Talk:Hindi cinema/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Orphaned references in Bollywood

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bollywood's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "overseas":

• From Shahrukh Khan: "Overseas Earnings (Figures in Ind Rs)". BoxOfficeIndia.Com. Retrieved 10 January 2008.
• From Veer-Zaara: "Overseas Earnings (Figures in Ind Rs)". BoxOffice India.com. Retrieved 2008-08-16.
• From 3 Idiots: "Three Idiots Creates History In China". 30 December 2011. BoxOfficeIndia.Com. Retrieved 30 December 2011.
• From Heyy Babyy: "indiafm.com". Heyy Babyy overseas report. Retrieved 29 August 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Popularity

The international appeal section is ridiculously exaggerated. Its common knowledge that Bollywood movies in the west are mainly watched by Indians. Even those are Indian immigrants with the more established Indian communities (second, third generation) shunning them. The whole section smacks of an inferiority complex that Indians have about wanting to be influential and accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.84.136 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Spot On Sir!----The.Digital.Bedouin (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)41.233.153.39 (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this article is way too positive. THe quoatations are even wrong in regard of germany: It says later in the quoted article: "A year and a half ago, the movie played in German cinemas. But the three-hour epic with German subtitles was too much for most Germans and it only attracted 7,000 viewers". So no, Bollywood is not famous here. 94.217.205.166 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Indian movies were popular in Iran too.still people watch them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.146.44.27 (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Box office figures for many countries are publicly available on boxofficemojo and many other places on the internet. Bollywood films don't even get a release in most of the world, let alone are 'popular' as it is claimed here. And where there is a release, box office seems to be proportional to the size of the Indian population (such as in Britain or USA). It certainly doesn't justify the wishful thinking being peddled on this article.123.231.90.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

article name

why is this article indefinitely protected from being moved? anyway, why should the name Bollywood be used? i think it's just an unofficial nickname ripped off from Hollywood. why can't the article be named Hindi cinema, the more formal name? any answer, pls notify me on my talkpage. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bollywood IS the name in common use. Hindi cinema is much less common. Also, putting the language name front and center puts us in disputed territory. Linguists say that Hindi and Urdu aren't two different languages; they're two different registers of an underlying Hindustani. The films are made in everyday Hindustani, for the most part, which means that they're accessible to the man (or woman) on the street in both northern India and much of Pakistan. However, even bringing up this fact (which is accepted as fact in linguistics departments) arouses furious communal and nationalistic passions. As it frequently does here on Wikipedia. At least the term "Bollywood" is neutral in this regard. Oh, and Kailash, if you want to know when a comment is posted, put this article on your watchlist. Let the software do it; don't put the onus on your fellow editors. Zora (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with Kailash. The Hindi film industry existed decades before the term Bollywood came into existence. Bollywood as a term has indeed gained currency and needs to be mentioned, but it is not the formal name for the industry, as even the article mentions it continues to be an informal name for the Hindi Film industry. IMO, the right approach should be to title the main article Hindi Cinema or Hindi Film and redirect Bollywood to it. Bmurthy (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bmurthy has no power or authority to define the "formal name" for the industry. No one has, not even the Indian government. Language laughs at government rulings and language academies. All we have is the popular name, the most used name, which is certainly Bollywood (at least in English, and this is the English Wikipedia). Use the Google Ngram viewer and graph Bollywood against Hindi cinema; Bollywood is four times as popular. Zora (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no power to define a "formal name". However, I do not need to, the facts are clear. No one denies that there is a popular/informal appellation for the Hindi Film (more precisely the erstwhile Bombay Film industry) that goes by "Bollywood". That doesn't discount the fact that "Bollywood" is nothing but a colloquial name for the Industry. Take the article on Gandhi for instance, using the your preferred yardstick of using Google Ngram Viewer, I suppose the main article should have been named Mahatma Gandhi rather the current title of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. All the regional industries are referred to in Wikipedia by the appropriate language/regions, viz. Telugu Cinema vs Tollywood, Kannada Cinema vs Sandalwood etc, even though if you check the popularity of the respective terms you might find that Sandalwood and Tollywood have gained significant currency. Bmurthy (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi had a legally-defined name, which is the one that appears on the article. Film industries do not have legally defined names. It is true that Bollywood is defined by language (as one of several Indian film industries) but the name for that language is a contentious matter. The language of film is Hindustani, or Hindi-Urdu; it is not Sanskritized Hindi. If you rename the article using Hindi, you are politicizing the article, and embracing communalism. As Bollywood is both the most-used, most-familiar term in English, AND because it avoids communalism, it is the best term. Zora (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If your objection is to the term Hindi, then I would suggest Hindi_Urdu_Cinema as the title and suggest that both Hindi_Cinema and Bollywood redirect to Hindi_Urdu_Cinema. I have not included Urdu_Cinema as I have never heard the term used for the Bombay film industry. My chief argument against Bollywood is that the Industry existed and was recognized and reputed well before Bollywood term was coined, let alone became a common term. That said Bollywood is how it is often colloquially referred to and it should be recognized, hence my suggestion for the redirection. Bmurthy (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unindenting a little. There is already a redirect in place for Hindi cinema to Bollywood. We could also add redirects for Hindustani cinema and Hindi-Urdu cinema. That would be even-handed as far as the name of the language/dialects goes. In terms of FINDING out about Bollywood, it seems to me that using the term that is most common in English makes the most sense. It also makes sense to treat this particular industry in a different fashion than we treat Bengali cinema or Tamil cinema, because it's predominantly Bollywood films that makes it out of India. (Hmm, and Satyajit Ray and the recent expensive Tamil film, Enthiran, those have been featured in the Western media.) The confusion Bollywood with all of Indian cinema is so strong that many Westerners are surprised to find that it is not the only Indian film industry. So what if the term is colloquial? Complaining about that is like complaining about people who use the word "hopefully" incorrectly. If 99% of speakers are speaking in a way that you regard as incorrect, you have to resign yourself to being a minority. Language is based on consensus, not authority. (Which is why linguists now regard Hinglish as a dialect of English rather than "bad" English.) Zora (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The language of Bollywood is not Hindi, Its Hindustani - the language which is widely understand & spoken by common people in subcontinent/middle east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.102.179 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2013

