviesinfo.wordpress.com [12] have replaced Wikipedia especially for older films. See Even the WIKIPEDIA is limited in many ways. [13]. I know that Wikipedia has no deadline but even this recent film [14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi! This PDF link [20] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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