Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Requesting a verdict on Anandabazar and Asianetnews

You can see the initial response on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here: link1, link2. Based on the discussion, do these sources qualify to be added to WP:ICTFSOURCES? If yes, please add them with any necessary conditions. If not, kindly take the appropriate actions as I will be offline for an indefinite period.

My opinion on the sources:

• Anandabazar: Reliable with respect to Bengali news.

• Asianetnews: Reliable for Malayalam and Kannada box office figures.

Anoop Bhatia (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Asianet News is reliable. Can you check their editorial information? DareshMohan (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue with Asianet News is its independence (or lack thereof). It is owned by Disney Star. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd place Asianet is the same category as TOI, but a slight margin towards general reliable. They do have an inclination towards paid reviews, so it must be taken with a pinch of salt. But otherwise, for general BO figures and reviews, they are alright. Extra caution to be taken when the movies are produced by Disney, their parent company. That can make them a primary source in that case. Thanks. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Syed Sohel

So, due to a single editor repeatedly recreating this article, this "probably notable" (see AfC comment), will never be accepted? Check the career section, I tried rewriting to make it neutral. Wouldn't he pass WP:NACTOR for his roles in films from 2022-2024? DareshMohan (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This definitely meets NACTOR. Since there were many UPEs involved in its creation, if a good-standing user like you were to submit this at AfC, I would be happy to accept it. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Same here - wouldn't mind seeing at least some the quotes from reviewers replaced with a short summary, especially with multiple quotes on a film. Sometimes, simply saying his performance was highlighted by reviewers can be enough. There's a bit of a worry of cherry-picking on the reviews and a review of the film reviews (hopefully the film article has more!) could be in order. Couple of things need to be verified - year of birth for example, the sources have month and day but didn't see the year. Couple of junk sources (remove a twitter post that added nothing useful), so a good once-over would be helpful. The sock history around this makes me leery of POV still present, hence the suggestions for reviews. Ravensfire (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And since I totally forgot to do so, compliments to @DareshMohan for their cleanup efforts a few months ago on this article. The version prior to their updates [1] shows some of the issues that the Sadik group of socks leaves. Without their edits, nah, this would have been an easy pass to even consider beyond just stubify and probably need to semi-protect almost immediately. Ravensfire (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This definitely meets WP:NACTOR. I advise anyone to clean up and archive the references. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I have archived the references and it's good to go now. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Benison. The mainspace title is salted, so I am requesting its unprotection. Once that is done, I will move it to the mainspace. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Once it is an article, can you make it page protected? I just don't want the comprised editors to take control and revert the article rewrite. @DreamRimmer:. DareshMohan (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan, I don't think admins will protect it, as there hasn't been any recent disruption. If the same sock farm starts vandalising it again in the future, we can request protection then. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Moved to mainspace and patrolled. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

International Business Times

I have removed citations directing to this source in the Box Office sections for Srimanthudu, 1: Nenokkadine, and Attarintiki Daredi as per WP:IBTIMES. However, the collections mentioned in the source’s articles and in the movies’ Wikipedia pages are reported by Taran Adarsh, who is a well-known trade analyst. Does this reduce the unreliability of the source? We are the Great (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The page on him says that Adarsh is "best known for giving trade figures and box office updates on social media, as well as his reviews for Bollywood Hungama" and the career section of his page states, "Taran Adarsh started his journalism career at the age of 15 with Trade Guide, a weekly box office magazine. In 1994, Adarsh produced and wrote the Bollywood film-based TV serial Hello Bollywood, starring Shehzad Khan and Kashmera Shah. He continued his work on Trade Guide alongside. He is currently an active film critic, journalist and trade analyst on Bollywood Hungama, a Bollywood entertainment website". The problem is there are only 4 references on his page, and the article is stub-class. Does that mean that his page lacks notability? We are the Great (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:IBTIMES is not reliable at all so it does not matter where they get reports from even if they claim that the report was from someone reliable. RangersRus (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No the page Taran Adarsh does not lack notability. Critic passes WP:JOURNALIST. If anything, page can be improved with more information on the critic and his career. RangersRus (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The Hans India

In an recent edit, I noticed Hans India box office collection data on Kalki 2898 AD has been included in it's infobox. But I couldn't find the source in the list on this page.

So, can The Hans India be considered as reliable for box office collections? BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is reliable source and has been discussed before here and here. RangersRus (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay.

Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

John Mahendran

This director himself (from his edit summaries) is editing the page himself and removing failure films that make him look bad. Proof: [2] [3]. In fact, see all his contributions here [4]. If he doesn't publicly declare COI, he shouldn't be allowed to edit his own page. Do check out User talk:John mahendran#Why are you hiding your Telugu films? DareshMohan (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Gautam Raju page move discussion

An editor has requested that Gautam Raju be moved to Gautham Raju, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comscore

Report from Comscore on the gross collection is used in this TOI article. This is new to me so need help with consensus if this report from comscore is reliable or not. RangersRus (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Scanned magazine articles on bobbytalkscinema.com

So this website is posting scanned articles from magazines like "Trade Guide" and "Film Information." Should these be considered reliable? Link:https://www.bobbytalkscinema.com/recentpost/the-case-of-classification-of--2532 Sid95Q (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there any consensus on "Film Information" or "Trade Guide"? If so, it looks like there are links redirecting to these magazine articles, so I think we can use them. However, it is worth mentioning that the website housing these articles is a blog. And the blog’s name is on the magazines’ articles. We are the Great (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

We reached a consensus that bobbytalkscinema.com is not a reliable source and it is a blog. So it does not matter what the blogger mentions in the source. If there is direct source link to Film Information or Trade Guide where you can make verification, then that direct source link can be used. But not this blog. RangersRus (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There Is No Such Site Or Direct Link To These Classifications... also That's Not A Blog & More Of A Website. AmNaTi200 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It has already been discussed that it is a blog. RangersRus (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

there was a recent discussion about Film information and was maybe unreliable as no editorial insight on the site. Discussion is in archive. RangersRus (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is really two seperate questions. First, are those magazines meet the criteria for being a reliable source? Second, is the website reliable to the point that it's uploads are trusted, and by extension is the person doing those uploads conencted with the site? If, for example, those same scans were on Scribd, they would not be reliable as anyone can upload and the provenance of those scans would be unknown. I suggested before this be raised to RSN and I still think that's the best location for a good review rather than here given this is a bit more complex than just a website. Ravensfire (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Temper (film)

