Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Achievement awards

Just to increase the activity and honour senior editors of this project, I have a proposal of awarding a barnstar on the lines of "Dadasaheb Palke Award" to them. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want that ever. That's given to old people!

§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I never said old people. I meant senior editors and presenting them doesn't mean that their era in WP has come to end or the award must only be given to retired users. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a joke! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Just a small notice so that people don't delete the article again: Dhoom 3 has begun filming and is therefore officially in production, meaning that it is worthy of having its own article right now. I have removed the redirect and even started work on it. Help is, as usual, much welcomed :D. Cheers. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is currently titled Dhoom 3: Back in Action. It should be just Dhoom 3. I think the Back in Action part is just a tag line, and not part of the title. If you look at Dhoom 2, you will see Back in Action there as well on the poster. BollyJeff | talk 01:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

True. Some editor redirected it to the Back in Action article, so I'll have to open a move proposal. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on userspace article

Hi all. I am relatively new to editing. I created an article in userspace for a Hindi film after I noticed that one didn't exist while browsing : User:AnshumanF/Abdullah (1980 film). I am not entirely sure if the talk page here is the right space to ask for feedback, but it would be lovely if more experienced editors could take a look at this. Thanks. AnshumanF (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The article looks good to me. You can move it to article space. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ankitbhatt and AnimeshKulkarni for the quick responses. This is heartening for a newbie :) . I have moved the article to mainspace here and uploaded a (non-free) image of the poster as well. I have provided what seemed to me a reasonable non-free use rationale. Further comments and suggestions would be welcome. AnshumanF (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Elevation of the South

The article Sivaji Ganesan well looks like a GA. But at the same time, competing actors like Gemini Ganesan and MGR, I hope to see them equally good! Someone pls look at Geminiganesan article and pls see the edit history, howz the work? U think it can improve? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

GAN for these articles? I don't think it's possible. The best thing you could do is bring them upto B class levels. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So u can u pls re-check the articles, and re-assess them? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sivaji Ganesan and MGR are currently B class articles. What else do you expect? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well... MGR doesn't look well written and needs additional sources, contains weasel words, bias, and less about his acting career. In that case, howcome it's B-rated? Is Gemini Ganesan well written (comparatively)? Pls rate it. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer my question! Kailash29792 (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The class of an article depends on various things. Its not just length or good look. It also is not strictly defined with a certain formula. Its a huge range, and many articles would fall under it. You cant also compare articles amongst themselves. If you sit and compare with some Hollywood actor biographies, they might be ranked even below B. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

GA/FA nominations

I think Kahaani passed the GA nomination! In fact, I would rate it as "best written". But howcome it has been rated as "B-class" in the above listing? Pls update. Same applies for Ra.One which has been labelled as a GA, though it looks like an FA. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

They both still under review. Would pass soon. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Kahaani has passed the GA nomination. Ra.One still has problems which, when wrapped up, will allow another FAC. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan's films

I really think that Kamal Haasan being a leading actor in Indian cinema, articles on his films need expansion. can anyone pls view the articles Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu, Unnaipol Oruvan and Manmadhan Ambu? They should really improve I think. Kailash29792 (talk)`

Answer my question! Kailash29792 (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You can always improve any article you want. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable?

I would like to know if http://www.mouthshut.com is a reliable source. Because they provide many film reviews, (even for oldies) which may seem to be the only existing reviews for such films. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. Under the express menu it says 'write a review', 'post a blog'. Anyone can write stuff here. I have also been told by other editors not to use it. BollyJeff | talk 03:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Superlatives in Filmfare Awards

Why Best supporting actor/actress awards are taken into consideration for calculating superlatives in Best Actor and Best Actress pages respectively. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it was similar to Academy Awards pages, but I do not like it. Some editors come in and try to add other awards into the calculation also, and it becomes a constant maintenance nightmare. I would vote to remove them, if this was an RfC. BollyJeff | talk 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is not a good idea. In case of Academy Awards, "Best Actor" awards included both leading and supporting roles until 1936. But Filmfare started giving "Best Supporting Actor" awards the very next year (1954). If this is the case some may also have to include "Critics Award for Best Performance". So there is no point in considering both categories for calculating superlatives. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Its very much misleading and does not add much value because its redundant to the corresponding page. Superlative should only include data for corresponding page and not all. And yes, maintenance is a pain. I would support the removal from all 4 pages. - Vivvt^Talk 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Count me in for the removal. If the page is for Best Actor, talk about Best Actor. Best Supporting Actor is irrelevant there. The combined superlatives are better suited for the actor pages rather than the award pages. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 05:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Best supporting actor" seems to there in "Best actor" to calculate an "Overall". If we remove Best supporting actor from Best actor, then "Overall" needs to be removed too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I see there's pretty much a clear consensus here so I'm with you guys. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Same here! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Signpost request

I have put forth a request at Signpost concerning the Indian Cinema task force's centenary year plans. You can see the suggestion here. Do have a look and put your thoughts here about the move. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Great work Anit, that was the first stepping stone. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks :). ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Centenary year

On 3rd May 2013, Raja Harishchandra the first full-length Indian feature film, would complete 100 years of release. The year would be observed as the centenary year of Indian Cinema. I am expecting some celebrations or events to happen on this occasion. (Govt has promised few things.)
We, at Wikipedia could also do somethings great on this project. Making our works reach the main page could be one such activity. As we celebrate full year, we don't have to aim any particular date. I am posting this almost a year beforehand as this would require quite a lot of efforts from all.

Today's Featured Article: We all could concentrate on few articles that we think should appear on Main page. I think we have enough time to work on a seemingly good article. (All our current FAs have made their appearances once and i don't think we should/can use them again.)

Ra.One (Currently under Peer review after previous two FA reviews. Would most probably be FA by the time we want.)

Ilaiyaraja (Has had two FA reviews, but way back in 2007.)

Today's Featured List: As of date we have no FL. But we could still try.

59th National Film Awards (Fairly good in layout. But no reviews till date.)

58th National Film Awards (Layout work also required. Reviews, none.)

Did you know...: In case anyone makes new articles next year, try to match with some significant date and keep them on hold for main page appearance. In case you plan to write new article, work in user space and then only release when DYK criteria is met.
On this day...: Probably many chances here. We would have to go through calendar and see events. For appearance in OTD we simply need to have articles in good shape. But we can not have trivial things like "50 yrs ago film XYZ released on this day."

Events:

Raja Harishchandra released on 3 May 1913

Rabindranath Tagore wins Nobel prize in 1913 (date of presentation unknown)

Births:

Gangubai Hangal: 5 Mar 1913 (No established connection with our Project. But still....)

Balraj Sahni: 1 May 1913

Bhagwan Dada: 1 Aug 1913

Today's featured picture: I see no way.
In the news: Can't predict.

Please add other articles that you feel might have good chance. Other suggestion, besides Project Aim Main Page are needed and hence welcome. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Excellent proposal! We should work towards this. While Ra.One may become an FA, I suspect Ilayiaraja won't be there. There are other articles which can potentially become FA by then, such as Chak De India, Rang De Basanti and Kahaani. We should aim for a main page on that day.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This proposal should be focused in order to get some of the things done. We have enough time in hand for at least few of them. IMHO, "Today's featured picture" would be the toughest one. Lets not only target Bollywood film articles for FA/GA. We have some of the editors like Vensatry, SoS or Karthik Nadar who have worked predominantly in Tamil cinema and can get some of the articles to better status but I see no one as of now for Bengali, Marathi, Telugu or Malayalam cinema. (Arfaz is blocked long back.)

Btw, I am not sure whether 58th National Film Awards can become FL or not as its 2 year old event. Senior editors should clarify on this so that I can work on it accordingly. 59th National Film Awards is awaiting an official catalogue. (One provided by DFF is darn corrupt!!). Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 14:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Vivvt's comment reminds me of Pather Panchali which was, and is, in a respectable shape.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh of course! Nothing specific to Bollywood. Its 100 years for the "Indian cinema". I am not aware of other language film article. Hence couldn't include any. Feel free to add to the list. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see Kamal Haasan to be featured in the main page. The article, a GA is now in a good shape and has a lot of potential to become an FA. Also Kamal Haasan is perhaps the only actor in India to have tasted success in all major film industries. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets make a list of proposed article/list(s) and their current and expected status and track them over a period of time. Concerned editors can add their proposals. I would suggest to use project page than talk page as latter one gets archived regularly. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 11:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets collect all possible articles here in this week. Then sort out the ones which have good chances and then we can according begin our COTY. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I was wondering, why not first and foremost work on Raja Harishchandra and make it an FA? Let's make that our top COTM. Other than that, there are numerous possibilities, but I feel that our aim (as part of this centenary) should be the improvement of quality of all Indian cinema articles; concentrating on a few to get to GA/FA status will be a parallel aim. How's that? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 11:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont think its possible to make Raja Harishchandra a FA, considering there arent enough sources about it. But there is a slight chance of making it a GA. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Though not invited, I would still like to voice out my opinion on this matter. I think apart from all the other articles discussed above, we should try and get some of the Actors and Actresses articles up to FA status (GA atleast). IMO the top 5 living actors: Amitabh Bachchan, Dilip Kumar, The Khan Trio (Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan) should feature on Main page. Though I acknowledge the immense contributions and super-stardom of Raj Kapoor, Sanjeev Kumar, Dharmendra, Manoj Kumar, Rajesh Khanna, Dev Anand, Shammi Kapoor and so on, I fear if we could get much sources on these actors since not much is talked about or published on these stars when compared to the top 5 I listed. Currently of these only Amitabh's and Shahrukh's article are the nearest GA candidates and all others have to be extensively worked on. Among the actresses, I don't care much since none of them have really made a huge impact in this male dominated industry except the likes of Shabana Azmi, Madhuri Dixit, Rekha,.. (Ohh there are plenty Waheeda Rehman, Asha Parekh and so on..). 'P.S: I'm not much into Regional Cinema and hence I could list only Bollywood names since my knowledge is only up to that.--Msrag (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Animesh for taking this up well in advance so that project members have time to work on it. While I think that it would be the most fitting if the article on Raja Harishchandra was TFA, I don't know how many sources we're going to get for it. Ra.One and Ilayaraja seem to be the most developed, but I think if we have articles more fitting for the centenary. It would be better if an article on Raj Kapoor, Kamal Hassan, Rajesh Khanna or Amitabh Bachchan is up there. Or, why not work on Cinema of India? That would be perfect for TFA. Lynch 7 17:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why certain articles like Enthiran have not been talked about. That, at least to me, looks like a very potent future FA. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mike is right. Something that would represent Indian cinema should be up there. A personality would be a good choice for that. In case of films, a classic from Category:Indian epic films should be good. But there isn't much that we can do about old films. We would be stuck (probably already are) with no more info. But Pather Panchali has a fair chance. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Pather Panchali would be a great choice, and I think Google Scholar will help us in getting more information since its an old and renowned film. There were two articles I really wanted to upgrade to GA/FA status: Mughal-e-Azam and Jodhaa Akbar. Both should not be too difficult to improve, I believe. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 06:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A while back I was trying to improve Mughal-e-Azam, but there are few (and some contradicting) sources online. It would require offline research as well. Enthiran was actually a GA, but got delisted due to constant edit warring, especially over its earnings, which is still not resolved. I also think that Pather Panchali would be a good choice. Raja Harishchandra is really the one we want for the anniversary; or Cinema of India, but that's another one that receives too much unwanted attention from folks promoting the regional industries. BollyJeff | talk 12:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late rely, was damn busy yesterday. One thing I could see is that all are supporting Raja Harishchandra to be a FA, so that it appears on the main page on its 100th anniversary. It would be great if Vensatry puts a mail in the Indian and English Wikiproject India mailing lists so that the discussion and the report reaches maximum. It will help us by bringing quality more and more editors. We might also see alot of admins there who will help us to feature it on the main page on the mentioned date. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, bringing Raja Harishchandra to FA is going to be very tough. Anyways, I'll not say that to be an impossible task. It requires lot of offline sources. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I too agree, but we have almost a year with us. Why can't we? Vensatry (being coordinator), can you put a mail in the mailing lists regarding this to reach the discussion regarding this to mass? We would get better views upon the discussion. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Looking forward for more editors. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I feel that Pather Panchali should be the best article to consider. The article is already well written, and with some more work we can definitely get it to that level. Smarojit (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Its a nice initiative I must say. What we can do, is we can select an article each month as COTM and improve it (making it as GA standard would be the minimum). At the end of 8/9 months (say around February), we can decide on the articles which can be promoted as FA and work towards the final goal. Concurrently, we can also work on the articles which are currently GA/A and try to get it promoted to FA. As, for the content, it should be a mix of Cinemas, Actors, Actresses, Film Directors, Singers (Songs and music are integral to Indian cinemas). Apart from improving the parent article, Cinema of India, we can work Amitabh Bacchan and Shah Rukh Khan, the most popular filmstars who are known outside, landmark films like Mughal-e-Azam, Sholay, Pather Panchali, etc. Regional content should also be given equal importance. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Changing and adding)Raja Harishchandra needs to improved at least to be in a GA state to be in OTD. Cinema of India was in OTD on 18 May 2012 (100 years since release of shree pundalik). Even if Ra.One becomes a FA, we wouldn't want a film which has "worst film" in the FA blurb on this day. ~~Improving Rang De Basanti which is A class is a better bet, IMO.~~ Rang De Basanti seems to a GA state currently (will need work). The A class is a 2009 assessment. Kahaani is at GA quality IMO (GA review ongoing), but it may not be comprehensive till mid-2013 when all awards for 2012 are over. Pather Panchali, Sholay or Mother India (all GAs) may have good references due to age and influence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Redtiger that Ra.One would probably be the worst representative of Indian cinema! Rang De Basanti, Lagaan, Sholay - anything is better. And Rang De Basanti being alreday A class, may be easier to work on. Lagaan would be good as well if someone has the book (Spirit of Lagaan), and can iomprove the article based on that. I do not have book sources on Pather Panchali anymore, otherwise that would be a great candidate as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mother India (at least 1 white paper on film alone, many on general portrayal of women in Bollywood), Lagaan (at least 5 white papers on film alone), Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray has many white papers on him, the film is always discussed) has references on jstor (google search, no access to jstor). Rang De Basanti and Sholay have few. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, lets not make any article GA/FA just because there are lots of sources available on the net!! If film/personality is going to represent Indian cinema, it has to be good. I would not prefer having F/GA status for Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham... or Jeans than Piravi, Akaler Shandhaney or Do Aankhen Barah Haath and Umbartha, for that matter. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Among contemporary Hindi cinema, films like Udaan and The Dirty Picture stand out from the rest (and can be made into FA's); among regional cinema, we have several examples such as Deool, Noukadubi which could be worked upon, atleast for a GA. Smarojit (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Chak De! India and Kahaani would be the best choices IMO as of now (excluding the already talked-about FA possibilities). Many of the articles need work, and I'm more vocal for MEA and Sholay than for Lagaan or Rang De Basanti, which could wait for later due to their already better quality. What about some iconic films of Amitabh Bachchan? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 05:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I never read the article Mother India before. Just started to read it. It is superb. The lead is very catchy, unlike other run-of-the-mill film articles. IMO, this one could be a real gem, both a good melodramatic representation of Indian cinema, and pretty well written. The prose looks high grade. The references look good. Will have a detailed read later, But looks like it could be a little gem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Bengali cinema, what about Iti Mrinalini? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Iti Mrinalini, what an absolutely beautiful film. The best example to showcase the changing face of Indian cinema. Has my support. Smarojit (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If the Wikiproject can make a book like [1]; chapter can financially support for the printing copies of that book -- naveenpf (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Book is a brilliant idea Naveen. Didn't know about this at all. But i don't see a set of articles as of now that can go in a book. We would be able to do that maybe after we finish improving the below mentioned articles. We can have books on classic films, current superstars, etc. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Plan