Please Change the name of Bollywood to HiFi (short for Hindi Film Industry). As a patriotic Indian, I request you to abandon the usage of the term 'Bollywood' and start using HiFi as the name of the Hindi Film Industry. Also, I request you to start an online petition to remove the term 'Bollywood' from the Oxford English Dictionary. Patriotic Indian (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not doneYou may start the petition yourself, and when/if HiFi replaces Bollywood as the common name, then we can change the article name. BollyJeff | talk 13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bollywood v/s Hindi Cinema

As per discussion above under "article name", Name is still "Hindi Cinema", where term "Bollywood" popularize by journalist fraternity. ans surely there is no reference for Urdu Cinema, Though language could be Urdu, Hindi or Hinglish, Still addressed as "Hindi Cinema".

I suggest Put a page Bollywood, with introduction, origin and history. appropriately linked to the word "Hindi Cinema".

In some meaning term "Bollywood" is defamatory to "Hindi Cinema", I urge editors and admins, for sake of your limited understanding, Do not insult the industry. Bheemsinh (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how "Bollywood" is defamatory. Also please explain why if it is, that the Indian press almost always use that term instead of "Hindi Cinema"? BollyJeff | talk 12:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Anything called by nick name or some other word other then their real name on a open forum is always defamatory. In a forum platform like wikipedia, everything should be known by its real name, not the nickname and word coined by someone. so please see some references [1][2][3][4]Bheemsinh (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Those articles just say that a few actors do not like the word because it is like copying Hollywood, not that it is offensive for any moral, religious, or any other reason. I do not like a lot of things either, but they are what they are. The articles even say "The word 'Bollywood' is commonly used for the Hindi-language film industry". Wikipedia use common names to name articles. As I said, as long as the press uses it commonly, it is the common name. See WP:COMMONNAME, which says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." BollyJeff | talk 12:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BollyJeff, Bollywood term is for press or media only, apart from media and few popcorn movie lovers, EQUALLY and STRONGLY industry known by real name as Hindi Cinema in India, irrespective of languages used in. In other way a credible and reliable portal Wikipedia is killing the Identity of Hindi Cinema and imposing a shadow identity.

I suggest to have a page with info related to term "Bollywood" and move contents relevant to "Hindi Cinema" to Hindi Cinema page. where both pages will have cross reference.

Bheemsinh (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bheemsinh, Bollywood is overwhelmingly the term used in the West. Check it out in Google Ngram Viewer. Bollywood is four times more popular as a term. That is real data. Your unsupported assertion that only "popcorn movie lovers" and suchlike use the term is no data at all. Zora (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Zora west is not suppose to decide Name of Our Cinema Industry. West should take care of west only, they may call their industry ABC or XYZ, but Hindi Cinema should have its own name. Bheemsinh (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bollywood is the name used by ENGLISH-SPEAKERS, many of whom are Westerners. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. You might want to take your argument to the Hindi-Urdu Wiki. Dunno what the article is named there, as I've been lazy about keeping up my Hindi lessons. Zora (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

