Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tayi Arajakate (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 2 March 2022 (→COI-proxy user in Puli film article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:ICTF

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 Israeli 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

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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup.

• WT:INCINE

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

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

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Film Companion promo/tracking

Seeing a lot of tracking URLs for Film Companion being added in the review sections of films/TV shows as refs; e.g.: . These are likely being added by the website's operators themselves, while that is not wrong per se tracking Misplaced Pages users through Google Tag Manager strings such as "utm_source=Misplaced Pages&utm_medium=ReviewSeeding&utm_campaign=HouseOfSecretsReview" appears promotional, spammy and unethical to me. Not sure what should be done here: Kailash29792, Ab207, Cyphoidbomb? Gotitbro (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I say let them be. The site is not spam, it was founded by a leading critic, and other leading critics also write for it. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

While params of any kind are primarily unintentional or an overlook by editors who are just copy-pasting the urls into citations, the "utm_source=Misplaced Pages" is intentional and is thus external link spamming. The website can track incoming Misplaced Pages traffic by referral headers in the HTTP requests. @GreenC Is your bot capable of trimming these tracking params? — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: deferring to @bender235 who might have a better tool BenderBot if interested. I'm not setup/approved for referral removals at scale. -- GreenC 20:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The potential COI of Film Companion was discussed earlier but the task force was okay with it as FC is generally a reliable source. That said, I don't think there would be any objection if those trackers are removed from the urls. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Indian Cinema and TV Series

Hi, can tv series, or film series cast list have a cast which does not have any references or citation? There are a ton of wiki pages that have cast without citation, and they do not have any mantainence tag, but in some articles, many cast have been removed because they were unsourced. So, please clarify my doubt regarding this. Which is correct???Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: As far as I can tell, there's no need for any citation for credited cast because the film itself acts a source for such information. Uncredited roles and character interpretations, on the other hand, must have citations (see WP:FILMCAST). -- Ab207 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ab207: What about Tv Series, or daily soaps???Itcouldbepossible (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, please go through MOS:TVCAST. Citing noteworthy and credited cast members is not generally required. All other information must be sourced. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ab207 Consider the following article Khorkuto, Gangaram, Gramer Rani Binapani, Mohor, or any other TV stub. It has many unsourced cast lists. So will it be removed or kept? It is till not clear to me. MOS:TVCAST is saying that every All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source., but you are saying that they are generally not required. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, it says all names should be referred as credited. That means if a particular actor is credited by name in the show, then the show itself acts as a source for the information. If you are deviating from that, then it should be supported by reliable source. In case of any disupte, please discuss with the concerned editor and reach a workable solution. Hope this helps. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NFF has an RFC

WP:NFF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Platonk (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dubbed films

In List of Kannada films of 2021, I have removed the dubbed films section but Rajesh Praveen has reverted my edit without any explanation. I'm of the opinion that the list is intended for original Kannada language films only, and not the dubbed ones. Would appreciate the community's input on this. Thanks -- Ab207 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

My personal view is that the article is for films that were originally created in the particular language, not about dubs. I'm not seeing a Dub section in other languages. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous versions of such pages used to carry dubbed versions, award ceremonies, and notable deaths (some still do) but they were removed at some point. If we have consensus to include only original films, we can get rid of other sections. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A user started adding Web/streaming television series citing this reason .I think we need a consensus about which content should be added which not.Sid95Q (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that a list of films should include films only. List of 2021 Indian television debuts may be created separately for the list of television series. Notable deaths and award ceremonies must added in 2021 in film. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Also users have started adding OTT platforms in List of Malayalam films of 2021, So we need a uniform consensus for all the languages lists as most of the times users argue that there us no discussion or consensus about this. Sid95Q (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dedicated column for an OTT platform seems unnecessary, although a direct-to-video release may be indicated in the notes columnif needed. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• In this edit, I have added the rough consensus of above discussion to the project page. Please review it and suggest any modifications if needed. Thanks. Customary ping to the participating editors, @Ravensfire and Sid95Q: -- Ab207 (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing South Indian films

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing South Indian films. Ab207 (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Film production company articles

With the close of the this AfD as delete, I'm going to try converting articles (except the big ones like Sony, Zee, maybe Red Chillies?) under this category into stand-alone lists (which they already are de facto) as most of the 200 articles there do not pass WP:NCORP. I plan to nominate the absolutely non-notable ones for WP:CSD or WP:PROD; watch these - PROD_log, CSD_log - if you wish to contest any such noms. Please feel free to convert any. Also feel free to revert me, in which case I'll take them to AfD. hemantha (brief) 12:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hemantha, I think if a non-notable production company belongs to a notable actor/producer, it can simply be merged/redirected there per WP:ATD-R. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But from a brief look - say 70mm Entertainments, Blue Planet Entertainments, Shree Devi Entertainers are very hard to salvage? Redirect to most successful film seems iffy, but might work in some cases. hemantha (brief) 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