Ok. List is growing. Let's make some concrete plans. I am taking up the responsibility for the article Mother India. It has tremendous scope to become a featured article. I am in the process of obtaining two important books on/about the film. The article may need structural changes in places. We have time. IMO, 6 months would be a practical deadline for it. I would urge other users to take up some articles (individually or in groups). Kahaani is a nice example of collaboration that is currently taking place. That could be an FA as well in 6-8 months, even earlier. Any thoughts or plans?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to formulate plans for Mughal-e-Azam and Jodhaa Akbar. Work will start as soon as this darned Ra.One gets wrapped up. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've started work on Mughal-e-Azam, but the article is going to be one hell of a tough job. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 12:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

With official catalogue released from DFF, me and Animesh has started working on 59th NFA. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 17:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we all nominate ourselves as the main volunteers in the same table below? For eg., I just nominated myself and others on some articles based on the plans stated above. It gives a quick reference and helps us know who's working on what just in case we need to get in touch with the concerned primary editor of that article.--Msrag (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Iti Mrinalini has also kick-started. I'm already cooped up with two articles now, but I shall try my best to help out on Mrinalini whenever possible. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

59th National Film Awards is up for Peer Review. All are requested to help in it. We will be taking up the 58th article only after this list becomes FL. (Would save time by avoiding unnecessary edits.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi All, Kahaani is up for Peer Review. All are requested to help expand/improve/cleanup the article to make it a possible FA. Thanks ...Msrag ^talk2me 05:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Listing

This list is strictly article-related; please do not add DYK or ITN candidates here. Please list the articles alphabetically, and italicize those entries which are for films. All suggestions are welcome, but they could ideally be discussed upon in the above portion before placing here.

Participants are requested to add new entries to this sub page.

Personalities
Article	Current	Goal		Volunteers
Aamir Khan	B	GA	FA	Smarojit Msrag Bineet Ojha
Amitabh Bachchan	B	GA	FA	–
Asha Bhosle	B	GA	FA	–
Chiranjeevi	B	GA	FA	Vensatry
Dadasaheb Phalke	Start	GA	FA	–
Dilip Kumar	C	GA	FA	–
Dimple Kapadia	B	GA	FA	Shshshsh
Hema Malini	B	GA	FA	–
Ilaiyaraja	GA	FA		–
Kamal Haasan	GA	FA		Vensatry
Lata Mangeshkar	B	GA	FA	–
Madhuri Dixit	B	GA	FA	–
Rajinikanth	GA	FA		Vensatry
Raj Kapoor	C	GA	FA	–
Rekha	B	GA	FA	Shshshsh
Salman Khan	B	GA	FA	–
Shahrukh Khan	B	GA	FA	–
Sivaji Ganesan	B	GA	FA	–
Vyjayanthimala	B	GA	FA	–

Films
Article	Current	Goal		Volunteers
3 Idiots	B	GA	FA	–
Chak De! India	GA	FA		Classicfilms
Enthiran	C	GA	FA	–
Iti Mrinalini	C	GA	FA	Smarojit
Kahaani	GA	FA		Msrag Dwaipayan
Lagaan	GA	FA		–
Mother India	GA	FA		Dwaipayanc Redtigerxyz Dr.Blofeld
Mughal-e-Azam	C	GA	FA	Ankitbhatt Bollyjeff
Pather Panchali	GA	FA		–
Raja Harishchandra	Start	GA	FA	–
Rang De Basanti	A	FA		–
Ra.One	GA	FA		Ankitbhatt
Sholay	GA	FA		–
Sivaji	GA	FA		–

Others
Article	Current	Goal		Volunteers
58th National Film Awards	List	FL		–
59th National Film Awards	List	FL		Animeshkulkarni, Vivvt
List of accolades received by Ra.One	List	FL		Ankitbhatt
Cinema of India	C	GA	FA	–

Ghajinidetails

After ignoring and warning Ghajinidetails a number of times, I don't think we are at a situation to adjust anymore. His editing is getting troublesome, and his edit summaries are repetitive and often misleading. In response, he is totally non-communicative and has not bothered to act upon any of the problems which have been pointed out. Seeing his name and his edit history, this user is close to INCINE, so I thought of discussing possible action here. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 11:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Very true! The user sometimes has ok-ok edits but almost always coupled with "providing the much needed sources" as edit-summary. When you actually see whats done, there is an extra paragraph added 1, 2. Its annoying that we cannot rely on his edit summaries. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Take the user to WP:ANI, if their edits look nonconstructive even after multiple warnings. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether they are actually non-constructive, since some of his references seem valid. However, some other editors have clearly pointed out that he adds expired links as sources, which he has not stopped even now. I was undecided, and still am to an extent, since ANI would be a big step. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Few analysis here. Firstly, the user Ghajinidetails does not make section edits. He/She is contributing by clicking on the main Edit link on the page or is removing the section headings intentionally which is misleading and kinda looks like working in disguise. Secondly though he/she have been adding Edit summaries in close to 70% of his/hers edits, only 30% of that are meaningful and the rest are just auto-populated summaries provided by various browsers such as Chrome which proves that he/she is damn lazy and is not really bothered to update it. He certainly needs to be educated/informed/warned about the importance of Edit Summaries since he's been dealing with many major "vandal-magnet" articles. And yes, something def needs to be done....Msrag ^talk2me 08:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But the user never talks. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

...Msrag ^talk2me 08:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

New film awards

I see that articles have been created for many relatively new awards for South Indian industries and wonder whether they are notable enough and deserve to have separate articles. Such awards include the Norway Tamil Film Festival Awards, Edison Awards (India) and Big FM Tamil Entertainment Awards in Tamil. Also the Suvarna Film Awards and Udaya Film Awards in Kannada and the Vanitha Film Awards and Mathrubhumi Film Awards in Malayalam, but I can't comment much about the other South Indian industries. The most recent inclusion has been the South Indian International Movie Awards, probably also the most notable one, that may get established in a few years. So which of these are notable that can be included in filmographies and which are not? Johannes003 (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO, none of them deserves a place in filmography tables. However, they can be included in the "awards" sections of the respective actors/films/technicians. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In my opinion, Awards which have received some attention of reliable source media or which are given by independent third parties are notable and can have their own articles. If both the clauses satisfy, its well than good. I use "some attention" because i don't expect The Hindu or New York Times to write about these new establishments. But maybe some renowned local newspaper at least should have noted these awards. I say "independent third party" because sometimes Award functions are hosted for killing time. Best example is STAR Parivaar Awards. They give awards to themselves. (That article is probably kept just because it passes WP:GNG. Media keeps printing all such rubbish things very fondly.) Now... should we include these awards in artist's biographies? Why not? They have received recognition of their work from some other people and i see no reason to exclude it. Should we include these home-made awards then? I would say avoid in case its very crowded in the article; but never ever use these awards for establishing notability of artist. Eg. if Kamal Haasan wins some award by these newbies i would avoid mentioning that amongst his other 50-something awards. But if someone has won only 8-10 awards, i don't mind adding one more out of these. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Vensatry. Filmography table no, Awards section...read my note above. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is a separate article needed for 1st SIIMA Awards at this stage. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge with SIIMA. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I did once, but there is a user who is constantly reverting it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to raise a merge proposal and discuss on the talk page to avoid constant reverts. - Vivvt^Talk 13:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well... i too tried that. But have started the merger discussion now. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if its just formality, could you opine at the merger proposal? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The question was also whether the above mentioned awards do even need a separate article. I feel those Edison Awards and Norway Film Festival Awards should get deleted. Johannes003 (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Gangs of Wasseypur

Hello, i would like to point that there is a bit of a confusion about whether Gangs of Wasseypur should have two different articles or not.As both movies were shot at the same time,it is being argued that ,that can be discussed in a sub-section of "release" section.Gangs of Wasseypurand Talk:Gangs of Wasseypur.Ayanosh (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think here should be two articles. These are 2 separate cinemas. An example can be Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows part 1 and part 2, which have individual articles.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So what should be done....?Should I move the page to two articles.I just wanted to make sure that no one merges the two articles back to the original one article.If no one opposes it in a couple of days i think i can safely move the article to two separate articles.Ayanosh (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that, this is a good idea, because the film was written as one, it was also premiered at Cannes as a single film, so i think we can work on a single article for the film, and i insist on mentioning the two different parts in the release section as i stated in Gangs of Wasseypur, but we can create separate articles for the critical reception of each film. I will soon start my work on the article, and i am open to other ideas. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 17:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Bineet Ojha but i believe you are a bit late and i have already requested a move here.I think it would be fair that you point out out your objections on that page.Ayanosh (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Times of India

Do we consider TOI as a reliable source? I believe yes. Anon cited this on the Roja article. Going by the reliability norms, we should have no concerns for its inclusion. But then I doubt the reliability for the language being used in the article. It also mentions nothing more than published date. What say? - Vivvt^Talk 18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed not all articles on TOI websites were written by TOI authors. For some time now, TOI has been including articles from other sources as well, like from haihoi.com and cinefundas.com. Only articles in which the author has been mentioned are TOI articles and can be considered as reliable. The above article is apparently from some other source. Johannes003 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On what basis do we differentiate between TOI and externally generated content? The above link apparently does not mention the site from which the info has been taken or how the article does not fall under TOI's jurisdiction. Secret of success (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said the authors's name will be explicitly mentioned at the beginning of the article like here or here. I would only consider these ones as TOI content. Johannes003 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the expansion of "TNN" exactly? Quite a few news articles use that. Secret of success (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"TNN" stands for Times News Network ...Msrag ^talk2me 09:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I am afraid that many articles would be applicable for the reassessment for the references mentioned for TOI. - Vivvt^Talk 16:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

TOI has started loosing reputation for sure. Check this. Although it is Hindu's marketing strategy it is very convincing. And this particular example speaks for itself. Although we are not at the point where we can officially delist TOI from RS, it is time to be careful in using it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we do not get to have an opinion on TOI's "reputation". Johannes003, that is inaccurate; newspapers source their info from various agencies like Reuters, Associated Press, PTI, etc. where the reporter's name is not given; surely you cannot dismiss all those news articles? TNN is another network like that. "TOI vs The Hindu" is highly irrelevant; it doesn't matter what we think is inaccurate, at the end of the day, TOI remains a newspaper and all its articles are to be considered valid reliable sources. Lynch 7 07:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Animesh has mentioned this thread to me. My opinion of TOI is well known generally, it is crap nowadays & the standard of English written in it often gives rise to much ambiguity but, that aside, we do not use everything that is published in every newspaper, nor in fact is every newspaper generally considered to be a reliable source. Much depends on the context in which a source is used. Even extreme examples, such as the old Soviet Pravda publication or recently-demised UK News of the World, may have their place but they would need to be treated with considerable care. Similarly, there is a credibility gap between international agencies such as Reuters and those such as TNN (which seems almost to be an in-house agency for TOI).

How about looking at this specific issue with a different perspective? Do any other news sources refer to it? If not then it could be argued that it is trivial/non notable ... and if they do (& are not just rehashing the same agency report) then we perhaps could cite them instead or as well as TOI. There is also WP:CITEKILL to consider, of course. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bilingual films

The latest trend in the industry has been making "bilingual films", shooting a film in two languages simultaneously. It will be (more or less) the same film shot twice in different languages with a slightly different cast. But how to deal with these bilingual films? Create separate articles for each version? I'm strictly against this idea as it will be plain redundant but few editors have been doing exactly that. I feel if it's the same film with the same content one article would be sufficient. But then again if the films have different titles (like the recent Eega in Telugu and Naan Ee in Tamil), which title should be chosen as the page name? With many more upcoming films supposedly being bilingual films (though I suspect that most of these so called bilingual films are only being dubbed into the other language!), this might present us with a problem. Johannes003 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there's little point creating articles for both too - and at times I guess it's just best to use common sense/acceptance to see the issue through. Maybe two separate articles are needed when the lead cast differs ie. Kuselan and Kathanayakudu or Unnaipol Oruvan and Eenadu. But in such instances like Eega and 180, where the lead cast is the same one article is apt.

About which title should be used - I guess we should just make a decision based on common sense, on where the film properly originates from - or what title is referred to most. Eega obviously has Telugu stars and crew, while others like Thoranai had primarily Tamil crew and hence the articles were named as such. I guess an emboldening version of the title in the lead is also fine. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it is all right to have an article if a film has been shot simultaneously (not dubbed) and if the cast is different. But otherwise, I am against adding articles for other versions. At present, some have articles and some don't. Yaavarum Nalam was made in Hindi as 13b but I don't see any page for it. Some more examples for simultaneous make are Vishwaroopam and Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa. Its better if the latter has a separate article for the Telugu version, Ye Maaya Chesave as it would illustrate the critical commentary in a neater manner and take care of other issues like change in plot. For Vishwaroopam, most of the hype and marketing is concentrated towards the Tamil version, and these kinds of factors should also be a part of judging whether we need to initiate pages for simultaneous makes. Secret of success (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Payanam's Telugu version Gaganam has its own page as does Abhiyum Naanum's Telugu version Aakasamantha. New editors will continue to create separate articles, particularly from the respective other state. There should be some consenus for such cases. I don't even think these films should be listed twice in filmographies, but that will not be possible since often both versions are considered at award ceremonies. Johannes003 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The lede (of the article Aakasamantha) says, "Scenes featuring Prakash Raj and Jagapathi Babu were reshot for the Telugu version, while dubbing the rest from the Tamil original". Which means the film is certainly a dubbed version, with a few scenes involving Prakash Raj and Jagapathi Babu being shot to suit the Telugu audience. There shouldn't be a separate article for the Telugu version. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood Awards

For a while now, I have been thinking of adding other awards (wins and nominations) to the filmographies of Bollywood actors – similar to that of their Hollywood colleagues. However, before doing so, I would prefer making a list of the so-called "notable" awards; by doing so it would restrict the awards we add, as well as eliminate the unnecessary debate later on when people add a bunch of other awards. To begin with, we have already included the Filmfare Awards and the National Film Awards as both of them are unanimously the oldest and most prestigious award ceremonies in India. In addition to that, I would also consider the following five as popular, annual, notable award ceremonies; the awards are listed in alphabetical order:

Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards (Apsara)
International Indian Film Academy Awards (IIFA)
Screen Awards (Screen)
Stardust Awards (Stardust)
Zee Cine Awards (ZCA)

While looking through several books, such as this, it states that "one indication of the Bollywoodization of television is the amount of airtime that television networks tend to give to telecasting annual film awards - which have evolved into a mini industry." The book refers to the ZCA as "a major showcase for Indian cinema" and the IIFA as the "so-called Bollywood Oscars". This book says: "Some of the more popular [awards] include the Filmfare Awards, the ZCA, the Stardust Awards, the Indian government-sponsored NFA, and the IIFA awards". In addition to these sources, Bollywood Hungama, a popular website portal also lists the following five awards apart from other two awards which are no longer held. Leave me your thoughts! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

An obvious support from my side is for IIFA awards; they are very notable IMO and receive a lot of press attention. Not very sure on the others, I'll check up a bit. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 05:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I support this - plus the BFJA Awards and Bollywood Movie Awards. What do you think about the Sansui Awards? Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We cannot include all awards in filmography tables just because they all have an article. IMO NFA, FFA, State awards (for regional films) would be sufficient. I would also support the addition of IIFA, as they receive quite a lot of coverage in the media. BJFA can very well be be included, as it is perhaps the oldest award in the country. At one point of time awards like Cinema Express Awards and Filmfans Awards were also highly notable. Filmfans Association awards were given even before NFA and FFA. But these two are not being given regularly over the past decade. Other than these, I'm personally against the addition of other awards, as addition of those will only clutter the table. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As of now i would oppose inclusion of all these awards. IIFA sure does get good coverage for being held internationally. So that probably could go. But there are others like BFJA which are given through ages. BUT, we dont have good references about BFJA. Their home site is like Coming Soon since ages. One test before including awards in filmography table we can do is to see if these awards category wise pages are well sourced and full with info. I deproded two BFJA category lists last week. If there are no good references available we will end up having awards only for superstars like Salman or SRK who are regularly covered in news. But then Supporting actors wont have those enteries at all. Thats bit uneven to see and hence should be avoided. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess there is adequate consensus to keep IIFA. BFJA is totally new to me, and I do agree that its awarding is shaky at best. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 10:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel all the awards mentioned by BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ are notable enough to be mentioned. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah they all are notable. They have their own articles. But do we have sufficient sources to maintain uniformity throughout? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Apsara and the IIFA Awards have their own official websites so listing the winners and nominees wouldn't be a problem. As for the other three awards (Screen, Stardust and ZCA), several reputable and reliable sources (such as Bollywood Hungama) publish the winners and nominees close to the time of the awards season. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 22:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has anymore comments, I am assuming that you guys are fine with adding those awards to actors' filmographies. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. Sourcing will be a big problem. I was told by a fellow editor that websites such as those listed above (Apsara and the IIFA) cannot be used because they are first-party sources, and therefore not reliable. I personally disagree with this assessment, and would like some comments about that from everyone here. If those are not acceptable, I am thinking neither would something like this for National Awards, which I have seen in lots of articles BollyJeff | talk 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! Bad!!! We are using the NFA issued booklet as the basic source on all related articles. WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." So as long as we are only stating the fact that a certain award was received by a certain person and not making any analysis based on it, shouldn't it be ok? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, those can be used for this particular purpose, no problem in that. Essentially, the awards websites ARE the only available reliable source for those awards, as any other (secondary) source will be based on the list of awards. There is no problem in using primary source for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as there are no analysis or interpretation done, I believe primary sources should be ok. At least, thats what WP:PRIMARY says. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There exists no other way to find reliable sources for awards. In case of Academy Awards and see the sources used in all its sub articles. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Bollywood Dreamz As of now there is no consensus to add those awards. You cannot assume that every other editor is fine with adding these awards since no one commented anymore. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not enough comments here to establish consensus, either on adding awards or on using official award sites as a source? I may have to take this to the film project to get more eyes. BollyJeff | talk 00:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Give us the link when you start the discussion. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Link is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Best_sources_for_awards. BollyJeff | talk 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The result was that primary sources are okay. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_42#Best_sources_for_awards here. BollyJeff | talk 21:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm really keen on adding those awards to the filmographies of actors. If you take a look at the pages of Hollywood actors, you notice that each and every single award is listed. I don't see why it would be a problem to list the awards I mentioned above - these awards are notable enough and do deserve a mention as well. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think that those Hollywood filmography look awful with all those awards attached. What is the use of the award section then, if all the awards are in the filmography? BollyJeff | talk 21:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said to add all of the awards - there is a separate section for that. I suggested that we only add the five notable awards, all of which are well-known in Hindi cinema, and are awarded regularly every year. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 22:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Just like these five awards, some may be notable for other users too. We cannot list each and every award. Then whats' the point in having a separate section/page for awards and nominations. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The question is not what, we as editors, consider "notable" awards but the Hindi film industry (according to reliable sources) - I have specifically provided several sources as to show why. I know that there are tonnes of award ceremonies in India, and that is why I felt it was necessary to have this discussion in order to avoid the addition of "each and every award". -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Vivek Oberoi to see how messy it gets. Awards section has just one listing, everything else is crammed into filmography, including awards not related to acting, and not a source in sight. BollyJeff | talk 16:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, No one is saying that these awards should not be mentioned at all on Wikipedia. The objection is only on inclusion in Filmography table. The notable awards will of course be mentioned in the article. Non-notable sparkling-face-of-the-year-by-some-detergent-manufacturer are also mentioned. We remove them sometimes but fans insist on having them back. So be it. Only in some rare cases these awards are removed when some admin is involved who fires you with all sorts of essays and nags you till you give up. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian film songs articles

I have observed that there are several articles created for Indian film songs. These can be seen under Category:Songs by language, Category:Indian songs, Category:Hindi songs, Category:Tamil songs etc. Most of them are not notable enough and qualify for AfD under WP:NSONGS. Please express your opinion here so that article creation can be managed well for songs. IMO, redirect is not the solution. - Vivvt^Talk 17:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Normally NSONGS talk about charts to eshtablish notability, I doubt if we have a standard chart for indian songs. some reasonable measuring rod needs to be thought of. --DBig Xray 17:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there any specific articles which seem to fail notability? If they do, then they should certainly be deleted. However, the notability of any song article is subjective, despite the presence of policies. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

the problem here is lack of objective measures. For example, the song "ooh laa laa" from The Dirty Picture is in AfD now. I personally think the song got enough coverage in media so as to deserve an article. But it is difficult to establish that going by the song notability criteria alone. On the other hand, another song, "mere hath mein" from film Fanaa, (also in AfD), although a hit song, does not probably deserve a separate article.

I think we need to ponder which songs got wider media coverage ( for whatever reason). I see many international songs having article, although apparently it seems they might not be notable. On the other hand, many Indian film songs, though extremely popular, lack an article as it is often difficult to establish notability. That is unfortunate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any chart for Indian songs. Atleast in present days. Some TV and radio stations come up with some top-20 list now and then but then they come up with some other show & this gets flushed. For old Hindi songs i would consider Binaca Geetamala's annual toppers as something that can (not should) have their own article or redirects. Awards are given to singers, musicians, lyricists and now choreographers. But there hardly is any award for the whole song as such. Is Zee Cine Award for Best Track of the Year an exception? Don't know what they mean by "Track". I would take it as "music". But Zee Cine Awards are themselves not that notable. And this all is just for Hindi songs. Non-Hindi songs would hardly fit these criterion. Only good way would be to check GNG. But that should exclude passing mentions like "Blah Blah song is awesome with music by PQR and dhinchak dance by XYZ" in the film's review. And don't just show Google hits. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Certain songs like "Why This Kolaveri Di", "Chammak Challo" and "Teri Meri" definitely deserve their own articles. Rest, has to be seen. I believe that any song which receives unusual coverage and enjoys major acclaim and popularity deserve their own article. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 05:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Songs like Hai Ye Maya and Dushman Mera (Don 2 song) certainly needs to be deleted. I dont get these points here.. What do I get to know reading the two articles of those songs..? Where is the notability and success factors mentioned in the articles..? Hardly remember any radio stations playing those numbers as frequently as "Ooh la la" from TDP. Anyways those pages just says ABC song is sung by XYZ and written by MNO which could've been mentioned in the soundtrack page itself. Why a separate article for that? BTW, I think "Ooh la la" should be improved and supported for a separate article though I agree the current state of the article is not favorable. ...Msrag ^talk2me 08:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

25 Cents FC likes this. agree with you. Thanks -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ankit, certain songs like Chammak Challo or Kolaveri do reach the mass and enhance its notability. Just adding something, other Indian songs generally doesn't reaches notability stage. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the hell are those two Don 2 songs having separate articles? They clearly fail notability. Heck, that films' soundtrack received a rather thanda response (with the exception of "Zara Dil Ko Thaam Lo", and even that was nothing eye-popping statistically). ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A song article should not exist just because a couple of people think it was a hit. Noted charts, like the different FM's should have mentioned the song significantly in their own lists and the songs should have received sufficient critical notice to establish notability. Like it has been said, an article, just to say that a song was sung by XXX and composed by YYY is purely meaningless and provokes other editors to create articles for the music they find "great". Now that several sites have started giving out music reviews, in which each song is separately discussed, an editor can just start an article, write a section named critical response and quote large amounts of text, making others feel that the song has to stay. Moving that aside, it is unfortunate that Indian songs have little online statistical publishing to verify their significance. One should also take into account that songs like Teri Meri and Chammak Challo broke records upon release, like the YouTube hits. Perhaps, we should restrict the criterion to create pages for single track release, record-breaking response verified by sources, and those which have won multiple awards. Secret of success (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hit song is and should not be the criterion. With lot of blogs, fan based sites available, there are lot of "Hit" songs available in the market!! - Vivvt^Talk 18:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SOS. "YouTube hits" wouldn't be a good idea. We should take into account various parameters like critical response and awards consideration. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What should be the criteria for the article existence for Indian songs then? Lot of articles are of stub/start class and there seem to be no improvement for long time. - Vivvt^Talk 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirected

How much so ever you discuss here or vote delete in AfDs, the closing admin will come and redirect them because redirects are cheap. This has recently happened with almost all songs that were AfDed. Aaya Tere Dar Par, ~~Aisa Des Hai Mera,~~ Do Pal, Hum To Bhai Jaise, ~~Main Yahan Hoon~~ and Yeh Hum Aa Gaye Hain Kahan were redirected to Veer-Zaara#Music. Dekho Na and Chanda Chamke were redirected to Fanaa (film). Hui Main Parineeta, Kasto Mazza and Soona Man Ka Aangan were redirected to Parineeta (2005 film). Kaisi Paheli Zindagani on the other hand was deleted as it was closed by Admin User:The Bushranger and not Admin User:Crisco 1492.
Should we infer that we can make redirects of possibly all Indian songs? They are cheap after all.
Funny thing to note, Rohit Mehra is also now redirected to Krrish (film series). On similar lines one could make a redirect Baburao Ganpatrao Apte to Hera Pheri (2000 film) and Laxmi Godbole to Chachi 420.
And why stop there? We could also prepare redirects for famous dialogues like Mooche ho to Nathulal jaise to Sharaabi and Ki...Ki...Ki...Kiran to Darr. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the attached essay? "A redirect page may even avoid the creation of duplicate articles on the same subject ...." I'm assuming you would rather have that than be constantly trying to redelete non-notable articles. In theory one could create redirects of songs from a certain album, targeted at that album, but most people don't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, those which are clearly unlikely/unprobable search terms, such as those with brackets, were deleted (with the correct disambiguation pages modified). See Lodi (Veer-Zaara song) and Tere Liye (song): both Lodi and Tere Liye were modified to point potential searchers at the right article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And as a final note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balleilakka and several related discussions indicate that a redirect would be acceptable by at least some of this project's members. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Was there some history of repeated recreations on these articles which made you think that if deleted it might be recreated and hence it is better to redirect to avoid further conflict and discussions?
Oh! So because of brackets you delete them. Songs usually have more lyrics than two words. Hence i suppose you don't mind if a redirect of Tere Liye Hum Hai Jiye was created for Tere Liye (song).
I did not include "Balleilakka" in my example. But thanks for pointing. I am also striking two more songs which were expressed as be redirected by User:Secret of success. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And if theory doesn't object i suppose no admins would object creation of lakhs and crores of song redirects. Although collectively it won't remain cheap any longer. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the essay is against creating redirects for redirects sakes (i.e. creating redirects for every song in Rihanna's repertoire). I doubt any so created would be deleted, but I can think of several better uses for editors' time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The essay says it is against creating redirects. But it does not mean it. One could create a stub article about a song, someone could then AfD it, many editors can opine delete there but finally it can be redirected. So if some editors decided to make better use of their time they can skip all this hoopla and directly jump to making a redirect instead which is okay because the bottom line of the essay is that redirects are cheap. And this is not applicable for just these article. Almost all AfDs can terminate in redirect then. Can't they? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They could, yes, assuming a clearly notable target exists. If you were to create an article on me, there would be no valid target and thus deletion would be the only option. But for, say, an actress known only for one film, a redirect to that film would be plausible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm! Btw, why was this deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyun Hawa §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the pages redirected to film articles in spite of clear result. If redirect was/is the ultimate solution, then why would we take it to AfD? Lets do it by ourselves and not overload admin with this task. Moreover, I wonder why not use WP:PROD as if nobody objects, article would ultimately get deleted!!! First go for AfD and then go for RfD and then wait...gosh!! - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In the cases "redirected...in spite of clear result" that I have closed, I use the "delete, then redirect" option. Closing as delete, then creating the redirect, when there's a logical redirect target that will remove the redlink, both assisting the reader and reducin the chance of some well-meaning new chap seeing a redlink and deciding to fill it. That said, the 'redirect instead of AfD' would be a good idea (be bold!) in cases where there's a clearly logical target.

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

In the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paisa paisa User:MichaelQSchmidt suggests that a disambiguation article like User:MichaelQSchmidt/Paisa Paisa should be prepared for this song. I am against it as this would open opportunities for many more songs which share same titles or first few words. We know there could be many songs that start with same/similar wordings. Although the current decision is only for this particular song, it will be cited as precedence for future. Though there is huge essay on how other stuff exists, why let something like this happen in the very first place. Hence thought of dropping a note here to bring this to your attention. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well... as noted, the AFD in question is about one song from one film, and a wish to use a cheap redirect to send readers to the film article where the song may be spoken of in context. It was Animeshkulkarni's argument about other songs sharing similar titles that had me suggest a disambig page for those similar titles. While I suppose my thoughts toward a disambig page for the song title can wait until someone else tries to recreate a Paisa paisa page about one of these other titles, being pre-emptive in dealing with such could prevent confusions in the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Critics Award for Best Actor

In the recently held 59th Filmfare Awards South ceremony, Vikram was honoured with a Critics Award for Best Actor for his work in a Tamil film. The award category is the first of its kind in Southern FF awards. Some users come to a conclusion that it's the same as Filmfare Special Award – South and keep updating related articles. Just like the "Critics award for best performance" for Bollywood films, this cat would've been introduced for Southern FF awards. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it indeed denotes the same. The years before it was called the Special Jury Award, this year it's the critics award. I would include it in the same article. Vikram's award for Sethu is also in the same page, shouldn't make much of a difference. Johannes003 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think both are same. As far as Filmfare Awards (for Bollywood films) are concerned, they are two different categories—Filmfare Special Award and Filmfare Critics Award for Best Performance. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it denotes the same, as per Johannes003. Awards in the South have often changed name/format (ie the Playback/Debut Actor awards), and it'd probably be most apt to list Vikram's award in the Special Award category. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Name change for "Playback/Debut Actor awards". By what names were these cats previously referred as? If we go by common sense, there is a difference between Critics award and Special award. The Special award for Bollywood films was introduced in 1972 while Critics award was introduced in 1991. Do you mean to say both are one and the same. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I stopped taking these awards functions seriously some time back. They will introduce some new awards or give them new names whenever they feel like. This year they had to give Dhanush and Vikram the best actor award, had to satisfy both actors' fans. So what to do? Give one of them a critics award! In my opinion, it should be included in the special jury category, according to me it is the same, they didn't give both the Critics award and the special jury award, did they? Then I would have understood and we could have said, yes both are two different prizes! Why wasn't the award given in every language, and why not for actresses too? And who knows whether this critic award will be given regularly from now on. In 2005, they created two new categories, for Best Action Director and Best Editor. It was the first and last time these two prizes were given. And next year "The next superstar award" might be introduced. I think you'll understand what I'm trying to tell here, they don't have any fixed rules, they get bent according to the situation. I wouldn't give them more importance than they deserve. Please don't mistake me, just my humble opinion! Johannes003 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point that they may not give the "critics" award next year. These awards are mainly organised to honour actors like Kamal Haasan, SRK, Chiranjeevi, Vikram and a few more actors in the south. There is an one-time award called Filmfare Best Film of 50 Years for Bollywood films. We may have to wait for 50 more years to see the next winner. In this case, we shouldn't consider them as special jury awards. In case of previous awards (Vikram for Sethu, Yuvan's for Oye!) they were clearly mentioned as "Special Jury Award". But since they have explicitly mentioned this year's award as "Critics Award", I think we should only use that name. Just like Special jury awards, critics award may not be given for other similar categories and contestants. FYI, Filmfare Award for Best Music Director – Kannada was not given in 1995, while the jury gave away Best composer awards for the other three languages. It's up to the jury to decide and give away the awards. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Page design

I've made some changes to the design of the main page. Members are free to discuss changes and propose new designs. Feel free to revert, if the design is not satisfactory. Thanks! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The new page looks better. Good work. Secret of success (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Embedded filmography navboxes

Hi WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. I notice that the articles Ezhil, Karu Pazhaniappan, Seeman (director), Selva (director), Siva (director), Suresh Krishna (director), S. J. Surya, Bhaskar (director), Chandra Sekhar Yeleti, K. Vijaya Bhaskar, Pasupuleti Krishna Vamsi, Raghava Lawrence, Ravi Babu and Trivikram Srinivas contain embedded "filmography" navboxes, added by an IP editor during the past month, which result in the articles being incorrectly included in Category:Indian film director navigational boxes (and some also in Category:Tamil film director navigational boxes). Would anyone object to me converting these embedded navboxes into proper navbox templates, and then transcluding the templates into the relevant film articles (as well as back into the article about the director, of course)? It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I thought I'd ask just in case there had been a previous decision that these directors didn't warrant their own templates, or something like that. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead and fix. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor added embedded navboxes to another 8 Indian film director articles, which I have also processed. DH85868993 (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Chiranjeevi nominated for deletion

FYI, I have nominated Template:Chiranjeevi for deletion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rumours

Indian cinema has reached a level where it potentially depends on speculation and gossip to popularize it further. These are purely not encyclopedic in any manner, however, it may not appear so to a new reader, as there are several articles at the moment having sentences like "XXX was rumored to play a role in a film, (s)he dismissed it later." I happened to find many editors at the moment in WikiProject Film discouraging this, hence, it would serve a purpose, if editors here to pursue their thoughts on the issue. Secret of success (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Some of the articles are equivalent to the gossip magazines. Moreover, few of the articles are also created purely based on the rumors. e.g. Shankar's new film was earlier rumored to be Therdhal which was later 'officially' named as I. (That reminds of RfD for Therdhal.) I donno how many times Gautham Menon's supposedly collaboration with Vijay is added to several articles. I am strictly of the opinion that only "encyclopedic" material should exist. This is also applicable to several TV shows. - Vivvt^Talk 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree, but IPs seem to love adding the latest "news". Is it just a matter of keeping up with deleting it all, or do you have something else in mind to help? BollyJeff | talk 20:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess that the best option would be to delete them, as they serve no purpose here. Secret of success (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ninne Pelladata

There is a discussion at Talk:Ninne Pelladata about the correct spelling of the film's name. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ICTF Barnstars

		The South Indian Cinema Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

Guys I have removed this barnstar from main page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, as we already have enough of the north south propaganda by the politicians, lets keep this away from wikipedia, at least. Please use an Indian Cinema barnstar wherever applicable. --DBig Xray 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good that you have started a discussion. But you shouldn't have removed that award before getting the opinion of others. The award is given for editors who contribute to South Indian-film articles. I don't think there are issues with it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you have reverted me I can read what it was intended for, please comment on the merits/demerits of the South Indian barnstar.--DBig Xray 11:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to get away from the north-south divide, then kill both the Bollywood and the South Indian barnstars and replace with an Indian Cinema barnstar. And better yet, kill all national barnstars and replace with just one barnstar for all cinema. —SpacemanSpiff 11:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, There exists a Bollywood, and there are existing Telugu/ Tamil / kannada /Malyalam film industry. I will appreciate if people give barnstars on these names as they really exist. but using divisive terms such as North Indian Barnstar and South Indian Barnstar is not a very appreciable thing. I could recall that not very long ago there was a sock of some user who was adding South Indian Film award and South Indian film content on Tamil cinema page and similar pages, before he was blocked for sockpuppetry. (Update: link here Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_50#South_Indian_Jingoism )--DBig Xray 11:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I think en.wiki is no longer a place to edit. —SpacemanSpiff 12:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the barnstar is to give a sense of appreciation to those who work exclusively in South Indian film articles. It has not been intended to create an ethnic brawl in this arena and shouldn't be interpreted in that manner. The reason of a sock puppet indulging in mischief is by no means sufficient to deduce that the item will be used in a defamatory sense and start a war here. Secret of success (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness at least you agree that people can misinterpret this barnstar in such a manner. Why cannot we have barnstar for these film industries, and if a user excels at a number of these film industries, why not give him an Template:Indian Cinema Barnstar rather than this. I am not trying to start a fight here, just a genuine concern, that I feel should be addressed.--DBig Xray 13:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the barnstar should not have been removed without a discussion.But yes i would be happy if it got replaced with an industry specific barnstar than a region specific one.--Ayanosh (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a single industry specific barnstar should replace whatever exists at the moment. While it might not be DBigXray's intention to start a fight, in my opinion, the simple point is that a renaming of the existing ones is not going to resolve the issues that he has (perhaps unwittingly) raised. Also, appearing to associate sockpuppetry with one particular region or name is hardly going to be viewed positively. Finally, I do think this section should be named more neutrally (to something like "Barnstars for this task force"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarify: Good Heavens ! Apologies if I was not clear enough. As Ncmvocalist has already said above, Of course I am not trying to start any kind of fight here, in fact I am trying to remove the misunderstanding that will arise seeing this, I know a mere rename of this barnstar is not going to work, That is why I proposed doing away with this barnstar and using either An Template:Indian Cinema Barnstar or an Industry specific barnstar. --DBig Xray 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Indian Cinema Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

After reading the above discussion I have created the Template:Indian Cinema Barnstar barnstar, comments please--DBig Xray 17:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You should use an actual star, such as this one:

It could be renamed. BollyJeff | talk 17:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Bollywood Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

This one already exists at Template:Bollywood Barnstar , I Agree some Image tweaking would be needed to make it look like a star. --DBig Xray 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I have renamed the above section following Ncmvocalist's suggestion. Secondly, why is a "Bollywood Barnstar" okay whereas a "South Indian cinema" isn't? We have an article on South Indian cinema. Using that as a paradigm, is it pertinent to say that Wikipedia articles promote regional division between the North and South? Secret of success (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Having separate barnstars for Bollywood, Telugu, Bengali and Bhojpuri cinema might reduce the "north south propaganda", but it is certainly not going to reduce regionalism. I have to agree with SpacemanSpiff here, lets replace all the regional barnstars with an Indian cinema barnstar. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but we can atleast do what is in our hands. If an editor wants to award specifically for Bhojpuri films he can do so, but we should not promote the north south feelings. --DBig Xray 13:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Barnstars(Please !vote)

(Invited by DBigXray and Interested to butt in) Hello people..I have created a few barnstar designs for Indian Cinema Barnstars.Please leave your comments.

Option-1
Option-2
Option-3
~~Option-4~~Eliminated
Option-5 by Vibhijain

Cheers, TheStrike Σagle 09:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Note Option 4 is eliminated. TheStrike Σagle 14:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments go here

Which option are you likely to support?

Impressive indeed, Srikar. My obvious support is for the ~~first~~ third one, followed by the second, while the others are also welcome to stay. Secret of success (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Srikar!?!?!? How do you know...?

Thanks! TheStrike Σagle 10:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol, we've met in Hyderabad, India, haven't we? Secret of success (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

haha...Yes! here!

TheStrike Σagle 10:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work! Option 1 and 3 looks good to me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Great effort!!!Option 1 and 2 would be my choices in that order.--Ayanosh (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see that Strike quickly acted upon my request for images. I like all of them. but best among these will be 3. I will also suggest members to think of some barnstar names so that we can use all of these images in some or the other barnstar.--DBig Xray 13:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I like number 3. It looks the most like other WP barnstars and represents our project best, using the same clapboard image. BollyJeff | talk 12:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi all ;) No 3 looks simple and best :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No 3 is good. Only small change in it can be made, if not very difficult to make. Make the Ashoka Chakra coincide with the center of the star. Don't mind flap going bit above.
Also i have another suggestion. Few months back Vensatry had suggested giving award on lines of Dadasaheb Phalke Award. The option 4 (which is eliminated now, i don't know why) can be converted into 2 awards of silver and golden and can be given annually or so. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Check it out and tell your views if anything can be improved.And about the option-4...I removed it because there was no support for it.Yes,I will let it remain so that we may use it for any other things. :) TheStrike Σagle 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Strike I need to be given Credit for the idea of the option 3 in the file image

per CC-SA--DBig Xray 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Done never mind...I didn't get the idea :D Actually I had that idea but thought that i might be awkward.But it seems great

TheStrike Σagle 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

parameter cinema

There is no special image that can be used in Tamil Cinema, Bhojpuri Cinema etc so I have used the image from above. As in the above section the consensus for Image is image 3 so in the Template:Indian Cinema Barnstar I have added a parameter |cinema for a special usage. eg. below --DBig Xray 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Code Result

{{subst:Indian Cinema Barnstar|1=Put your message here. ~~~~}}

		The Indian Cinema Barnstar
		Put your message here. DBig Xray 15:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

{{subst:Indian Cinema Barnstar|cinema=Bhojpuri|1=Put your message here. ~~~~}}

		The Bhojpuri Cinema Barnstar
		Put your message here. DBig Xray 15:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

~~Tho phir sab industries me pharak kya padta hai~~ Then what would be the difference between all the industries.If we wish to use a unified star for all...then that's it.....why do we have to use separate names of barnstars.....criticisms welcome :) TheStrike Σagle 15:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not made a drastic change, Just added a flexibility to include the Title for Other Cinema industries. That is the difference. If you can come up with different Images then I will include them also in this Barnstar. --DBig Xray 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Here comes my version. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- As of strike's comment, what about ? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian Cinema Task Force in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Indian Cinema Task Force for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par lead

Hello. There is currently an editor attempting to make changes to the lead section of Taare Zameen Par regarding whether the English translation of the title is included, as well as the placement of the international DVD film title. I've tried opening a dialogue, but the editor refuses to discuss the matter. I don't want to start an edit war, so his version is currently up at the moment. Since the article is one of the two film FA's within this task force, and because the changes could affect the format of other Bollywood lead sections, I thought it would be best to see if anybody in the task force would like to contribute to the discussion that I opened on the film's talk page (Talk:Taare Zameen Par#Lead section) to see what everyone thought would be the best way to present it. Thanks. Ω phois 23:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead links to Indian film site

See Wikipedia:Help desk#wish to remove all the deadlinks related to my site on Wikipedia. how can i do it? (permanent link). There are currently 272 links to the site at http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.chakpak.com. Many of them are from articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Review aggregators

While the use of reliable aggregator sites is accepted per WP:AGG to measure the critical response of a movie, the reliability of such sites are often under question and sometimes removed by some of the editors. In this view it is essential to frame a policy and determine reliability of the following Indian websites which are generally used as aggregators:

I would request all to share their views. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

review gang looks more credible. It lists the critic reviews. I guess many Indan movies have review aggregates in rotten tomatoes as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to have original sources. We should not rely on these rev.agg's selective writing. They might be picking biasedly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Votes

Review Gang

Support. Secret of success (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Desimartini

Categories on Commons

Hello,

I have started to work on categories on Commons, first with Indian and Bolloywood actresses. My objectives is to nominate a valued images for all the main actresses and actors. We already got a few (ABB, Salman Khan, Aishwarya Rai, Madhuri Dixit, Shilpa Shetty, Vidya Balan, Parvathy Omanakuttan). We need a place on Commons to discuss Indian related subjects. What do yo think? Yann (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I started a WikiProject India on Commons: Commons:WikiProject India.

Please come and participate! Yann (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're doing a great job and your work is much appreciated. Look forward to more number of valued images of Indian celebrities. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood films of XXXX

Recently a group of articles of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bollywood debuts in 2010s were deleted after AfD. The information was not worth keeping on a stand-alone article as it was over-classification per me. However, the information is not all crap and can be kept in some common place in an encyclopedia.
If one happens to see the format of 2008 in film, one would find not only top grossers, but also notable events, deaths, births, etc. on these articles. On similar lines, should our articles Bollywood films of 2008 be reformated to include events, births, deaths, debuts and be moved to 2008 in Bollywood? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. My first time contributing here. I think that we can do that, it will require a lot of work and references, but it can be done. Red Hat On Head (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RHOH for the support. But we will wait for more editors to agree (or disagree) as we are talking about 70 - 80 pages here. We might require an RFC also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but your question has been there for a long time. How much longer will we have to wait? Red Hat On Head (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We wait till we get the response. If not, i will have to raise individual page move requests and i don't want to do that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point there. I am really excited to get started on this if it is approved by other editors, my first big project on Wikipedia! And working with other editors! :) Red Hat On Head (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: You are talking about a lot of work - moves, redirects or link fixes on hundreds of articles, templates {{Bollywood films}} {{Bollywood}}. Some articles use these names in the text. For example: Film YYYY was the highest grossing of the 'Bollywood films of XXXX'. This won't sound right if the title is changed to 'XXXX in Bollywood', hence the need for redirects. BollyJeff | talk 16:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Thanks for noting the amount of further work required. I was thinking of redirecting "Bollywood films of XXXX" to "XXXX in Bollywood". That way we need not fix any blue links present in the articles. Two templates fixing won't be a big deal for me. For maybe few days the years won't appear in bold in templates. Thats acceptable. Also, the format of "XXXX in ABC" is seen a lot on Wikipedia. Something to bring uniformity! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not use {{RFC}} to get more participation in the discussion? It might also be useful to find someone who can do some of the work with a bot if a decision is made. Ryan Vesey 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There we go. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC

I propose redirecting and reformatting all articles (74 in number) in the Category:Lists of Bollywood films by year. The current articles in the category are titled as "Bollywood films of XXXX" (XXXX is year). Should they be moved, leaving a redirect from old name, to "XXXX in Bollywood", they fall in line with many other "XXXX in topic" format on Wikipedia. Also, this new name increases the scope of the article to include births, deaths, special events, award ceremonies, debuts, etc. of that year on same page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld appears to be one of the main contributor to these articles. I'll ping him and ask his opinion about this. Secret of success (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Did not notice that before. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I created most of the Indian and world films lists, yes. 1973 in Bollywood etc would be cool if they were written about as articles and then the list of films and birth/deaths and award. Bollywood films of 1950 I think I started doing something to that effect. Feel free to move, so long as they remain consistent and properly linked in existing templates.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A similar discussion was started at Talk:Bengali_films_of_2012#Requested_move. I put a link to here on that page. BollyJeff | talk 19:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The proposal at Talk:Bengali films of 2012#Requested_move affects over 850 lists in Category:Lists of films by year and its subcategories. Its scope includes all these Bollywood articles, but goes a lot wider.

I want to offer a suggestion here. It seems to me that the standalone lists of films are themselves a very useful navigational tool. I rather like the way that most of them are only list of films, because it makes them more useful as indexes to the enormous number of articles on films. The more other topics get added to the same page, the more jumping around and scrolling and so on is needed to find the list in the midst of everything else.

OTOH, I can see the utility of the broader year-in-topic style of article which Dharmadhyaksha has proposed. So my suggestion is: why not do both?

If done at all throroughly, a page on a particular year in Bollywood could easily become very big, without including the list of films. There is a huge amount of published material on each year, more than enough to support a standalone article ... so if the film lists were included, it probably wouldn't be long before hey had to be split out again.

So what I suggest is to create the YYYY in Bollywood pages as new pages. The existing lists could either be transcluded initially, and the transclusions changed to links once size became an issue. That way we get the best of both worlds.

How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good; the idea of having list separate and 2012 in Bollywood as a separate article. But in the YYYY in Bollywood, i intended to have the list itself as the major part. Births-deaths-events would be very less. For events i planned to only give links to existing articles. I did not intent to duplicate content from other articles, even in brief. Also Bollywood doesn't have any good critics who would compare films of a year, or comment on the trends or other aspects of filming, etc. There would hardly be anything in YYYY in Bollywood if the list of films is taken out. (Of course if wanted, any silly thing can be bragged and written in lengths. But i don't like such style that assumes readers have short term memory or are unable to understand tables.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but it still think that it would be a pity to dismantle the excellent collection of film lists under Category:Lists of films by year.

If there is little material for each year, then rather than creating YYYY in Bollywood articles, why not do them by decade: YYY0s in Bollywood, such as 1980s in Bollywood? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well... move it to List of Bollywood films of YYYY if you wish. But i don't see any point in clubbing all births-deaths per decade just for the sake of writing something. Readers can go on individual pages and read it. Also if the articles on trend changes of Bollywood are to be written, i don't think trends follow decade wise pattern like some government regulations. That would also be a page filler. Hence better unwritten. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Bollywood for FP

Hello friends, I've nominated Portal:Bollywood for featured status. This is the only portal covered by this task force and I expect your comments to improve it. Please take a little time and review it. Here's a nomination page, thanks. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why there isn't a portal for Indian cinema. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because it was not created!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question! and appropriate answer by Dwaipayan ;) After this, I'm thinking to create the Indian Cinema Portal. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi guys, I have a question. I apologize if I am wrong, since I'm new. :) Are the importance ratings for actors going to be all the same? I'm not referring to the importance rating on the WP India banner, but where it says, "This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (marked as ______-importance)." Because for Amitabh Bachchan, it is rated as Top-, and for Dev Anand, it is listed as High-. Shammi Kapoor is rated as High- too. Shouldn't they all be the same, since they're all actors? Red Hat On Head (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The importance rating is a representation of how important the article is for the work-group. It is irrespective of what the subject of the article is, i.e. biography, film, soundtrack, song, award-list, etc. Bachchan being one of the most reputed film personalities, this project considers it as a Top-importance. Same will not happen with Sidharth Malhotra whose article is a low-importance one, even if he is also an actor. Even though Lata Mangeshkar is not an actor, her contribution to Indian cinema is huge and hence her article is also of Top-importance. Sholay being one of classic hits, is also a top-importance article. Hope your doubt is answered. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

But then isn't the importance subjective? For example, Dev Anand, Dilip Kumar and Raj Kapoor were the so-called "Big Three" of Hindi cinema, and of course Raj Kapoor was known as a great actor and director, and Dev Anand did venture into direction as well, so. I apologize if this is being rude, but maybe some editors rated Amitabh Bachchan Top-importance because the media is promoting him and his son more? I know that isn't relevant to the encyclopedia, but I do think that Dev Anand, Dilip Kumar, and Raj Kapoor deserve to be rated Top-importance. Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is subjective. Many things on Wikipedia are. They are of course written from someone's point of view. Some editor from Australia won't even know about Bachchan. Some Indian who doesn't see Bollywood films wont care either. We have something called WP:CONSENSUS here. The general usage of this policy would be when editors discuss things and agree on something. There is also something called WP:BE BOLD. Major things like, should the article titles be written in Indic languages in the lead, should the format be changed, should the pages be moved to other title, etc. are discussed beforehand. Minor things like importance ratings, non-controversial moves for spelling mistakes, which image to use in Infobox, are simply done boldly. Ideally speaking, the importance rating should align with the class (FA, FL, GA, A, B, C, Start, Stub) because if the article is of top-importance, it should ideally be maintained well and taken to higher class. But that doesn't necessarily happen as we cannot force editors to edit something that they don't want to. Hence, the importance rating doesn't really matter much. But there are some activities like WP:INCOTM where editors take priority articles for editing.
Now to answer you specific question about Bachchan. Amitabh holds the record for having the maximum nominations including all acting categories for Filmfare Awards. He is also Filmfare Lifetime Achievement Award winner. He is also recipient of three National Film Awards, which is also a record he hold with Kamal Haasan and Mammootty. He is also recipient of two of the top four national civilian awards, Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan. He is also known as the "Man of the Millennium". And to top that all, he is continuously promoted by media. He gets ill, media reports that. He blogs, media reports that. He tweets, media reports that. He has many controversies to his name. Political parties have been involved. With so many notable points, he is of top-importance.
Are others like Kapoor, Kumar, Anand not that important then? They are, but not as much as he is in my opinion. I can't speak for other editors. But if you want to change it, you can change it. Because as explained above, this rating doesn't really matter. I wouldn't mind if you rate Bachchan to low importance either. But i am sure someone else will revert it. These rating are just for maintenance works. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright then. I think that a lot of people think Amitabh is more important because he just has had more hits in recent years compared to Dev (not a hit since 1978), or Dilip (Started playing character roles and doesn't really work much), and Raj... isn't even here. But at first he did have the Lifetime achievement award named after him. And yes, the Filmfare Awards thing... it started in 1955, which was later in most of their careers compared to Amitabh, so perhaps it was a given that he'd win more awards. I'm not going to rate Amitabh Low-importance, because I know he is important, but I do think Dev, Dilip and Raj deserve to be Top importance to. But thanks for explaining that to me. Because I do think that those articles need a lot of maintenance. Red Hat On Head (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming actors

I just wanted to ask a question here whether upcoming actors are considered notable if there exists multiple reliable sources about them. I am struggling to save this article inspite of five references from national newspapers. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, actors and actresses are expected to follow WP:NACTOR, which says that they must have at least created a small impression in the film industry, that is by releasing at least one film or documentary. In cases like Thulasi Nair, one can say that since the media are at high energies round the clock, five references were available to be added. But as far as I can see, it is NOT significant coverage for someone who hasn't completed even one project (generally, if a high amount of info is there, WP:GNG is allowed to rule over other guidelines), and hence she cannot have the article at present. But recently, the trend of 'redirecting' articles to an appropriate target has become popular, and we follow that for films which fail WP:NFF. The same could be done here. Secret of success (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article shouldn't be here. It's just not notable at this point in time. After the film's release there won't be any problem. For now, the article can be rd-ed to the film's (Kadal) article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on a deeper look, it appears to be otherwise. Secret of success (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Writer of Iqbal

I have added a non-notable tag to the article of Vipul K Rawal who claims to be the writer of Iqbal (film). I found no credible reference of his notability. I am planning to nominate his article for deletion. Do let me know if I need to mention this article somewhere else in the Indian cinema wiki project, or this talk page was fine. Jay (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This place is sufficient. And after you nominate the AfD will be listed one various sorting lists as well. But are of the opinion that this is all hoax? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't say really. IMDB of Iqbal doesn't mention him, and Nagesh Kukunoor is everywhere credited as the writer of the film. Perhaps he is an uncredited writer. Jay (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks uncredited to me. Didn't find his name in the film. But here The Hindu says "Kukunoor should just recognise his talent lies in directing and not in writing. He should hire a talented script writer on a permanent basis for all his films. He needn’t look far. Vipul K. Rawal who wrote the memorable “Iqbal” should do." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I am new here, however I stumbled upon this page. Actually the writer of Iqbal is Vipul K Rawal and there are numerous articles from various reliable sources attached. I noticed a few from Ecomonic Times, The Hindu and even Moser Bayer, the company that has the DVD rights of the movie have credited the movie to him. ALso, the website of Rajashree, a reputed production house who have the internet rights of Iqbal have credited the story of Iqbal to him. Saddumama (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddumama (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) As a reference I am attaching the link from the Moser Baer quiz. [2] ^[1] Saddumama (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Saddumama (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddumama (talk • contribs) 12:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in Discontinued and Intermittent National Film Awards article

I feel that we need to rethink the criteria for including a language in the article Discontinued and Intermittent National Film Awards instead of having its own article. Awards for Oriya, Telugu, English and Assamese have been rather intermittent in recent years and yet they have their own articles, while languages like Punjabi, Manipuri and Konkani have been equally or more regularly awarded in recent years, and yet are on the intermittent page.

I suggest that we have a criteria like 'languages that have been awarded more than two or three times be given their own article'.The Discoverer (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Two or three is very less. There is no point in having such small stubs. One big mix page like this is good. I am happy with this current state. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The respective articles are already there, just redirected to the Discontinued and Intermittent National Film Awards page. And, name is self explanatory when we say "Intermittent" !! - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, awards for Oriya, Telugu, English and Assamese should be moved to Discontinued and Intermittent National Film Awards, because they are clearly being awarded "intermittently".The Discoverer (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@TD: The award for Konkani (4), Manipuri (9) and Punjabi (14) have been given very less time in last 59 years. Also, the count in last ten years makes it eligible for considering it as "intermittent". This is not applicable to the other language awards that were mentioned by you here. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Vivvt, I was disappointed that you have reverted my work of creating separate articles for Punjabi, Manipuri and Konkani. I would like to reiterate that this article's title is a misnomer, because many the awards for other languages are also intermittent, and we cannot really redefine the meaning of a word to suit ourselves. I think we should not be critical and have such arbitrary classifications of awards, but we should apply a common rule for all. It seems very illogical to me e.g. that the award for Oriya, which hasn't been awarded since 2006 is not considered intermittent.

I urge all the members of this task force to consider my viewpoint and to treat the awards for all the languages equally. I call upon more users to give their views on this topic.The Discoverer (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "work" was a mere copy-paste of the original article!! Again, I don't understand your point of putting Oriya into intermittent as it is given more than 30 times in last 59 years and not given in last 5 years. This is very clear there that article have not been "deleted" but directed to the page which consolidates all the intermittent awards. This does not harm the reader as long as you get the relevant data. Please do not edit the concerned pages till we reach the consensus here. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not do a mere copy-paste of the original article. In addition to making standalone articles, I also made factual corrections to the data and you have added some of the errors back into the 'Discontinued...' article while reverting. One could also say that you created the 'Discontinued...' page by copy-pasting the text from the original individual articles, and the proposal to merge was not even notified on the individual articles' talk pages back then. In any case, I do not wish to have a two-way argument, but I wish to build consensus too. What I'm trying to say is that as long as the award is given less than 59 times in 59 years, it qualifies as intermittent as per the meaning of the word. If all of wikipedia had to use a rationale like this, the article Indian national football team would never have existed, instead it would have been a paragraph on a page called 'Teams that have never won the football world cup'. Infact one could argue that India shouldn't have its own page, it should be part of a page called 'Countries created after 1900'. For this reason, I'm saying that if one language award has its own page, other awards should too, to maintain uniformity.The Discoverer (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the pages before and after creation of "Discontinued.." page to verify the copy-paste! Again, you are more than welcome to correct the errors in the page, if you have observed any. The page creation was discussed on the talk page of this task force and then taken a decision to make a separate page. With your logic of one-missing-in-59-lets-make-it-intermittent, we will end up having every article in the intermittent page. So get the consensus on that as well so that you can move everything you wished to the intermittent page. The examples you've given here are surprisingly irrelevant to the subject!! - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In order to have the views of the wider community, I am requesting for comment.The Discoverer (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Separate pages for awards in each language?

Should the award for each language have its own article, or should a few of the articles have their own article and rest be grouped into a common article? (See preceding discussion)The Discoverer (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I support merging all of this stuff into one article, unless and until it is so unwieldy it has to split, per WP:SUMMARY, to be useful. Even then it should only split off sub-articles that are necessary, not one for every applicable language. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 07:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask the question that started off this entire discussion: Can Punjabi, Manipuri and Konkani be independent articles, or should they be a part of the 'Discontinued...' article? The Discoverer (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral. I was invited by RfC bot, however I can't contribute to this topic due to lack of knowledge. Jesus Presley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Double roles

Weirdly, two television and film child actors Kaushal Singh and Rohan Shah have similar biographies. Their birth dates are claimed to be different, but their works are all same. Funny thing is that they both claim to have played Maddy in Disney's TV show Ishaan. Ishaan's article however credits Shah and not Singh.
I am doubtful on Singh's biography as the July 2012 version seems to be copy-paste work of Shah's Jan 2012 version. I cant find any reliable sources to check which one is fake. But i think Shah is right one. Help needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What about imdb listing for Ishaan? And perhaps Disney India website too? And once you confirm, you can have the other one tagged as {{db-hoax}} and maybe reference this discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 05:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ishaan is not listed on IMDb. Disney's website only features on-air shows.
Shah's IMDb entry verifies two of his claimed credits, Tere Mere Phere and Aao Wish Karein. So i would guess they are right. Singh's IMDb entry however lists some 1992 film Khooni Dracula. I suppose this is some different Kaushal Singh as our Singh is claimed to have been born in 1993. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever may be the outcome of this confusion, it has led us to a seemingly attractive film, Khooni Dracula!--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes Dwaipayanc! We dont have many (is it any?) articles on films which are reviewed by users as "for connoisseurs of Bollywood horror of the d-grade variety". Some to-do for our taskforce and pain for those notability-essay-writers.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw as co-ordinator

I am no longer interested in co-ordinating this project. With the presence of a few bad-faith people (who I thought were my good friends), I don't want to waste my time here owing to personal reasons. The project has a lot of potential editors and I think someone could perform the duties much more better than me with lot of involvement. Thanks for the support and encouragement. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Swayamvaram GA nomination

Swayamvaram was recently nominated for GA. I read the article, it is quite well-developed, and close to GA. I can do the review, but the problem is the nominator seems to be very new, and he did not contribute to the article at all. The principal contributor (Arfaz) remains blocked. Anyone interested to take up the responsibility of responding to GA review? Someone who speaks Malayalam, or, at least, has seen the film would be a better candidate, but anyone can do it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I do not speak Malayalam, I have seen the movie. Again, I am not the main contributor to the article with only 4 edits till now and pretty new to GAs. I can take this up in case you are starting with the review. This would also give me a chance to learn more about GAs and other Wikipedia norms. - Vivvt • (Talk) 00:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So be it! I've started to provide review comments.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra peer review

Priyanka Chopra peer review underway here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Want to apply for FAC soon. BollyJeff | talk 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Following up on the centenary year planning

In June 2012, we had elaborate discussion on possible featured article, list drive for the centenary year. It's four months from now. Ay update on activities? The stuffs that I know are — National Film Award for Best Actress is almost at the end of the featured list candidacy, Vidya Balan became featured article (although it was not discussed in the plan as such, and has already been featured on the main page), The 59th National Film Awards failed at FLC, and Mother India although nearly ready has not been nominated yet for FAC (I plan to discuss with other collaborators of the article on a FAC soon). Any other updates?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, Portal:Bollywood is a current featured portal candidate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I was worried about some of the claims made in MEA, and lost my partner. I then got sidetracked to work on Priyanka Chopra, which is almost ready for an FA try now. BollyJeff | talk 14:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that major awards are over, anyone willing to take Kahaani further, towards a possible FAC?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take Kahaani further, but with my work load I cannot do it alone. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 03:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course there will be others to help. I will be available to some extent. With your recent success in Vidya Balan,you can definitely do it. My first advice would be to read the article carefully, and change/improve prose whenever you feel needed. Content-wise, it is in a good condition. For prose, it needs a new pair of eyes which you have!--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

@Dwaipayanc: Are you planning to take Pather Panchali to FAC? Tito had said few days back that he has a Bengali book by Ray on the film. If that's the case, then it would be an excellent source. What say? - Vivvt • (Talk) 04:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume Tito meant the book Apur Panchali, which I have read. And yes, it's the best source for all the three movies in the Apu trilogy (especially the third). --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe yes. He mentioned it as Pather (Apur) Panchali. - Vivvt • (Talk) 04:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article in years. But the book Apur Panchali is a great idea. But I think Mother India is in a better stage for an FAC in near future.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick and partial reading of the book Apur Panchali; it has incredible details. As usual of Ray's writing, it is lucid and very easy to read. Feeling inspired to work on the article again!--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody has book, Spirit of Lagaan by Satyajit Bhatkal? It contains lot of information on the film. I do have the book but currently not with me. Lagaan has also got good chances at FAC. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Hi everyone at WikiProject India cinema!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

Improving coverage about Indian women filmmakers, actors, directors, producers, and executives
Developing content about women owned Indian film businesses

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Paap

Hello fellow friends. I need your opinions. I am currently in the process of restructuring a film article, which is the Paap (2003) film. Another Wikipedian has disagreed with me on updating the theatrical poster of the page. Previously, the article used a low-quality scan of the DVD cover. Can anyone please advise me on what to do? I thank you for your cooperation. Yours faithfully, Kotak kasut. 11:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

a) Both images are non free. b) the first image was uploaded in 2010 by User:Ekabhishek and naturally c) he got an alert from Hazard bot that his upload will be deleted d) most probably uploader Ekabhishek is on a short Wikibreak! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Kotak, see here for clarity on infobox images, which suggests that theatrical poster be used and in case that isn’t found, DVD cover etc can be found. Since I uploaded the DVD image I would have no problem if a better image is found. Though what is alarming is your comments on User_talk:Titodutta, where you start making personal attacks on him, and called him to be “trolling", which is a serious charge. What surprised me is that you lost your temper, only after single around of discussion, wherein he basically disagreed with you, so?, dispute is not a license to loose WP:civility. I believe the problem also started when you first replaced the image without mentioning anything in edit summary as seen here in page history, which makes the action suspicious to any editor, who would normally assume good faith, plus this reeks of WP:Ownership, as this is escalating into an edit war there! --Ekabhishek^talk 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Slight logical confusion – "which suggests that theatrical poster be used and in case that isn’t found, DVD cover etc can be found" – alright! But, it does not say, if this condition is fulfilled (i.e. someone uploads a DVD cover), after 2 years or so, replace it with a theatrical poster. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess, if the poster is adding something to the article, which I am not sure here... Changing image should be least important thing in "restructuring" an article as it is the easiest.--Ekabhishek^talk 05:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello friends, thanks for all of your replies. Well I realised that I went overboard of labelling Tito names, and I would like to apologise to Tito for making such terrible statements about him. It is to my good intentions that I think the movie poster is better suited per the statement "theatrical poster be used and in case that isn’t found, DVD cover etc can be found". My intentions of editing articles are all in good faith, so I apologise to everyone again. Yours faithfully, Kotak kasut. 08:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Placement of alternate titles

Hello. A discussion regarding the placement of English DVD titles for films released worldwide in cinemas under the foreign title has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Placement of alternate titles. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ω phois 00:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mixed identity

Hello!

We have an article at Kaikala Satyanarayana, a veteran actor in Telugu films. There is a user User talk:Satish.kasetty who claims he is "Kasetty Sathyanarayana" also goes by screen name "Satish Kasetty", a film director. The user has been editing the articles 59th National Film Awards, Hope (2006 film) and National Film Award for Best Film on Other Social Issues.

Now the references say that the jury of 59th NFA was "K. Satyanarayana" (ref pg 46). The director of the film Hope and winner of NFA is credited as "K. Sathyanarayana" (ref pg 19). Both refs show images of the person, which look same to me. This person also has a website, (claimed as official owner's), at http://satishkasetty.com/.

This clearly seems to be the case where both Satyanarayanas have been mixed at some places. Also both have same initial of K. So its quite likely to happen. Now the problem here to find the right target. Should the new article on the director be at Kasetty Sathyanarayana or Satish Kasetty or what? I need help of someone who knows somewhat about the two subjects. Is the screen name popular enough to be the article name per WP:COMMONNAME? I personally have no knowledge of them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed for Harmeet Singh

Hi there. After Harmeet Singh turned into a disambiguation-page, I've fixed most of the incoming links to the dab-page, but there are several Indian films which still got a link to this dab-page. I believe it is the same person, as he listed under "Cinematography" is all the articles, but I haven't fixed those links as I don't know where to link to. Could any member of this project find the correct disambiguator (perhaps Harmeet Singh (cinematographer)?), and fix the remaining incoming links to Harmeet Singh? Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done by User:Niceguyedc. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

reliability of review aggregation site is under discussion

Anyone who is able to provide insight into the reliability of reviewbol is invited to share their perspectives at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Identifying_.22Reviewbol.22_as_reliable_source -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Pran

Pran wins the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for 2012. In the news nomination for your support. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

ibos

As far as I know, ibos is not considered as a reliable source. However, I see that this is used in scholarly articles (journals) as a reference. I remember from the discussion we had regarding reliability of boxofficeindia.com, when an editor presented evidences that the website had been used in scholarly articles as references, boxofficeindia became a source that we could reliably use. Any thought on ibos?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide examples of these scholarly articles? I have seen some pretty ridiculous numbers coming from IBOS that out out line with reality compared to other sources. BollyJeff | talk 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sholay peer review

We could use some eyes at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sholay/archive1. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 15:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is closed now. BollyJeff | talk 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Year of release discussion

Please have a look at Talk:Kati Patang and give your opinion regarding when this film was released. BollyJeff | talk 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

SRK IP vandals

There are some IPs 39.32.x.x and 39.47.x.x that keep messing up articles related to Shahrukh Khan. Can anything be done? There is not much use in leaving warnings, because the IP address keeps shifting slightly. BollyJeff | talk 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I reverted some of the redirects (and that IP stopped) but soon after there were some IPs which started the same over and over again if forced me to stop reverting and see what other editors do. Well, my opinion is just to revert these changes (made by IPs) if they keep changing it again, probably warn them and see whether they stop after that. Tolly 4 bolly 18:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Multilingual films

In India the production of multilingual films is still in use, surprisingly to me as an European where it was practiced only few years in the early talkie era. During this year there are/ will be released at least 4 movies which were shot simultaneously in altered language-versions: David (2013 Hindi film)/David (2013 Tamil film), Gouravam (2013 film) (Telugu/Tamil), Zanjeer/Toofan, Nimirndhu Nil/Janda Pai Kapiraju.
As there is a lemma about multiple-language version a new section about the Indian practice of this film translating-method should be added. Unfortunately, I didn't find adequate sources in English, so I can't write it by myself. Hoerestimmen (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Javed Jaffrey

This BLP is completely unreferenced and currently at AFD. Can editors familiar with the go-to sources for Bollywood articles help source/improve it, since the subject is obviously notable enough to have a wiki bio ? Abecedare (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible COI editor creating new pages that need notability checks and wikification

All pages created by the relatively new and possibly-COI'd editor Senseltd (talk · contribs) need to be reviewed for notability and WP:PRODed or AFD'd if not notable or radically cleaned up/wikified if notable. There are so many I haven't bothered to tag them all yet.
~~Two exceptions~~ One exception:

Please leave AFC submissions alone UNLESS they have the beige "reviewing" template somewhere on the page and you are familiar with the AFC reviewing instructions or at least know to use the AFC Helper Script gadget or manually add {{afc comment}} in the right place in the submission, and
Unless you are an administrator, leave Sankar and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/V R Sankar alone until the complex history split/merge requested at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen is complete. completed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Razak Khan

Dear Indian cinema experts: This article is being considered for deletion, can someone please volunteer and improve it? Also a debate for deletion is going on according to which this Actor is not notable, it would be a great help if someone could find his Biography and upload an image of him. --Foodie (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Help Please!

I have started creating the article Indian film series. Since there a lot of them I need your help in adding more series. Since there a lot of film series 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). Please feel free to come and add more and do the required corrections. Once fully created, this list will be highly informative. I can add only those films in Hindi and Malayalam and that too not many. Members from other language communities are also invited. All future opinions and comments here or on my talk page only please since I would not be watching this page. - Jayadevp13 07:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian or Canadian?

This is my doubt. Is the Elements trilogy Indian or Canadian? I know that it is Indian subcontinent based but is it a Bollywood movie. For example, Slumdog Millionaire is India based but it is a Hollywood movie. My doubt is that should it be included in the List of Indian film series? If possible then direct all your comments or opinions here. - Jayadevp13 05:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Lena (actress)

Hi WikiProject, I respectfully request some familiar eyes over at Lena (actress). There is some recent discrepancy about her relationship status. An earlier editor sourced a contribution indicating she was married, but a recent editor provided a sourced edit that suggests she was not married. She appears to be credited with the last name Abhilash. Anyhow, the subject is beyond the scope of my knowledge, and I can't read the source article. I would also like to suggest that maybe the film credit list in the article is long. Do we need to list cameo appearances? Seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Centenary year progress report

Remember this discussion on the Centenary year project? We did pretty well in 2013. Here is the list of just the new FAs for this year:

I don't know how many were actually displayed on the front page, but I know that Priyanka Chopra was. BollyJeff | talk 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot Deepika Padukone.

--krimuk ⁹⁰ 14:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it had not been list as such on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Notable_articles; I just updated it. BollyJeff | talk 15:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 15:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! This has really been a productive year. may be we should tell the Signpost? They carried out the news on our plans on the centenary year. This impressive result will be a follow up. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. We should list how many GAs we got too. BollyJeff | talk 21:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film too —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Added. That's 12 new FAs, and a quick count shows 13 new GAs, but some of those could have been missed also. BollyJeff | talk 08:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara! achieved GA status on Jan 2, but main work was in 2013. Soham 17:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Choo Mantar 3D?

I recently closed an MfD that contained a description of Choo Mantar 3D, purportedly an upcoming film. The nominator asserted it was a fake article, which was endorsed by another user. Since then, the creator has been in touch with me about trying to get it restored, arguing that it is a real film; see User talk:BDD#Untitled (permalink). Could anyone help to verify or disprove these claims? While the user's name implies COI, I'd still feel pretty bad if I were preventing a legitimate contribution from a new user. Pinging MfD participants Bovineboy2008 and Jni in case they have anything to add. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Such a film might exist but not notable for Wikipedia, out of project scope. —Soh am 13:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bhaktha Prahladha's release year

Telugu cinema's first talkie film Bhakta Prahlada was for a very long time believed to have been released on 15 September 1931. But these recent and authentic news articles containing research by an award winning film historian prove that it was released on 6 February 1932. They are as follows:

"Wake up, industry". The Hindu. September 9, 2012.
"'Bhaktha Prahladha': First Telugu talkie completes 81 years". CNN-IBN. February 7, 2013.
"Telugu Cinema turns a grand 82!". The Hans India. 7 February 2013. p. 10.

I request someone to read them thoroughly and decide whether Bhakta Prahlada is worth moving. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tejaswini Lonari

There's a pending AfC for Tejaswini Lonari, a Hindu-language and Marathi-language actress. She's been in a few productions with Wikipedia pages (so may be notable), but I'm not familiar with the sources in Indian cinema/TV to know whether she passes the bar. Maybe somebody could take a look at sourcing & notability here? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kuladheivam Rajagopal

Dear Indian cinema experts: Can someone from this project give some advice to the creator or this submission? I have tried. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Indian cinema task force, I saw this talk. The way he written article may be not accepted by Wiki guidelines in the Project Film. But to write article on the title "Kuladeivam Rajagopal", please review the references below :

Blast from the past: Kula Deivam 1956, The Hindu, Cinema Plus, December 4, 2010 19:57 IST .
MGR Remembered, Part 1, Ilankai Tamil Sangam, Sachi Sri Kantha, December 12, 2012
RANGOON RADHA Story

Isn't enough to start a article on this title? --Inbamkumar86 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to create the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added these references (thanks Inbamkumar86!) and a few more to a new version of the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kuladheivam Rajagopal, contributions there would be great. Anne or others, maybe you could take a look? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Gulzar - Dadasaheb Phalke Award

Hi, I have nominated Gulzar for front page ITN section and on Wikipedia: ITN/C people supported it but there are urgent need of improvements to make it appear on front page. Issues are discussed on Wikipedia: ITN/C#April 12, please help. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Assistance needed at RfD: Thalapathy (2013 film)

Thalapathy (2013 film), a redirect to Thalapathy (2013 film), has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 20#Thalapathy (2013 film). It was created as a duplicate article and is the name of a song from the film it now targets, which together with a couple of other things makes me suspect that there might be some plausibility. Input from people knowledgeable about Indian cinema would be especially welcome at the discussion. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian biography articles

Hello! I recently added hundreds of Stub-Class articles to this project, because they were previously missing stub tags and/or project banners on their talk pages. However, I've also noticed that there are a large number of articles about Indian people that are tagged with the parameter |cinema=yes. Per WP:FILM, the Film project does not include actors, directors and filmmakers. Those people are covered by adding the parameter |filmbio-work-group=yes to the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner instead. This applies to all of the film task forces as well, and of the other task forces using the parameters |cinema=yes or |film=yes, none of them include articles about people. Therefore I just wanted to let this project know, that I plan to remove this parameter from all of the biography articles, so that the film categories will only contain articles about films. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand all of this stuff, but did you see the statement under 'Tagging and assessment' at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force? This this correct or not? Also under 'Tasks' at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film it says to add "|cinema=yes to the project banner for film-related articles in ...WikiProject India", which includes this taskforce / work group. I am very confused. BollyJeff | talk 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the assessment page for this task force states: "Indian cinema may include domestic films, films made by Indian filmmakers abroad, films produced or co-produced by Indian companies, and foreign films shooting in India". Those are all articles about films, and should include the |cinema=yes and |Indian=yes parameters. However, the assessment page says nothing about including Indian actors, directors and filmmakers, because those articles should NOT have the {{WikiProject Film}} banner on their talk pages, and consequently should not have the |cinema=yes parameter on the {{WikiProject India}} banner. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I just want to be sure that our group covers both films and actors. Is there anything else that we need to do? Do we need to add our banner/tag under bios or film bios? Thanks. BollyJeff | talk 16:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The best way to make sure that this task force covers film actors, without including them as part of the film project, would be to have a new parameter added to the {{WikiProject India}} banner or {{WikiProject Biography}} banner, which directs those articles to this task force. Otherwise, those biography articles will not be included once the |cinema=yes parameter is removed. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I see our banner at {{WikiProject India}}. Will that be good enough? I cannot edit that template. BollyJeff | talk 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the link on the {{WikiProject India}} banner for this task force is tied into the |cinema=yes parameter. I understand that the template is locked, but any editor can submit an edit request. What you need, is a new parameter (such as |filmbio=yes for example), which would take the place of |cinema=yes on the {{WikiProject India}} banner for any articles about people. If such a parameter is created, please let me know, and I will be glad to help make sure that all the biography articles are properly tagged! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is beyond my pay grade. Is there anyone out there in the group that understands this? It looks like we are going to loose visibility on filmmakers if we don't do something. BollyJeff | talk 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a shot tomorrow. Soham 17:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Soham. Any possibility of action on this? BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The next day never came, let me first untangle it. —Soh am 13:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

SMK Nope, this is beyond my pay grade too. —Soh am 13:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. And i have done quite a lot of article assessments. Can the problem be simplified and re-presented? The current status is that template on WikiProject India has a |cinema=yes parameter. This adds the talk page in Category:WikiProject Indian cinema articles and other subsidiaries. This has nothing to do with WikiProject Film and it's banner. The "Indian cinema task force" is practically more a subset of "WikiProject India" than "WikiProject Film". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Fortdj33, i noticed that you have been using AWB to remove |cinema=yes from talk pages of Indian biographies that are connected with cinema. Did you get consensus for it at some different venue? I see nothing of that sort settled and finalized over here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My reasons for removing the |cinema=yes parameter are explained above. I understand that you feel this task force is more important to {{WikiProject India}} than {{WikiProject Film}}, but the fact remains that this is a film task force, and is subject to the same criteria as all other film task forces. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever reason you have is just suitable for theories. Article in purview of this task force have never been of interest to global Film taskforce. And thats not just with article editing. We don't see any crowd of non-Indian editors in AfDs or FACs or RMs. The only interference, and it truly is interference, comes when such standard codes are to be applied. We simply want to have a list of all articles which are biographies and which are related to Indian cinema. Now because of your AWBing we can't have it. And this has nothing to do with article page but has to do with article's talk page. Its a maintenance category which is, let me guess, probably meant for maintenance. Now how on earth is that possible without it having been transcluded in a category? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for any frustration, but the truth is that the majority of articles about Indian actors and filmmakers do not have the |cinema=yes parameter, because it should only be used on articles about films. There are thousands of biographical articles that AWB simply skipped over, because they did not need to be updated. I am only removing that parameter from the handful of articles where the parameter was incorrectly added. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Something that was not done many times is no reason to not do now. Nor is it a reason to call it wrong. I don't know how AWB is "skipping" articles but i can see many biographies still under INCINE. According to you, are you done with all removals by now? Whatever..... it still doesnt solve the problem on how do we get all the articles that are biographies and are concerned with Indian cinema?? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Drishyam box office gross

Hello task force! Anybody have any ideas on where to find a reliable source for box office gross totals for Drishyam? There is an ongoing dispute about the gross, and we're having difficulty finding reliable sources. The ones that have been repeatedly submitted seem sketchy to some users. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

BOI Revamp = Ultimate crisis

Box-office India.com has changed their site appearance and format introducing and implementing a new system of subscription. This subscription system uses monthly or yearly payment of $9.90 or $79.90 respectively. Only members with subscriptions are allowed to view details. Previous articles like this one are dead, that is just out of millions. There is a web-cache present though. However articles can be accessed through the home. New consensus has to take place and immediately. Soham 17:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like if you cannot find a cache version, then you have to search their site for the data again, or find it somewhere else. I could get into the main page, but the search doesn't seem to work yet. Maybe it will get better after some time. What a pain!! BollyJeff | talk 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if their search function works they will not provide the articles for free, man its a business! Soham 04:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. SRK's fans will figure out how to get the numbers out even without subscription.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No doubt they will . What about others? As a matter of fact BOI produces actual figures while SRK fans are always on the lookout for exaggerated figures, in absence of BOI they'll run amock! Soham 05:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, help needed! Let's start fixing the Box Office India links by either replacing them, or easier in the short term, by adding archived versions. You can use the Checklinks tool here: [3]. The documentation is at Wikipedia:CHECKLINKS. When you run the tool, most of the BOI links will come up red. You then open up the plus sign, and click on 'Wayback Machine' and search for a working version by opening them in a new window. When you find a good one, copy the URL, click on 'Replace link', paste it in and click okay. When you have found all you can, click 'Save changes' at the top of the page. If we have a few volunteers, we can at least knock out all of our FAs and GAs listed at WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Notable articles. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 20:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes GA or Fa's should be attended first. So when is the starting time? Soham 04:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha, its not an official thing; just do what you can when you can. BollyJeff | talk 13:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Soham 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

All of the FAs are done now except a couple links on Preity Zinta, Lage Raho Munna Bhai and Kahaani. BollyJeff | talk 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that often times India Today links show up as dead when they are really not. Try not to tag them unless they are really dead. BollyJeff | talk 17:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, a word of advice I saw some TOI links dead surprisingly, if you find some replacement use it. For the 2 TOI links I found one was at wayback with the other one not even being in WebCite so best of luck for TOI's archives. Soham 15:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes you can find replacements with the search tool of the site in question, or just search Google for the article's original title. BollyJeff | talk 16:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Now, where are we supposed to get box office information for new films? BOI was our #1 source, and now it's essentially gone. BollyJeff | talk 16:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Shahrukh Khan" or "Shah Rukh Khan"

Can I please get some comments on this: Talk:Shahrukh_Khan#Proposed_move? I am almost ready to take this article to GA, but the title has to be settled first. BollyJeff | talk 01:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

^ http://c2w.com/quizzes/94820-Moserbaer-Friday-Iqbal/questions

[1] ttp://c2w.com/quizzes/94820-Moserbaer-Friday-Iqbal/questions

[1]