Temper (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST

It seems that everyone is ensemble cast in upcoming Malayalam films. Certain editors, mostly IPs, are unnecessarily adding the term to almost every article about Malayalam films, especially upcoming films. Either they don’t understand what an ensemble cast actually means, or they just think it looks pretty. This violates WP:CRYSTAL. I've noticed this trend for several months now. Please monitor edits to articles about upcoming Malayalam films. Relevant entries can be found in List of Malayalam films of 2024, Category:Upcoming Malayalam-language films, and Category:Upcoming Indian films. 2409:4073:2E84:D6F0:68A1:D61A:3659:4FAD (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

TimSip

Can Timsip (https://timsip.com/) be considered as a reliable source for daily box office collections? (Specially for non-Hindi films which are not reported by either Pinkvilla or Bollywood Hungama) BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly a personal site or blog. It has no ownership and editorial insight. This site disclaimer says "Box office performance can be affected by many factors beyond our control, and Timsip is not responsible for any errors or discrepancies in the data reported." This is unreliable source. Most of the non-Hindi films are reported by Pinkvilla on the boxoffice gross. RangersRus (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding Rashmika Mandanna’s article

Since Mandanna appears in films across multiple languages successively, as she is a pan-indian actress, is it necessary to specify which language each film is in, particularly in the lead where she’s had multiple "breakthroughs" but they’re all across different industries + in the main body is it necessary to specify which film is in what language. It’s become very messy and disorienting as there’s no guidance on it. Thanks. 19Arham (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Indian actress in lead is enough and does not need to specify all languages but the filmography is good enough to show the films and languages she worked in (imo). RangersRus (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama News Network

Is articles written by Bollywood Hungama News Network unreliable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Thesanas (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Your question is misleading as it is not about the source, but the individual article in the source. So yes, the publication is reliable. But, individual articles that are not bylined are simply churnalism and/or paid media and fall under NEWSORGINDIA.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What you mean by 'byline'?

Articles written by author 'Bollywood Hungama News Network' still exists in

• Deepika Padukone: [5], [6], etc.
• Priyanka Chopra: [7], [8], etc.
• And many more.

So shouldn't all these resources be removed? Thesanas (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIR. I no longer wish to entertain your bludgeoning and edit warring. Read the linked guidelines above. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the reliability of Pinkvilla

There is a discussion on the reliability of Pinkvilla on RSN, see WP:RSN#Pinkvilla if your interested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Annoyed by an IP

@Ravensfire: This one IP dubbed the "IP from France" has been undoing some of my edits and doing some questionable edits, all without an account or communicating with other users.

It has been irritating for them to remove my edits such as at Nadigai, reused names from credits [9] (use Google account). An old source even mentions the Srilankan actors [10]. Rajendra Prasad appears in two songs in the film and the credits and this can be confirmed by @Srivin:

The editor goes on to add wrong information about films Rajendra Prasad (actor) is not in including three Kannada films [11], which I had removed here [12]. He is not in these films @Kataariveera: and the lack of his name in reviews of these films confirm this.

In summary, this editor has the same issue that chiloka.com has. Two people can have the same exact name and be different. India has 1.4 billion people and having the same name is rather possible. This editor tries to merge every instance of an actor's name to their filmography even though chances are, it is a different person by this same name who acted in the film.

I feel like it is a waste of my time editing here, since they undid my edits as they felt suit hence this message.

Why can't this user be encouraged to

1. Respond on their talk page. ([13])
2. Make an account (They edit very frequently under different IP addresses, so why not?)
3. Prove they are not a bot (since they only add names to filmographies, possibly from other websites)

Despite the notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP_from_France, the user seems to go about their business. DareshMohan (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@DareshMohan: is absolutely correct here...The Rajendra Prasad mentioned in 3 Kannada movies is different from veteran Telugu actor Rajendra Prasad. Its just a case of a small time actor of one language having same name as that of a popular actor of another language. So if his correct edits are unnecessarily being reverted, suitable suggestion/action required to deal such cases Kataariveera (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you've done about all you can, this is when it's time to keep going to ANI, especially noting that you've been there before, a range block was done but this is still continuing and ask for further blocks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Budget reports from makers

Is the budget report claim from the maker of the film reliable? We know that makers very much tend to inflate boxoffice figures and that is why any source with reports from the makers are unreliable but how about budget? Makers likely can deflate the budget to prove the film recovered cost or was successful at the boxoffice? RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Sangee (2025 Film)

First time seeing someone disclose their affiliation with a film. Page is at Draft:Sangee (2025 Film). I am leaving a message on my talk page to walk user through disclosure, but thought I would post here for anyone willing to assist in guiding them through the article creation process. Easier than just pinging a few of the more active editors in the space. CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I can try but very busy tackling vandalism. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed the draft and added tags, created "Reception" and left comment for the creator with some help he can use. RangersRus (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like progress. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I did more cleanup and verified there is enough for notability. Would appreciate a look at the reception section and the plot. If you find that meets guidelines then feel free to move it live. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This IP has access to various sub-addresses

Catching the target by its bullseye: we can easily dub this the Dubai IP (who naturally gets blocked) and adds Ravi Mariya, Vaiyapuri, Rajendran, Vatsan Chakravarthy, Ashvin Raja etc. to casts sections [14] [15] [16]. That way since we know their behavior full and full I can talk about it here, nobody will have to waste time undoing their edits and that editor won't keep on having fun endlessly here. All of these IPs start with 2001:8f8:1163:be36.

This IP needs to not come up again. DareshMohan (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ksboxoffice.com

I was looking for the general consensus from the community regarding the reliability of Ksboxoffice.com. Sid95Q (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable personal blog/site created through WordPress. No editorial insight. RangersRus (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Some reliable sources using twitter tweets/producers report for reporting box office collection

I just need a clarity about the reliablility of some sources which are under the reliable list. Some sources use twitter tweets to report a movie box office collection. Example: Business Today article [17] have used a trade analyst tweet to report the collections. Another example [18].

And sometimes they use producers/makers quote to report the collections. Here is the latest one [19] - "According to the makers, Daaku Maharaaj has collected more than Rs 150 crore at the box office and is the highest-grossing film in Balayya’s filmography."

Are tweets from twitter analysts and report from makers reliable because for the past few years makers have exaggerated the BO numbers based on personal interests. Recently the makers of the film Game Changer (film) had reported they day 1 collection as 186 crore [20] but ironically the total collection of the film seems to be less than this [21].