In some cases, a redirect to the owner or main name, if there is one, may be appropriate. Himesh Reshammiya Melodies as am example. There's a feel of WP:UPE happening around some of these companies (Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd as an example with a current AFD and I strongly suspect there are some suspicious editing, not the editor creating the article). If there's not some solid sourcing that focuses on the company itself (and there are some that do have good sourcing and coverage), AFD makes sense. Some of these are just mini walled gardens that need some trimming. Ravensfire (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of UPE in the recent ones which is how I came across this category (as an aside, one absolute positive listifying has over outright PROD/AfD-ing is that it'd preserve evidence for us non-admins). Anyway I dipped into the waters with Shashi_Sumeet_Productions and Hombale Films before trying to see if there's any precedent to this kind of listifying NCORP fails. And there appears to be little for NCORP, but some for others like this AfD on GM products. hemantha (brief) 14:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking for comments at List Of SonyLIV Original Programming

Hey all, I'm looking for comments at Talk:List Of SonyLIV Original Programming to head off an edit-war. Thoughtful comments would be helpful to avoid this going to a drama board. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Pinkvilla

Was there any assessment of Pinkvilla's reliablity at ICTF before it was added to the project page? It was discussed at RSN once where Tayi Arajakate argued in favour. I believe Pinkvilla is a decent source with journalists who actually know their stuff with regard to films.

Case in point, take the film Bachchhan Paandey where the makers were tight-lipped about the film's originality. Pinkvilla rightly called out that it was a remake of Jigarthanda back in Nov 2020. They even revealed the gender-reversal of Siddharth's role in the original which is now played by Kriti Sanon, and it turned out to be correct. OTOH, "reliable" sources like The Hindu (Dec 2020), India Today (Mar 2021) were still calling it Veeram's remake while New Indian Express (Feb 2021) said its an " original screenplay" which could have been taken from the Misplaced Pages's version of that time.

Pinkvilla's BO figures are also well informed as they provide territory-wise break up, and mention trade in terms of gross, net and share while sources like India Today simply quote self-published tweets. I'm bringing this up because Pinkvilla is being removed even for non-controversial info like release dates. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I say it should be usable, at least for exclusive interviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Usage for exclusive interviews goes without saying, as it falls under WP:PRIMARY territory. But calling it unreliable seems too rigid and inflexible. I'd say Pinkvilla's material falling outside of WP:NOTGOSSIP should be usable for coverage on films. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• If there are no objections, I intend to move Pinkvilla to generally reliable section for the purposes of film-related sourcing. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

None from my side, as in objections. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry a bit late to this. I should say though that I didn't exactly argue in favour, there is a lot of gossip and clickbait on the site that needs to be sifted through but then again that's perhaps par for the course when it comes to any news media reporting on the Indian film industry. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's not outright unreliable, as a news outlet that specialises in the film industry, it tends to have better research and is in many cases more accurate than general news outlets. It should be usable for non-controversial information as long as it is being used strictly for the film industry, doesn't fall under celebrity gossip or advertorials and one takes BLP (particularly promotion) into consideration. Exclusive interviews and the like goes without saying as a primary source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, thanks for the comment. I agree about celebrity NOTGOSSIP which we can clarify with a note that the reliability is strictly related to film content. I'm keen on upgrading this because the primary focus of ICTF is films while BLPs of actors is secondary. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've no issues with upgrading it, with a note that is. To be honest, I think most of them need some note or the other. I also didn't mean it shouldn't be used for BLPs of actors at all, just with some considerations in mind. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Got it. ICTF should ideally list all the mainstream sources and make a note known of issues with them. But it presently gives as simplistic classification of general news outlets as reliable and film websites are unreliable. This is in contrast with say, American films, where entertainment sites like Variety, Deadline Hollywood, Hollywood Reporter etc are considered quality sources and general news outlets are rarely used. This no way means that Indian films sites are of that standard but gap between the film sites and general news outlets is not as wide as it portrayed in the source guide. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ has nice tables with rationales for deeming sites as unreliable, with links to previous discussions. I don't know how updated it is, though. --Geniac (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

India.com by Zee Media Corporation

Tangential but related since this an instance of "reliable source" which has no idea what they are saying: This article says Valimai "crossed Rs 96 crore at Box Office worldwide." They might have deduced this from:
a. "According to media reports, the movie saw a pre-release business in theatres of about Rs. 64.50 crore in Tamil Nadu and an overall of Rs 76 crore in India and 20 crores from the rest of the world." -This is dubious because pre-release business has nothing to do with the theatrical gross.
b. A tweet by a random fan account which says "TN - 36.17CR ROI - 76 CR WW - 20.6 CR Overall - 96.77 CR" - Ludicrous numbers. Rest of India 76 crore? Even hard-core Ajith fans might find it difficult to believe.

This is not the first time India.com has published has such fake numbers. Here, they somehow managed to get the 5 day-wise collection of Uppena which totals to 31.5 crore. They simultaneously know that the film has grossed 51 crore in 5 days. In Telugu cinema's parlance, 31.5 crore here refers to "the distributor share" which is Gross-(theatre rentals + taxes). Not knowing this difference, the geniuses at India.com simply add the gross and share, and write: "The total is minted is around Rs 81.5 crore worldwide." (Ignoring the poor grammar, the added figure should be 82.5 but its probably too much to expect from them)

Watch this space for more updates on Valimai’s Box Office Collection. For sure, ICTF should not. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Update: Upgraded Pinkvilla as a reliable source for film content in this edit. Also took the liberty of adding India.com as unreliable here per the above evidence. Thank you Kailash29792 and Tayi Arajakate for your valuable inputs. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

COI-proxy user in Puli film article

It is to bring to your attention that a COI-proxy IP is using unreliable sources to increase the gross of the film Puli . Last year we (Cyphoidbomb and me) dealt with these proxies aimed at Vijay's films that weren't successful at the box office. Pinging @Ab207, Ravensfire, Sid95Q, Kailash29792, Arjayay, and Tayi Arajakate:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at the page titles where it's already being used () "ABC-all-you-need-to-know-about-this-XZY-movie/", this feels like a very spammy site. If it's getting pushed in an apparent COI/spam manner, the spam blacklist is the best option. This looks like a blog that scrapes content from various other sources. I would not want to use it as a source and would support it being blacklisted. EDIT: Also warned the IP for personal attacks in that edit summary as well as noting the source is not acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, no indication that the site publishes credible information. Would support blacklisting as a way to prevent abuse. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree that bollywoodsociety.com appears to be a coffee-table mag, rather than a reliable source. AFAIK the criteria for full blacklisting are quite onerous. I cannot, however, find any criteria for inclusion, or methodology for adding names to, "The following should not be considered reliable sources." section of WP:ICTFSOURCES. Given this discussion, which seems to be reaching a consensus, could it not be added to that list? - Arjayay (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not aware of any particular criteria or procedure for addition into ICTF source guide but I think questionable sources are either first proposed here or boldly added directly. As there is rough consensus regarding about bollywoodsociety, I've cited this discussion to mark it as unreliable in this edit. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Bollywoodsociety looks yet another scraper site to me so I've no objection it being included in the list of unreliable sources. From what I understand, the source guide was originally created based on a discussion on this talk page so any changes based on the discussions here seems fine. I've also listed it at WT:BLIST. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Manobala Vijayabalan

Manobala Vijayabalan (@ManobalaV) is a "film industry tracker" on twitter who is frequently cited by Janani K of India Today and other sources. However, PublicEnemy54321 has noted that BO figures published by him are questionable because they almost always vary compared to other reliable sources. Comparison table for recently released films:

In November 2021, Indian Express wrote an article about the claims of ManobalaV on Annaatthe BO figures. They noted that almost all the media reports which reported that the film has grossed over 200 crore trace back to him. However, IE wasn't able to verify these figures independently from other sources.

With no editorial oversight and reputation of fact checking, ManobalaV falls under what Misplaced Pages calls WP:SELFPUB. Even though they are sometimes published in reliable sources, ManobalaV's figures are controversial, and many times found to be inaccurate. Therefore, propose to add ManobalaV and any source that traces back to him in the list of unreliable sources if there are no objections. Inputs are welcome. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It would also helpful to know what the community thinks of reliable sources which quote mysterious trade pundits/unreliable sources for box office figures without doing their own research. Here, Hindustan Times quotes someone called "Trinath" who says Valimai grossed 150 crore in the opening weekend (4 days) which is way off than other reliable estimates. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• WikiProject Film talk pages
• Project-Class film pages
• Project-Class Indian cinema pages
• Indian cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Project-Class India pages
• NA-importance India pages
• Project-Class India articles of NA-importance
• NA-importance Indian cinema pages
• WikiProject Indian cinema articles
• WikiProject India articles