irrespective of language Hollywood's name is Hollywood. Hindi Cinema has its own identity, which is tried to be overshadowed by Coined words. Though Wikipedia is English but it is Global and does not fit in to your too nerrow mind. I think you should think of it or relieve Wikipedia from your laziness. Bheemsinh (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Bheemsinh, i think its best we stop the discussion to avoid getting into more trouble. But naming the article "Bollywood" is like naming Kareena Kapoor as Bebo, Rajesh Khanna as Kaka and R. D. Burman as Pancham. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kailash29792 for understanding, as I suggest in earlier statement "I suggest to have a page with info related to term "Bollywood" and move contents relevant to "Hindi Cinema" to Hindi Cinema page. where both pages will have cross reference." Anyway I'm leaving the talk. Bheemsinh (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how people like Zora become the coordinators. Rafael Nadal's page should be renamed Rafa, Novak Djokovic as Djoker or Nole. Even though these nick names are popular, Wikipedia is supposed to give precise information and not feed pop culture. 174.62.79.67 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Coordinators

I wonder how all the coordinators for pages like this and Top grossing films of "Bollywood" are the most inept and pop culture influenced people on wikipedia. I have seen some of the stubbornest and lamest arguments and these two insults to wikipedia are still going strong. The name bolly wood which should at best be a redirect or an "also known as" is the topic name. The top grossing list is the lamest and an insult to any list on wikipedia and in the world.. 174.62.79.67 (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bollywood was just a derogatory word at the time it was coined in 1976. I am not proud of it

Blame it on ignorance, intolerance, or idiocy, but I was brought up on the best that Hollywood had to offer and every time I saw a Hollywood film plagiarized by a Hindi film maker, it used to get my goat. My knowledge of the Hindi film industry in 1976 was abysmal. I thought Zeenat Aman and Parveen Babi were one and the same person. I thought the fact that Asrani a comedian-turned-actor, scriptwriter, producer and director was a superb thing. I wrote a glowing article and the editor thought it was hilarious. He thought I was making fun of Asrani. I was not. I respected his originality, even though I thought his film sucked.

The Cine Blitz reporting team was a gaggle of girls. I was freelancing, so I went with them to visit studios. We always went in pairs or threes. Since we were in our 20s and always famished, we used to frequent Johnny Bakshi's office at Mehboob Studios and get some fabulous tea, omelette sandwiches for us and gossip for the magazine with people like Suraj Sanim the scriptwriter and Amit Khanna, who used to lounge around on a couch in Johnny's office. Amit used to brag about how he could dance on glasses and how he could eat bits of razor blades and swallow paper clips. We used to argue about the quality of Hindi films, me attacking plagiarism and poor acting ability and they defending, always defending. I told them I was looking for a new name for my assigned column "Studio Beat". I told Suraj Sanim I was thinking of "Flopping Around Follywood".

He got mad at me and told me, "just because you don't understand Hindi or cinema, don't disrespect our industry." I thought about it, realized he was right. I had seen "Koshish" a couple of years before and "Bobby" too and they were excellent films. I said what about "Bollywood" since it is the "Bombay film industry which sometimes" copies Hollywood". Both Johnny and Suraj grinned and said, "It is still mean, but okay." I don't remember any comment from Amit Khanna. He must have been munching on blades. So I renamed the old Cine Blitz "Studio Beat" column "On the Bollywood Beat". My sister Maria Vittoria Dias did the artwork on a scrap of fine blue writing paper. I gave it to the editor Rita K Mehta who loved it. She gave it to the artist and about three months later the artwork made it to the magazine. It would have been in the first or second quarter of 1977.

I am not proud of the word. It was not brilliant coinage. Anyone could have done it. But now when I see how it has grown I often think, damn. If only I had copyrighted the word, I could have produced my own flop film. And anyway, Bollywood has become a brand to reckon with and the tables have turned with Hollywood now shamelessly copying Bollywood. I like that. Yeah. I like that very much.

Signed, Bevinda Collaco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.104.105 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2013

92.98.85.126 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: no actual request made here. Nici[[User_talk:NiciVampireHeart|> Now it's war against India in Afghanistan ](Lihaas (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)).

Help Please!

I have started creating the article List of Indian film series. I need your help in adding the film series in Hindi language. Since there might be a lot of them consisting of 2 films, my opinion is that only those film series with 3 or more films should be added (all of which have been released only). Already 8 film series have been added. Please feel free to come and add more and do the required corrections. Once fully created, this list will be highly informative. All future opinions and comments should be posted here or on my talk page only please since I would not be watching this talk page. - Jayadevp13 17:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

please add interwiki for ur:بالی وڈ کے — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apparition11 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks!