Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force: Difference between revisions

Main page

Discussion

Participants

Alerts

Announcements

Main article

To-do list

Assessment

Notable articles

Hindi cinema recognised content

Malayalam cinema recognised content

Tamil cinema recognised content

Telugu cinema recognised content

Koimoi

As per "WP:ICTFSOURCES", Koimoi is not a reliable source. Many film articles including "Gangubai Kathiawadi", "Vikram (2022 film)" mentioned critical review published by Koimoi. So, should I remove them from every film article which contain review by Koimoi like this or keep them there?. (@Venkat TL, @Ab207, @Fylindfotberserk, @ScottishFinnishRadish)I would like to ping some users to get their comments also.Grabup (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove them if other reliable sources are present. If it is the only source supporting something very important, then leave it with a 'better source' tag, RS is not available for the moment. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, Thanks for your opinion. Let other users comment their opinions. Grabup (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome. Tweaked a little. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(reposting my comment from teahouse) Better to avoid when you have other quality reviews, neutral when there are fewer reviews. Every review is an WP:RSOPINION after all. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

So whether collections based on Koimoi can be used or no - when it is the only source. Kataariveera (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Idlebrain, 123telugu

For Telugu cinema, Idlebrain.com and 123telugu.com are the number one media sources that have all the information and reviews. They have English and Telugu website versions. Why is there no mention of them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force? DareshMohan (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Ab207. I am in favour of DareshMohan's views. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Idlebrain is definitively a good repository source for pre-2010 Telugu films. 123Telugu.com run by Shyam Prasad Reddy of Mallemala Entertainments who is respected figure in Telugu industry, so it should be reliable for film-related purposes.

Neither of these sources publish box office figures which is were most corruption happens wrt Indian films. So needn't worry about. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ruhani Ishq

Hello, Film fans,

This article was created by a sockpuppet and is now being edited by a questionable account so I thought I'd ask the experts here if they could review this article and see whether or not it is a legitimate new film or just a vanity project. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of The Hans India

The Hans India is a reliable source giving correct informations.

Ab207 and Atlantic306 Please discuss and add The Hans India in ICTF. 103.166.244.59 (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Print media is generally considered reliable per WP:NFSOURCES, be it in any language. Don't need ICTF to say that. Few editors seem to assume that not being present in the list means that it's not reliable and vice versa.

I think it's better to add a clause that the list is non-exhaustive and is meant as a sample of generally used reliable sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Madan Joshi

Hello. We have an article on an Indian cricketer called Madan Joshi, born Faizabad on 7 November 1936. That article links to several Indian film articles as there is a Madan Joshi who is an actor and screenwriter. The age seems about right - does anyone have any idea if this is the same person or not? The article is currently up for AfD and it would be interesting to know if it is the same chap or whether there are two Madan Joshis Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

CBFC certificate

If out of the thousands of dialogues in the film, a few are shot in a different language then the CBFC can give straight certificate (assumption).

Example at hand: Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham. An out and out Malayalam film but somehow, the film has a straight certificate for the Tamil version. This is just one of numerous examples. This is considered a Tamil dubbed film by audience/media and as a result, not many Tamil critics reviewed the film, so any information on simultaneously shot vs partially reshot cannot be found. This is the only review I found. Out of the plethora of sources out there, the article cites two sources where the director claims that each shot has been shot twice but he says that scenes without dialogue have to be shot once. Did his decision change midway because the lip sync is not there?

So do you cite what the director claims or the truth that the film is dubbed? What if the director changed his mind, how is that reported? Is there any way the wording can be changed by citing the film itself (simultaneously shot → partially reshot). For example, give timestamps where the dialogue are in sync (that is the only option). DareshMohan (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@DareshMohan That's a grey area for sure, considering some partially reshot films are marked as dub while others as straight.

Citing timestamp with lip sync issue doesn't feel appropriate, even straight films have lip sync issues with other language actors. Only way out I see is to seek consensus at the article talk page. Wording can be tweaked if there's no reasonable objection.

For the purpose of infobox and categories, we might have to stick with CBFC. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Nowrunning.com

The reviews (not sure about sources) are reliable because it hires notable critics such as R. G. Vijayasarathy.

The best example is Tirupathi (2006 Kannada film). Vijayasarathy wrote a review first for Nowrunning on 30 June 2006 and then wrote a review for the same film with different wording on 3 July 2006 for Rediff. If he reviewed the film first for nowrunning and then for rediff, then why is only rediff considered as reliable and not nowrunning?

Why is it listed as unreliable here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force)? DareshMohan (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is simply prejudice towards websites that don't have enough content to warrant a Wiki article. I find nowrunning to be quite usable, nothing questionable. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is complicated. My interest in Nowrunning.com began some time ago, when an editor was solely adding multiple references to their website, in an apparent attempt to promote the site, so I deleted several references at the time, and have deleted several since.
I think the problem is that WP:Reliable sources are supposed to be subject to editorial review and fact checking.
As for reviewer opinions, as per WP:RSEDITORIAL:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Therefore, reviews are acceptable, as opinions, provided the reviewer is a "notable figure". Given Wikipedia's generic meaning of "notable", I assume this means the reviewer should have their own Wikipedia article? or how else do we determine their being a "notable figure"?
I assume the "discussion" that led to their inclusion on the list, was this comment by User:Cyphoidbomb, which is not really a "discussion", but nobody else spoke up at the time. However, I see no reason to reverse the exclusion, unless inclusion is solely allowable for the opinions of people with their own articles. - Arjayay (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Like Kailash said, there seems to be bias as to websites without wiki pages. There are enough sources on R. G. Vijayasarathy, etc. to warrant a wiki article, but if nobody makes one that doesn't mean he is not notable. DareshMohan (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't resolve our problem. I'm sure that every editor adding a review, would say that the reviewer they were citing was "notable". We can't create, and maintain, a list of "reviewers without articles that we think are notable enough to meet WP:RSEDITORIAL" how would we assess that? where would it be advertised/published? and would it be followed/enforced?
I see that "The following should not be considered reliable sources" list includes:-

• Film Companion.in - blacklisted due to spamming, see [1]. Individual articles by independently notable critics can be whitelisted

AFAIK only "independently notable critics" with their own articles are ever whitelisted, so I believe that should be our model. As with music reviewers, we do not have many film reviewers with articles, but perhaps that could be a spur to create more such articles? Moreover, if the article is rejected because the person is considered non-notable, then we, clearly, shouldn't be using their reviews. - Arjayay (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Even Film Companion reviews by Baradwaj Rangan seem notable. @PravinGanechari: Similar sites to Nowrunning, Chitraloka and Viggy (About us section), are there reviews reliable? (please explain why/why not) DareshMohan (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree with the path this is taking. In most cases it is not important whether a film reviewer is individually notable. What is important is the publication he is writing for - if that publication is a notable reliable source then the reviews count for notability. But if the publication is unreliable then the reviews are not acceptable unless the reviewer is independently notable. This is the case for example with The Hindu or The New York Times where the reviews are acceptable because of the publication but the reviewer may not be notable himself. The WP:NFILM criteria 1 means a critic is nationally known because he writes for a well known national publication not because the reviewer is independently notable. There have been discussions to that end, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• A discussion took place at WikiProject Film here section 58 titled Newspaper Reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic306 , Also tell me some information about this website, is it reliable as a source

indiaglitz.com

filmibeat.com

mirchi9.com

Greatandhra.comPravinGanechari (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

In previous discussions by this project filmibeat, and Greatandhra have been determined as unreliable sources. India Glitz was previously determined unreliable but recently some editors have said it is reliable. Mirchi9 has not been discussed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Since my name was invoked above by Arjayay, (thanks for the ping), I have always tried to encourage members of the Indian cinema task force to discuss the various sources in wide usage, but discussions were generally ignored by the more prolific editors, who tended to do their work quietly in the shadows. In general, blogs/portals of any manifestation are not considered reliable sources, and anything the resembles a blog/portal, i.e. a faceless web presence with no clear editorial body and no clear assumption of reliability or expertise in a subject, should be considered suspect until otherwise established as a quality source. I think we all know that there are thousands of Indian entertainment sites that claim to be bona fide journals, but that are part of the widespread internet marketing schemes common in this subject area. Including a film review by an unknown on a site of questionable origin is not materially different than if you were to include a user review from IMDB. Since Wikipedia in general feels that sources are insufficient until they are proven reliable, this is why I added a site like newrunning.com to the list. I encourage you all to have the discussions and figure out which sources are valid or invalid in accordance with Wikipedia's quality standards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Times of India reviews

Can The Times of India film reviews be whitelisted? The Times of India is listed as unreliable here (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Times_of_India). The film reviews itself have no bias toward India/non-India; this pertains only to press releases. The Times of India has a group of hired critics write film reviews, so they are not bloggers in any sense. DareshMohan (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN found that uncontroversial content such as film reviews were acceptable, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The New Indian Express reliability

Reliability of The New Indian Express. The Indian Express is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, but why isn't the The New Indian Express listed. DareshMohan (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Its probably just an oversight Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Print media sources get automatic assumption of reliability per WP:NFSOURCES. Needs consensus to deem it unreliable. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Mathrubhumi reliability

High-key Malayalam language newspaper. Why is it not listed here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force)? DareshMohan (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

A note should be added that all mainstream newspapers in any language qualify as reliable per WP:NFSOURCES, and the following list is a representative sample only. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)