Your opinion on this Benison.

cc: @Kailash29792 Tonyy Starkk (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how WP:FRUIT plays into this. But Ramesh Bala appears to have directly spoken to India Today in that source: Speaking exclusively to India Today Digital, trade analyst Ramesh Bala, said, "Being a family entertainer, the Sundar C film made full use of the Pongal holidays. In Tamil Nadu, the film grossed Rs 50 crore, while Game Changer earned Rs 10-15 crore." Kailash29792 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Emergency (2025 film) and Contentious topic

Hi recently I edited Emergency (2025 film) and I got this notice. [22]. Are films also part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Sid95Q (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

this is the discussion regarding the content Talk:Emergency_(2025_film)#Content_removal_from_Sid95Q Sid95Q (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

They certainly can be, especially for documentaries and historical films. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a film about a significant political and controversial historical event in India is a contentious topic, and it is created by a propaganda expert artist who openly gives hate speeches and controversial statements about those they portray. GrabUp - Talk 18:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a very controversial and propaganda film made by a controversial filmmaker and I would not be surprised if the film is added to contentious topic. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#pinkvilla.com_-_reliability_disclaimers_on_pages

A notification about discussion happening on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#pinkvilla.com_-_reliability_disclaimers_on_pages, if anyone would like to give opinion there. RangersRus (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The Top India

Can "The Top India" be considered reliable for box office collections, in case box office reports from other reliable sources are not available? BhikhariInformer (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Domain is only 1.5 years old. More like a blog and cannot see anything with editorial oversight. Would not consider it a reliable source for anything as there are better sources out there. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. Absolutely no editorial policy. BLOG. — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Music and background score?

There are hundreds of Indian film articles with the phrase "music and background score". So the background score is not "music"? Someone has to take this as a task and correct this nonsense. It should be either "songs and background score" or simply "soundtrack" (if both are composed by the same person). Similarly, there are more films with "soundtrack and background score". Seems these editors have never heard of soundtrack for score. 117.230.89.208 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

highonfilms.com

I was looking for the general consensus from the community regarding highonfilms.com. Looks like a Blog, this is their about us page. Sid95Q (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sid95Q, Looks like a BLOG, talks like a BLOG, it is a BLOG. No editorial board or policy. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable and its a blog. The blog allows anyone to write review, an essay, a column/think piece, a film list, a character/film analogy, or anything even remotely associated with movies. RangersRus (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Filmy Focus

https://tamil.filmyfocus.com is not on WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources list. May it be used as a RS? An anon states in their edit summaries that as Filmy Focus is not included on that list, it should not be used. The anon is deleting content citing only Filmy Focus. See Anon's edits. I primarily do wp:RCP and not very interested in film content. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a BLOG. No editorial policy or team. Disclaimers says no reliability of the data. — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Beni: I counted 79 hits on a search of "filmy focus" and 22 hits of "filmyfocus". Most of which appeared to be in citations. Should these be tagged and/or removed? Added FF to wp:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force #Generally used sources with this "Disclaimer". filmyfocus.com. 6 September 2019. Archived from the original on 4 January 2025. Retrieved 5 February 2025. as source. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Adakiko, I'd suggest to wait for some more responses from other ICTF regulars and if the consensus goes for that, you can remove it. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable personal blog with no owner and editorial insight. The site takes no responsibility for any information and errors on the page and itself suggests that if dissatisfied with any portion of the filmyfocus.com web site, exclusive remedy is to discontinue using the filmyfocus.com web site. I have been cleaning up this unreliable blog where found. RangersRus (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@RangersRus: Thanks for cleaning up. An anon was removing citations and content claiming FF was not RS. The anon wouldn't say why, so I reverted. I asked here and Beni pointed out the disclaimer. There are still a number of articles citing "filmyfocus" (22 at this time), and "filmy focus" (79 at this time). Thanks again! Adakiko (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

kollywoodtoday.net bizhat.com

Assuming both of these sources are unreliable given that Full Hyderabad which even had author bylines wasn't notable. This brings into question the reliability of Vambu Sandai#Reception. DareshMohan (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Kollywoodtoday.net and Bizhat are both unreliable sources. Bizhat was "Website is a service made available by BizHat.com, (collectively "Hosts") and by the users of this Website ("Users")". The Users and Hosts assume no responsibility regarding the accuracy of the Content. Kollywoodtoday.net is also clearly a BLOG/personal site with no owner and editorial insight. RangersRus (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Should 3D charges be included/excluded from the box office collections?

Should 3D charges be included/excluded from the box office collections? This are the articles related to it [23] Tonyy Starkk (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla is not authentic:remove as trusted source

Disclaimer by pinkvilla :The box office figures are compiled from various sources and our research. The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data. However, they are adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the films in question. Sivad09007 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You may want to read through the many previous discussions around this site. There was also a recent discussion on RSN about Pinkvilla that focused a fair amount on that disclaimer that may prove useful. That discussion was not closed with any consensus that I could see. This is getting to the point that an RFC on how to handle Pinkvilla on the RSN board may be helpful to cut through this Gordian Knot. Ravensfire (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Ravensfire, Agreed. We so badly need a RfC now. — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

We must note that threads against Pinkvilla are being bludgeoned by socks of blocked user Vax'ildan Vessar unhappy about Pinkvilla reporting that their favourite films aren't doing well at the box-office, after this discussion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove pinkvilla

Pink villa is not a trusted source.Many users are complaining.pinkvilla is biased.. Sivad09007 (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sivad09007, Refer to the previous discussions and continue on the current discussion happening above. Repeatedly proposing changes without backing up your claims is disruptive in nature. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to STOP spamming. RangersRus (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

BollywoodShaadis

While cleaning up a REFBOMB issue on a page, I came across this source which is used over 600 times in Wikipedia. Their about page lists the names of its editorial team, yet has no listed editorial standards. It states it is about wedding, but then lists beauty tips, health, fashion, television, Bollywood, etc. which indicates it is more of a blog that is there to sell advertising. Any feedback would be great. CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This website is trash. Should never be used. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on their editorial standards, I don't think this should be used in articles. There are also other similar websites that we consider reliable, but they really aren't. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Any objections prior to adding it to WP:ICTFSOURCES?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

It is very unreliable source. No objections from me. RangersRus (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle Khanna

Can someone check Twinkle Khanna's page. Some user is constantly adding poorly formatted references. Sid95Q (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I did. Left a warning on the talk page and asked to discuss sources and changes in talk page before adding them. If disruption continues, request for page protection. RangersRus (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Should Bollywood Hungama Be the Sole Source for Box Office Reporting?

Should Bollywood Hungama be the only source used for reporting box office collections of Hindi films? Both Bollywood Hungama and Pinkvilla are reliable sources that provide box office data, but their figures sometimes differ. In such cases, it is customary to present a range rather than relying on a single source.

For example, for the film Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3, Bollywood Hungama reported a collection of ₹423 crore (source), whereas Pinkvilla reported ₹371 crore (source). The significant difference between these figures suggests that presenting a range would be the most accurate and balanced approach.

Wouldn’t this be the best way to ensure reliability in reporting?

cc: @Sush150

Tonyy Starkk (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama is the most go to source for any Hindi films. Pinkvilla is secondary for Hindi films but the most go to source for non-hindi films. Pinkvilla has been in discussion many times on its reliability and was in discussion very recently but no consensus was reached. For Hindi films if bollywood hungama provides boxoffice figures, it will be the only one I will stick to because its coverage at a global level for hindi films is much larger than what Pinkvilla covers. Pinkvilla is at best with coverage for non-hindi films mostly. RangersRus (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

What about Box Office India? I think that is is the go-to for Hindi films. BH vs BOI seems like The Numbers vs Box Office Mojo. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Boxofficeindia is good source for only weekend and certain weekly collection. It used to be better but now only reports collections for certain weekends and weeks and not much on collections from other nations for a film. Bollywood Hungama is far better than boxofficeindia. Boxofficeindia website is also very horrible and the search is hard to get the information on a movie. You will find more information on collection for like Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 on BH than boxofficeindia. RangersRus (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Providing a range should be the correct option, but we must make sure to not use figures released by makers via press release articles. I also think Pinkvilla is doing the best reporting when it comes to box-office reporting by calling out inflated figures which seems to be rampant in the industry, particularly in South cinema. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we should not rely on a single source for box office collections. While Bollywood Hungama is a well-established source, Pinkvilla has also been consistently reporting figures for all Indian films, not just non-Hindi ones. Unlike other news articles that take numbers directly from producers or trade analysts—who often inflate figures—both Bollywood Hungama and Pinkvilla provide independently sourced data.

When there is a significant discrepancy between these sources, as in the case of Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 (₹423 crore vs. ₹371 crore), presenting a range is the most balanced and reliable approach. This ensures that we acknowledge the variations in reported figures rather than favoring one source over the other. A single-source approach could lead to biased reporting, whereas a range reflects the broader industry perspective. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is ok. Better to stay neutral. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Bingo. Exactly this. It's what the core policies of Wikipedia say to do, it's the advice you find in similar discussion on Wikiproject Film. Ravensfire (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Benison, could you share your opinion and help determine the consensus on this matter? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Tonyy Starkk, there's already a clear consensus in this discussion to use the range from various RS. So go with that. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

On this note, could someone take a look at the box-office figures for Sankranthiki Vasthunam. This source, as well as this source on List of Indian films of 2025, used to claim 300 crores seem to be problematic. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Infobox edits

Could you someone take a look at the persistent, unexplained infobox edits by Mein Khoob Mein Khamkhawa, who used to previously operate out of Mere Pittaji Kon Hain. When reverted and asked to explain themselves, they do not participate in talk page discussions. Pinging Ravensfire who has previously interacted with this user. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0, ANI can be next step if they are not willing to participate in the discussions. We as a taskforce can't do much about it. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

glamcitty.com

Recently a new user is adding links to glamcitty.com. I was looking for the general consensus from the community regarding this website. Sid95Q (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Who they are: At GlamCitty, we’re a bunch of movie buffs who love sharing our passion for films with you. It is a social media site where you can join the community of cinema lovers, to share thoughts, participate in polls, and chat about the latest in the film world. It also says Any content provided by our bloggers or authors is of their opinion. This is very unreliable ssource, a BLOG/personal site. No owner or editorial insight. RangersRus (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Respected Sir, I am Journalist and I use Glamcitty website because it's the only reliable website regarding the entertainment near my town and I know the employee working over there, they have been publishing the magzine and now have switch towards digital media. Finally Sir, it's your call Yashsubhedar (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No it is not reliable source. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

i have all proofs regarding the authenticity of the news then also you are clearing all my updates Yashsubhedar (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

please reply sir Yashsubhedar (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yashsubhedar, Welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding the source, it is not a reliable cite per the guidelines of Wikipedia. You can get more help at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK, if you want to know more about the policies and guidelines. Thanks and happy editing. — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a new site, more gossip / tabloid-ish and at least right now I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. No information on editors, articles are by-lined to a generic name and the contact email being gmail are all concerns for me. I did a quick check and at least some of the articles look like a summary / rewrite of articles on other sites. See [24] vs [25]. It's not a pure news feed site, but looks like a lot of rewriting what other sites have done without crediting that other site. I just can't see how this meets the WP:RS criteria. Too many red flags for me. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Prateik Chaudhary (Actor)

If anyone is interested. Did not do a search for (nor do I have an opinion on) notability so not sure if they meet WP:NACTOR, but if they do the draft needs a lot of cleanup prior to moving to draft space. Previously deleted here under non-disambiguation but that was four years ago. CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Cinestaan.com

Cinestaan.com is used as reference on film articles as well as filmographies. I was looking for the general consensus from the community regarding this website. Sid95Q (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Example review [26]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Webindia123.com

I think this was deemed unreliable but just want to make sure [27]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot of pre-2010 Indian film websites won't be deemed reliable by Wiki standards. But I won't seek consensus for them all as it would then risk their mass removal from articles. I just let them be, as many articles don't have alternate sources and will be in danger of deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Prithvi Vallabh#Requested move 20 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prithvi Vallabh#Requested move 20 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Bengali film sources

Requesting notability about certain sources which are used in the Bengali film articles. And I didn't find them in the reliable sources table.

1. Indulge Express - It is a subsidiary of The New Indian Express

2. Filmiclub

3. Spotboye

4. Anandabazar Patrika, Sangbad Pratidin, Aajkal - All are major newspapers in West Bengal

5. Devdiscourse

6. Cinestaan Sample review - [28]

7. Aaj Tak and ETV Network

And what to do if pre-2010 films are using it? BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

OTTplay

OTTplay has been used multiple times on Wikipedia, in various articles. It is a part of HT Media which also owns Hindustan Times. Requesting its notability, specially for film budgets.

Also requesting to add its reliability status to the reliable sources table. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Kindly check the archives for previous discussions. The reliability of OTTPlay has been established earlier. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Can I get a link to view discussions about OTTPlay? I created a page, but the information I added using OTTPlay as a source was removed, and the OTTPlay source was tagged as "unreliable." I tried searching a lot in the archives, but I couldn’t find anything. AShiv1212 (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion titled OTTplay.com in the following archive. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 8. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you AShiv1212 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 29 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 29 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § NDTV.com at Lingaa

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § NDTV.com at Lingaa. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Help to review

Hello! I’ve submitted a draft article about Sahil Mehta, an Indian film and web series actor known for his performances in Tabbar, Good Luck Jerry, Raksha Bandhan, and lead roles in Farrey, Loot Kaand, and The Waking of a Nation. The draft includes multiple citations from reliable sources and follows Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for actors.

The draft is currently in the AfC queue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isahilmehta/Draft

If anyone from this project could kindly take a moment to review or provide feedback, I’d deeply appreciate it.

Thank you! Isahilmehta (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The link is User:Isahilmehta/sandbox. The AFC reviewers have declined the draft and for right reasons. You do not have any but one source on the page and your article looks quite promotional. You need to find sources with significant coverage on the actor and the roles that he played, to prove if the roles were significant roles, that got high recognition. Make the changes as recommended by AFC reviewers. WP:ICTFSOURCES Talk page is regarding discussion on sources. Unless you have question about any source, I would recommend to not discuss AFC drafts here. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it reliable

Is this website reliable, a user claiming to affiliated with the site (User:Mr the2states) has been adding links to it. Vestrian24Bio 07:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Not looking reliable, local news website or a blog. GrabUp - Talk 07:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable with no editorial insight and ownership. Looks like a blog or a personal site created by Buzzaada networks that too nothing can be found about the company and its ownership. RangersRus (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Chittara Star Awards

Are these notable (a la SIIMA or Filmfare)? [29] DareshMohan (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Are recreation of deleted articles allowed in draftspace for AfC?

Context: See User_talk:DareshMohan/Archive_6#Looking_for_an_advocate. This user engaged with friends which can be considered meatpuppetry. Also read User:DareshMohan#What irks me? #9.

However, there is a major issue I see. The article Harshavardhan Rameshwar got deleted. The reason that this is an issue is that a simple Google search shows that this guy has composed for almost twenty films [30]. He has worked on Arjun Reddy and Animal (2023 Indian film). He has more articles as time goes on [31].

Per User_talk:Jeraxmoira#Deleted articles, it isn't in my best interest to create this article. What is the protocol? At least in 2026, it is obvious someone might create but till then is it WP:TOOEARLY also on notability concerns since most if not all of his sources are about upcoming films? (Ignore the other two articles mentioned in that discussion, they are more low-key).

My question is this: when a compromised user creates an article for someone famous, can someone else recreate the article in draftspace for AfC in a neutral tone? The answer is yes I'm assuming.

Any avid follower of Indian cinema, knows that his next film Spirit is a known film [32]. DareshMohan (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be allowed, as long as the subject demonstrates notability, as proven by sources. Ponnu Oorukku Pudhusu was crudely created by User:Rajeshbieee and subsequently deleted, but I recreated it afresh and it still hasn't been deleted (hope it stays that way). Kailash29792 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

DareshMohan, As long as the P&Gs are met and you maintain a NPOV, it's fine. But if it makes to AfD again, then most probably it will be salted and deleted. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Re: Bengali film sources

Replying to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 10#Bengali film sources

1. Many of the articles at https://www.indulgexpress.com/ have generic bylines, but parent site The New Indian Express is reliable. Unsure.
2. http://www.filmiclub.com/ doesn't appear to exist any more. Archive copy appears to be a user-generated film database and review site. Unreliable
3. https://www.spotboye.com/ Unreliable. See Disclaimer page: "The website also contains auto-generated and unedited stories from Syndicated News feed. These are published as is, SpotboyE have not edited or verified the content of the stories."
4. Anandabazar Patrika, Sangbad Pratidin, Aajkal - I don't see any issues here. Reliable
5. https://www.devdiscourse.com/ has generic bylines and AI-generated illustrations for every article. Unreliable
6. Cinestaan discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 7#Cinestaan and determined to be reliable.
7. Aaj Tak : Unreliable "The channel has been penalized for the propagation of misinformation and criticised for its coverage being supportive of the ideology of the ruling government of BJP." ETV Network : This is a network of TV channels, not a single source, so hard to brush the entire network one way or the other.

"And what to do if pre-2010 films are using it?" Can you expand on this question? What is relevance of that year? Geniac (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for a late reply because I totally forgot about my query, after it was unanswered for more than a month. Thanks a lot for marking out the reliable sources. I will chop off the FilmiClub, SpotboyE and Devdiscourse references from all post-2010 Bengali film all articles. As off, other reliable sources are present in those articles.

For pre-2010 films, I was asking that, a few articles which have film reviews from FilmiClub, should I chop them off or not? For example this 2004 film Bandhan has overall 4 references. So chopping one would reduce it further. If we strictly go by WP:NF, most of the pre-2010 Bengali films will not be able to satisfy it. So, should I chop unreliable references from pre-2010 films or not? BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Can users who never accept their COI be blocked?

• Example: User:Sakthiscreens. All of their contributions are related to film directed by Mathivanan Sakthivel [33].
• Similarly, all of User:Anu Krithiga S's edits relate to Dev Ramnath [34] and all of User:Avatarr14's edits relate to S. P. Hosimin [35]. All of User:Spoorthi jithender's edits relate to Spoorthi Yadagiri [36].
• There is no doubt that they are COI it is relatively obvious. All of them have messages on their talk page from me with no response from them whatsoever. DareshMohan (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • DareshMohan, WP:COIN is your place for that. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliability?

southdreamz.com [37] and bharatstudent.com [38]. DareshMohan (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

DareshMohan, BLOG and BLOG, easily. No editorial policy or team. — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable and they are blogs. RangersRus (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

What about Top10 Cinema? @RangersRus: @Benison: [39] DareshMohan (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

DareshMohan, BLOG again. That name itself speaks volumes. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Blog. Unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

What about Webdunia? It has author bylines. [40] @RangersRus: @Benison: DareshMohan (talk)`

@DareshMohan: This looks OK but I am not certain when it comes to authors who are publishing articles. Webdunia's Founder & Group Chairman is Vinay Chhajlani. Webdunia's key executives include Vinay Chhajlani and 11 others. Webdunia is the leading provider of web-enabling technologies and content/media services in Indian languages and offers a variety of Internet-based software applications for corporate partners and individuals, including webmail (590,000 users as of May 31, 2001), a transliteration engine (transferring Western characters into Indian languages via standard keyboard), search engines, e-greetings, discussion boards, and chat, in a total of 11 Indian languages. The company operates portals in four languages (Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, and Malayalam). In addition, it provides customized language-enabling services and content to corporate clients and government. What do you think @Benison: @Geniac:? RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't get hold of their editorial team or any indication of the editorial oversight. Furthermore, their disclaimer page is clear about the unreliable nature of what they publish. — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

PS: Webdunia is salted due to the non-notable nature of the topic. — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

in.com? [41] @RangersRus: @Benison: DareshMohan (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

cinematoday2.itgo.com and Sulekha? [42] @RangersRus: @Benison: DareshMohan (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

A lot of pre-2010 sites won't appear to meet WP:RS because of their amateur looks, but I would have better things to do than question their reliability. Because if they were declared unreliable, that starts the burial process for the articles using them. I thought Behindwoods was reliable, but this suggests otherwise. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on the reliability of Rediff.com

There is a RFC on the reliability bog Rediff.com on RSN. Any interested editor should see WP:RSN#RfC: Rediff.com -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Times Now

Is Times Now considered as reliable? Also, it is used in over 4500 articles. So can't it be reliable? Epicion (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

They are owned by The Times Group, who also own TOI. So I'd say let's go with the same rationale we use for TOI (WP:TIMESOFINDIA). — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Standardizing Box Office Ranking Methodology

In many cases, box office figures are reported as a range (e.g., x–y). However, there appears to be inconsistency across Wikipedia articles regarding which value from the range is used for ranking purposes.

For example:

In the article List of highest-grossing Indian films, the rankings were previously based on the lower end (x) of the reported range. Recently, the list has been updated to reflect rankings based on the higher end (y).

Meanwhile, in List of Indian films of 2025, the rankings continue to be based on the lower end (x).

I have not been able to find any clear guideline or consensus on Wikipedia regarding which figure (lower, higher, or an average) should be used when ranking box office collections. Should we consider establishing a consistent standard for this? It would help ensure uniformity across related articles and avoid confusion for readers and editors alike. Looking forward to thoughts and input from other editors. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Benison, @Krimuk2.0, @Kailash29792 your thoughts on this? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

We are following the larger WikiProject Film and the related MOS. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no clear guidance in the Manual of Style or WikiProject Film pages about whether to use the lower, upper, or average value when ranking box office figures reported as ranges. Please mention here if you find any relevant guideline. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Tonyy Starkk, Oh, okay. I remember seeing somewhere to go with the lower limit. Lemme have a look around. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried searching for it, but I could find any on the ranking methodology on the range. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure why this source is still considered reliable. I frequently see how vocal the editors here are about the unreliability of Sacnilk. Yet they defend this source Pinkvilla with their life. Even this discussion may end in favour of the Pinkvilla faithful; however, I would like to write why the usage of this source is ridiculous.

First thing first, here is the disclaimer they give out at the end of each article, as pointed out by another editor in a previous discussion:

The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data

That should say enough but here's more:

In this tweet, the admin of Pinkvilla Box Office confirm that they started the website Cinetrak and moved to Pinkvilla from Cinetrak. Now Cinetrak, like Sacnilk, is considered unreliable. Although they say they have not been involved with it since moving to Pinkvilla, they continue to endorse Cinetrak and call it the "best box office tracking site in South India", even in this recent tweet.

In case you need proof whether this is actually his Twitter account, given below is a tweet by Himesh Mankad, the Entertainment Editor at Pinkvilla, welcoming this person and his associate to Pinkvilla in December 2021:

https://x.com/HimeshMankad/status/1469235093612875776?t=8b-mXlRNYb9FfH02fnK-5w&s=19

In this, they say that the source Cinetrak is the best source for box office in South India. Now It definitely can't be a coincidence that the box office figures given by Cinetrak and Pinkvilla are exactly the same for every film.

Pinkvilla was considered unreliable at ICTF before and was moved to the list of reliable sources in February 2022 without proper discussion, as seen here.

Now, it's not as if there aren't other sources apart from Sacnilk and Pinkvilla. Many sources including newspapers like The Hindu, The Indian Express etc. publish box office figures. And they do this without citing Sacnilk, or Pinkvilla, or Cinetrak, or any of these other dubious sources. If a movie has indeed earned a specific amount of money, then other sources will publish about it.

Tagging some of the Pinkvilla faithful so they can show their love for Pinkvilla once again.

@Benison @Ab207 @Krimuk2.0

(194.135.119.108 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC))

194.135.119.108, funny that you call us Pinkvilla faithful. As I stated multiple times (which might not be aware of since you love to cherrypick the arguments in your favour), I really don't care about Pinkvilla as long as it's reliability is established. Wikipedia works on consensus and as long as consensus says it's not unreliable, I will take it as RS and use it. Prove that is not reliable and establish that with consensus, I'll be more than happy to switch to any other source. Pinkvilla doesn't pay me and I couldn't care less about them as long as they make my work easy for box office figures. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I could try to prove that with an RfC, but people like you would still come back and support this source. Why even bother

And your work ? Nobody cares about your "work" on Wikipedia. At least I don't spend hours on this platform like some loser.

Cheers.

(194.135.119.191 (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradiction between WP:ICTFSOURCES and WP:ICTFFAQ on reliable sources

I’ve noticed a contradiction between the WP:ICTFSOURCES and the WP:ICTFFAQ pages regarding the reliability of some sources used in India-related topics.

For instance, The Times of India, Catch and a few more are considered reliable under the WP:ICTFFAQ, but they are not listed (or are treated differently) in the WP:ICTFSOURCES list. There are several such sources that appear in one but not the other, or are rated differently. This can cause confusion for editors trying to determine whether a particular source is appropriate for use in India-related articles.

Could we clarify which page takes precedence in cases like this? Should WP:ICTFSOURCES be updated to reflect what is currently in the ICTF FAQ, or vice versa? Input from other editors, especially those active in the India-related topic area, would be appreciated.

@Benison @RangersRus @Morekar @Kailash29792 @Krimuk2.0 Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

FAQ is a summary and an old essay. ICTFSOURCES is the one we use for day to day stuff and as a guideline based on the various discussions happening. Also, FAQ hasn't been updated in a while and consensus has changed with respect to various sources. So, someone can update the FAQ using the ICTFSOURCES as the base. I'd have done it but doesn't have the energy or a PC around right now. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 08:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it ok to remove the ones in FAQ which are not present/not reliable as per ICTFSOURCES. Or should that be put under unreliable. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Contradicting ones are ABP Live, Catch, The New Indian Express, Scroll.in, The Times of India Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Tonyy Starkk, you can update the FAQ instead of removing them altogether. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliability question on Pinkvilla

Page Retro uses boxoffice numbers from Pinkvilla and Pinkvilla copied the report from source called Cinetrak (already considers unreliable, per this discussion).

Retro collection Cinetrak = Pinkvilla

Day	TN gross	Worldwide	TN gross	Worldwide
Day 1	14 crore	31.5 crore	14 crore	31.5 crore
Day 4	34.5 crore	74.5 crore	34.5 crore	74.5 crore
Day 11	45.7 crore	92 crore		92 crore
Day 18	48.5 crore	96.5 crore	48.5 crore	97 crore

On 12 May 2025, Cinetrak posted "Retro in France registered 9,800 entries so far at the end of its second weekend and will aim to hit the 10,000 admits marks through the final run."

"#TouristFamily hits 5,000 admissions in France through '11 days', with second weekend alone registering 2,000 entries."

On 13 May 2025, Pinkvilla published "Tamil superstar Suriya Sivakumar’s Retro, directed by Karthik Subbaraj, has now registered 9,800 ticket sales in France by the end of its second weekend. The stylish period gangster drama is expected to breach the 10,000-admit mark by the end of its theatrical run."

"Tourist Family, which quietly crossed 5,000 ticket sales (admissions) in France in just 11 days, with 2,000 of those entries coming over the second weekend alone."

Hence it is clear that Cinetrak's data was copied and published by Pinkvilla. I think it should be WP:FRUIT. 103.161.55.143 (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Benison, @RangersRus, @Kailash29792 your thoughts on this?

103.161.55.143 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You can remove them per WP:FRUIT if they are using any unreliable source as their source, be it Pinkvilla.com or HT or The Hindu or anyone.
But I'd like to state that FRUIT applies when the source mentions that they are using the unreliable source as their source. You can't make assumptions that they are using it. They could be independently verifying it too. Hence, read the Pinkvilla page carefully. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

For this film, other reliable sources (reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES) mentioned are over 200 crore. Only Cinetrack and it's copy Pinkvilla mentioned 97 crore. The difference is very huge here. 103.42.197.81 (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Also see the quoted sentence below. They clearly copied and mentioned every number and data same way, and statements about the film's theatrical run is also same. 103.42.197.81 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

103.42.197.81, assuming that they are copying it from them (if they haven't mentioned it) might come under WP:SYNTH. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not assuming, many sites have copied box office figures from other unreliable sites like Sacnilk without mentioning unreliable sites names. This is also like this. I can also prove their coping for film called Tourist Family. If I could prove it will you consider Pinkvilla as unreliable? 103.70.199.41 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You can't assume they copied from one another just because they reported same figures. Vestrian24Bio 13:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Same figures for each day on table and read the quoted bold text below. Writing style and date is same to same. Also, Cinetrak and it's copy Pinkvilla posted same figures and end collection 97 crore (though running in theatres now). Other reliable sources which are mentioned at Retro page reports over 200 crore. From this its clear that Pinkvilla is copied from Cinetrak.103.70.199.41 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Also see BookMyShow. Bookings slot for 22 May 2025 in few theatres in Chennai. Here is proof for Retro is still running in theatres. This booking link is for Tommorow and Pinkvilla falsely reported film completed its theatrical run. The news of Retro's final collection is 100% false as the film is still running in theatres. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

103.70.199.41, Once again, I like to point out to you that consensus overrules everything in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia or journal that is bound to publish exact correct information. Wikipedia is a secondary source that uses other sources as the sources. There's no deadline here.
Now, about the sources you mentioned, if a source that is considered as unreliable is publishing X and then next day, another source publishes that same thing, that doesn't make it unreliable per FRUIT. FRUIT applies when that RS says we have used the non RS as our sources. There's something called independent verifiability and the reliable sources are trusted to do that. Otherwise, they mention it. We simply can't assume just because Pinkvilla used the same figure from that Cinetrak, they are unreliable. Many other sources like HT, The Hindu and others have also reported the similar figures in other films from Sacnilk.com and such. But they won't come in FRUIT unless explicitly stated.
Another thing is, Pinkvilla.com has to be established as a non reliable source at WP:RSN, not here. You can take the discussion there if you are hell bent on proving the unreliable nature of Pinkvilla.com, which then ICTF can accept. For now, the general consensus of ICTF and RSN is in favour of Pinkvilla.com as a reliable source. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 13:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Retro is still running in theatres. Pinkvilla falsely stated it completed its theatrical run. See BookMyShow source for proof. Please check it. As I said the difference between the bo numbers mentioned in Retro is very different from Cinetrak copy Pinkvilla source. Can you tell about it. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@103.70.199.41 Regarding the film Retro, I’d like to clarify some discrepancies related to its reported box office collections. The producer, 2D Entertainment, posted a tweet [43] stating that the film grossed ₹235 crore, which includes both theatrical and non-theatrical revenues — such as box office, satellite, digital, and music rights. Given this breakdown, it is highly unlikely that the theatrical (box office) revenue alone exceeds ₹200 crore.

Furthermore, articles currently cited in Retro — such as News18 Tamil and ABP Live — appear to be influenced by the producer’s statement and are likely reporting inflated figures without independent verification.

It's important to note that producers often overstate figures for promotional or financial leverage. In contrast, platforms like Bollywood Hungama and Pinkvilla have consistently provided region-wise box office data based on more rigorous tracking and reporting. Their methodology makes them more reliable sources when citing box office performance. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Reliability of Times Prime

Can Times Prime be considered as a reliable source for box office reports? This is there About Us page.

In a particular page regarding highest grossing Bengali films, it has mentioned extremely high figures for many films in the "FAQ" section, which don't even exist in the top 20 top Bengali films' box office reported by reliable sources. I think it is not a reliable source, but still, can someone please confirm it.

Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliance on Wikipedia by the Indian media

No matter whether Wikipedia has a bit of incorrect information, the Indian media blatantly copies from Wikipedia. Shouldn't they have a mind of their own? @Kailash29792: Example a actor named Rajesh (Tamil actor) that recently died was incorrectly said to have acted in Telugu since we had that incorrect information here: [44]. DareshMohan (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Doubt

I had this doubt from the start. What Wikipedia guidelines do new editors read and what all guidelines have you all read? Have you read through them entirely? This is important I feel so that editors do not waste their time on poorly sourced articles and fall through the rabbit hole. I. e. if an editor creates several poorly sourced/unsourced articles that become red links, they should be instructed on Wikipedia guidelines because they are wasting their time here and could be blocked. DareshMohan (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I think most importantly the five pillars are enough. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

War 2 (upcoming Hindi film)

Too many draft articles have been created for this film, it would be better if we could merge it into one article. Also don't know why a film of such high notability is getting deleted again and again from mainspace even though sufficient sources exist to prove it's notability.

Thanks!! MNWiki845 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This same problem happened for Pathaan and Tiger 3. Guess the western will NEVER accept that the YRF Spy Universe films are high-profile, comparable to the MCU and other western shared universes. Need to raise this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Unless there is such a really good coverage with WP:SIGCOV, it won't actually stay up and will be deleted. I have been working in AfD and AfC for years and if the draft is good enough to survive an AfD, it will stay up. If you both are sure enough that the YRF universe got RS with SIGCOV, then by all means go ahead and start the article. Try making it a GA. No West can delete it then, lol. Speaking from experience, if the article ans references are strong enough, there's nobody in Wikipedia who can question you. PS: I am an Indian who doesn't really believe in this Western influence in Indian Wikipedia topics. We just don't have enough RS. If you know the P&Gs well and got references to support your article, it can easily survive. — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue here isn't lack of reliable sources, it's just lethargic and apathetic editors. The few good editors like us are now struggling to get enough desktop time. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. More time can save a lot of articles. Regarding the OP on War 2 drafts, NFF says Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. IMO, War 2 production is not that notable yet, and once the trailer is out, we can move the draft to mainspace. Thanks.

The trailer did come, and I think it's the Adipurush/Sonic fiasco again. That is mentioned at Draft:War 2 (2025), which is well developed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kailash29792:, your comment about "Westerners" isn't appreciated and casts aspersions. You should redact. I don't think its lethargy or apathy.....it's the bludgeoning of UPE SOCK farms. I would suggest focusing more on keeping them out so us "Westerners" who will "NEVER accept" can spend more time highlighting Indian cinema instead of having to waste time protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, how do I redact? Delete or strike? And I didn't call Western editors here lethargic or apathetic, only Indian ones. Just like the government, politicians, road construction workers and police. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think strike is fine. Thanks for that. I also think there are a lot of lethargic and apathetic editors in this and many topics, regardless of nationality so I didn't mean to conflate your statements. There would be better progress, at least in my opinion, if there were more pushback on the SOCKs and UPE studio promotions. I for one would have more time and more motivation to clean up and create pages such as this (which is well deserving of cleanup and promotion to GA) in order to enlighten more "Westerners" to an industry doing more for worldwide film than Hollywood at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Ott play (H T Media)

@Benison @RangersRus @Kailash29792 @DreamRimmer @Morekar

OTT play ( HT Media) is not eligible for reliable source WP:ICTFSOURCES, which should be not used for Box office report s, HT media report for Box office from copied source, they just copied from other websites like twitter, instagram and saccnik reports. They are not expertise in source. So many examples you can found it link itself, first see entirely source, they just copied entire twitter, they injustices and jealous for something, if box office figures range high collection, they ask doubt questions and says that fake and any film grossing average they post along with twitter source as true. You can see kannada film articles links, please remove from OTT play (H T Media) from reliable source. 2409:408C:861C:C6CD:0:0:1304:20AD (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

HT media is nothing but just a post from fans discussion in blog or twitter post, if any films High range, they quoted as doubt questions as fabricated, but average film gross they just copied and accepted it, what ironing this, this is very jealous on wiki, please discuss and remove H T Media from reliable source.

For Eg, please see This link ott play say inflated just by quote as says by neitzen and also not own statement 👇

[45] Recent 2 years back kannada film Kaatera gross 200 crores, even upto 6 reliable source mentioned about 200 crores , but this Ott play ask doubt regards by quoting fans discussion in twitter and another last year kannada film Max also release, this is average film, but Ott play accept this fact because figure are low in range, this Max (2024 film) See this film link source 👇 [46] Film shoot only in one night alone, this is action film, Even director and actor accept fact budget even not cross 40 crores, but this Ott play just add wrong budget by just sharing the twitter post from fans discussion in twitter.

There is no eligible for HT Media especially for ott play, Discuss and please remove from reliable source.

@Benison

@RangersRus

@Kailash29792

@DreamRimmer

@Morekar 2409:408C:861C:C6CD:0:0:1304:20AD (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not happening, pal. Ottplay.com is owned by HT Media, whose another subsidiary is none other than the Hindustan Times itself, one of the hightly reputed and established reliable source among Indian media. If they say a figure is fake and is downplaying it, that means there's a really good chance that is true. Exception is WP:FRUIT where it is explicitly stated that it's from a non RS or paid content (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Furthermore, you can take the discussion over to WP:RSN but I don't see it happening where you can take out HT out of the reliable sources table anywhere. — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, HT media (Ott play) is unauthentic and generally unreliable , Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. Box office figures as many of them were found to be inaccurate and promotional content copied from social media twitter and other website info such as sacnilk. Rohiths90 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Rohiths90, Read my comment again. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

No. "HT Media's flagship newspaper is the Hindustan Times, the second most widely read English newspaper in India after The Times of India." HT Media also owns OTTplay. RangersRus (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla has an RfC

Pinkvilla 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. 2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Pinkvilla is the most trustable of all sources now Rohiths90 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That RfC seems to be heading towards unreliable/deprecating Pinkvilla entirely. But there have been numerous discussions within this community that came to a consensus for Pinkvilla's inclusion for box office figures. Someone should clarify this broader stance there to avoid an inadvertent consensus in the absence of any input. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Suddala Ashok Teja

@L5boat: @Manick22: Can you help fix the Filmography section of the article by sorting it and linking to the film articles? DareshMohan (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Chikoo Aur Bunty

Could anyone please take a look at this article? The characters section is a monstrosity and the only fix that possibly comes to mind is TNT, but I may be too hot-headed to think rationally. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney Star#Requested move 13 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney Star#Requested move 13 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Another death

Unfortunately we have lost another project friend and great contributor, User:Krimuk2.0. He died in early April, less than a month after MarnetteD. You may remember him for his excellent FA work on some of the top Hollywood and Bollywood actresses. RIP Krimuk and thank you for your 12 Featured articles, 29 featured lists and 9 Good articles.. I've named an award for film and literature after them both in the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon, if anybody is interested in contributing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)