Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

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

My opinion on the sources:

• Anandabazar: Reliable with respect to Bengali news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you mean by 'byline'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't this user be encouraged to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your opinion on this Benison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cc: @Sush150

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Filmiclub

3. Spotboye

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

5. Devdiscourse

6. Cinestaan Sample review - [28]

7. Aaj Tak and ETV Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retro collection Cinetrak = Pinkvilla

Day	TN gross	Worldwide	TN gross	Worldwide
Day 1	14 crore[1]	31.5 crore[2]	14 crore[3]	31.5 crore[4]
Day 4	34.5 crore[5]	74.5 crore[6]	34.5 crore[7]	74.5 crore[8]
Day 11	45.7 crore[9]	92 crore[10]		92 crore[11]
Day 18	48.5 crore[12]	96.5 crore[13]	48.5 crore[14]	97 crore[15]

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

"#TouristFamily hits 5,000 admissions in France through '11 days', with second weekend alone registering 2,000 entries."^[16]

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

"Tourist Family, which quietly crossed 5,000 ticket sales (admissions) in France in just 11 days, with 2,000 of those entries coming over the second weekend alone."^[17]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Benison @RangersRus @Kailash29792 @DreamRimmer @Morekar

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

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

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

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

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

@Benison

@RangersRus

@Kailash29792

@DreamRimmer

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

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

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

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

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

Pinkvilla has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Karuppu (film)#Requested move 21 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

[47]. DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to its amateur looks, other users will obviously brand it a non-RS. And mass culling of sources is only detrimental to articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

No evidence that the first-name-only staff listed have any credentials. Not reliable. Geniac (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Geniac. I too do not find it reliable. RangersRus (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that The Times of India has recently been publishing box office articles that explicitly cite Sacnilk as the source for numbers. Examples include:

Sitaare Zameen Par – Day 6

Kuberaa – Day 6

Thug Life – Day 15

Given that Sacnilk has been regarded as unreliable in earlier discussions (e.g. on WP:RSN), should TOI articles that merely relay Sacnilk data still be treated as reliable sources? AetherLens (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:FRUIT, those articles acknowledging Sacnilk should not be usable. The rules remain unchanged. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Sources that report from Sacnilk is unreliable. If TOI article gets its report from the same, then the article becomes unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Jayanthkumar123/Archive 4#Using end credits when actor not in the film. According to Jayanthkumar, It's better to avoid actors who are not appeared in the final released version, even though they are credited.

From what I have noticed, Indian film opening credits are created before scenes are cut out of the film. This creates the issue of actors who are not in the film appearing in the film's credits. After 2+ editors reach a consensus for films that are widely available online that an actor didn't appear in the film, can their name at least be removed from the film article?

Example: Manobala in Niram Maratha Pookal. I can't find him in the film and the film has no crowd scenes either so there is no chance he is in the final cut of the film. Since there is no description of his role, that means nobody else either knows what role he played. @Kailash29792:

I've seen Kailash comment out actors while he is looking for sources maybe commenting out is an option? DareshMohan (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes we can include actors who are credited but do not appear or are not clearly visible, eg: S. S. Rajendran in Manamagal [48]. And Sean Gunn in Avengers: Endgame [49]. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

One thing that motivates me to leave is the lack of articles for known films. A few days ago this film starring Keerthy Suresh released. It has at least six reliable reviews: [50].

I mean I commend User:Jeraxmoira for deleting the ugly promotional article via AfD but I wish the article was draftififed. I could then restore the draft with the reviews AFTER removing ALL promotional content/prose (aka removing all words from the article except infobox) OR recreate the article from scratch had I had free time in real life.

There should be some Wikipedia protocol for this. I even informed a user (Manick22) on the lack of page but it is very obvious that the article's weird history including move from draft makes nobody interested in creating the article since we have no COI and Wikipedia has no deadline. DareshMohan (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Tbh, I AfD'ed it because it hadn't been released yet, not because it was promotional or because of the editor who created it. One of the reasons I’m considering leaving is the lack of enforcement of policies. The talk page, DRN and even ANI sometimes don’t act on the threads opened there. That’s when I stopped taking Wikipedia too personally. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

DareshMohan, why don't you get it restored via WP:REFUND? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe this is a reliable source for Tamil news. However, of late, I have seen it being used for box office numbers in articles like Retro, Good Bad Ugly, and Vidaamuyarchi. The numbers they publish are really exaggerated and way off other estimates. These numbers look like they were copied directly from some fan page on social media. Any thoughts on excluding them from use for box office ? (Gogo Pasha (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC))

If they mention their sources which are not reliable, don't use the DT source itself, per WP:FRUIT. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

They do not explicitly mention their sources. The source is fine for general film-related news. However, I was wondering whether we could add a byline, saying that it is unreliable for box office. Gogo Pasha (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Is E24bollywood.com a reliable source? 103.161.55.144 (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:PINKVILLA is a thing now. DeluxeVegan (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Bringingthewood, bringing this to your r attention. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 I reverted what I did. So far, my talk page, Retro (film) and the Retro (film) talk page has become a direct target towards me by a couple of IP's. I have no problem with reverting something that I was wrong doing in the first place. But I'm telling you, there's history here. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

We should be okay now. Maybe this IP I reverted was not related to what I mentioned above. As long as we're okay. Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

[51] 2409:40F3:D:AE17:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course it is reliable. Why is this under question? Kailash29792 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Listing it in WP:ICTFSOURCES table would be good. 2409:40F3:3:1640:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kantara (film)#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of ABP News by ABP Group? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of TV9 Telugu? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of WION? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of News Tamil 24×7? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Puthiya Thalaimurai? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of 10TV? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of V6 News? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Mathrubhumi? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Vijayavani? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of ET Now? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Dinamani? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Dinamalar? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of CNBC TV18? 2409:40F3:8:5963:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sati Tulasi (1936 film)#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bavagaru Bagunnara!#Requested move 19 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Dina Thanthi ? Find previous discussion here (155.117.151.49 (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources

I see this mentions Sacnilk as not reliable

But I don't see any talk about it. If I am missing something, please let me know. Computeracct (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Computeracct, there was a discussion here - there may be more, but I haven't fond them yet. - Arjayay (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

My bad - I was searching for Sacnilk.com, but if you enter just Sacnilk into the archive search box there are 5 discussions - Arjayay (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I got it here from the archive search: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 7#Sacnilk.com Computeracct (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

YashTheBosss, a seemingly new user, is boldly making page moves and significant edits which need to be monitored individually. Like his moving of the pages Viduthalai Part 1 and Viduthalai Part 2, which should've been contested. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

They moved many pages without discussion including several book names. Although I agree with some of the moves, the above one you mentioned doesn't correlate with the common name. DareshMohan (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow, here too.YashTheBosss (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This user made false allegation that I edited the moviebuff website, which isnt true at all. I found the site through google while serching for dubbing info. His tone is totally uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND,. Also says I have not watched the Kannada version and saying I should, why should I? the credits in all language versions of Mahavatar Narsimha are same, the Hindi voice cast is listed as "voice cast" in the first set of end credits, and the other versions are listed as "dubbing artists" in the second set. Optim594 (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahavatar_Narsimha&diff=prev&oldid=1304198377

This edit makes no sense how can someone become producer after production, even all posters and Kleem Productions website says that Hombale Films are only presenters Optim594 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I noticed some recent changes made to this page, particularly the addition of a few sources. These edits appear to have been made by an unregistered user (IP address). I’m curious whether these edits were reviewed or possibly made by an administrator acting while logged out. Can someone confirm if these additions were vetted, and whether they align with the sourcing and notability guidelines we follow? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Either way, do you or Ab207 agree with Pinkvilla being branded unreliable? I am neutral (although earlier I was against, as it looks like WP:DAILYMAIL) but if it is unusable, that will necessitate mass removal. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

In terms of box office reporting, I wouldn't consider Pinkvilla entirely unreliable, as they consistently covered films from various regions across India and did not appear to inflate box office numbers under producer or trade influence. However, there has been some consensus regarding concerns about their overall reliability. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

However, new sources such as Amar Ujala, Udayavani, News7 Tamil, Mathrubhumi, and OTTPlay were recently added by IP user 2409:40F3:1E:90FA:FE5D:68D9:E9C:5538.

Are there any established consensuses on the reliability of these sources? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

All five of those are reliable per the Indian Cinema Task Force [52]. DareshMohan (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@DareshMohan these 5 were recently added to the list by IP user 2409:40F3:1E:90FA:FE5D:68D9:E9C:5538. I cannot see proper concenses for these sources and on what basis were these added to the list? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Iron Man, The IP included the relevant discussions: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. I need not inform you that each of the four Southern Indian states has their own language (not Hindi), and local language sources will include some reliable local news channels. DareshMohan (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@DareshMohan There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus regarding sources like Mathrubhumi and Udayavani. The current discussion appears incomplete, and further input from a broader group of editors may be necessary to establish consensus. In such cases, it would be appropriate to bring the issue to WP:RS noticeboard to facilitate wider discussion and policy-based evaluation — similar to what was done in the RfC regarding Pinkvilla. This should ideally be done before adding these sources to any reliable sources list. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tonyy Starkk Per WP:BOLD, feel free to revert the IP's edits for those two companies. DareshMohan (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Benison, these were some of the new sources added to the list

1. Amar Ujala

2. Desimartini

3. E24 Bollywood

4. Mathrubhumi

5. News7 Tamil

6. OTTPlay

7. Udayavani

Can you please review these sources as these were added to the reliable sources list without proper consensus. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• The reliability of Amar Ujala and Desimartini is discussed here and both are found to be reliable.
• Regarding the reliability of E24 Bollywood and News7 Tamil discussed here and here, I will follow Kailash's assessment.
• The reliability of OTTPlay is discussed several times and is found to be reliable.
• Mathrubhumi and Udayavani are newspapers and found to be reliable per WP:NFSOURCES.

Epicion (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, anyone interested should see WP:RSN#RFC: Dina Thanthi. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Please help in dispute resolution on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahavatar_Narsimha#c-Optim594-20250805103600-YashTheBosss-20250805094000. Optim594 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@YashTheBosss: @Optim594: The film was made in Hindi. See the respective Hindi and Kannada trailers: Tum hai putra jaye thana at 0:00 is in perfect lip sync in Hindi. [59] [60] as is hona chaniye at 1:25.

What's obvious: the makers of the film said that the film was straight in Kannada (which is false) lied during promotions. [61]. Lying isn't new. Priyadarshan lied that Marakkar: Lion of the Arabian Sea was also made in Tamil [62], which it wasn't. The makers of Nadigaiyar Thilagam lied that the film was also made in Tamil and the makers of Penguin lied that the film was also made in Telugu.

In short, if you say your film is dubbed, then people will be less interested to come to the theatres.

P. S. This discussion is not organic, much more views are needed. There are other dialogues in the Hindi trailer that are not in lip sync, but none of the Kannada/Telugu/Tamil dialogues are in lip sync in their respective trailers. It is obvious that in an animation film, it is hard to get dubbing right, as for one, India is relatively new at making animation films. From Kalki 2898 AD discussion, @Gotitbro: @Ravensfire: @Jayanthkumar123:. Kannada editors: @Bangwiki: @Kataariveera:. Dubbing expert: @Srivin:. DareshMohan (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Please add this in talk page, I also know there is no lip sync, it is obvious that it was made in Hindi, director has even said that Hombale films got associated with this movie after it was completed in various interviews and it was the Hindi voice artists who acted before the film Director even said the following, in this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5PR420og0 (Hindi)

Translation

"I create the angles and everything, and then I give it as a drawing.

50:11

So they'll understand that this is the kind of acting the director wants. We did voice acting samples to show how it should be said.

There is no way that this animation movie is animated without acting.

Voice actress Haripriya acted for the animation, but she did not dub for Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam versions, only in Hindi version. This information was gathered by watching interviews.

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2067711 This official government website clearly lists the movie as Hindi.

Only after the Hombale films got associated as presenters, it was dubbed into other languages. The movie cannot be completed without dialogues. Kleem Productions created a Draft 3 times but got deleted and blocked because on Wikipedia a user cannot be represent a group. This deleted page had real soundtrack info before it was even released, this listed Hindi as the language and the cast was the Hindi one. "Everybodywiki Mahavatar Narsimha", please search this on google

This website is blacklisted on wikipedia but this page has information of deleted official page which mas made by Kleem Productions account which got blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=170282940 Optim594 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: We reached a consensus here, I guess I didn't need to ping all of these users. When there is only one user (YashTheBosss) causing issues on the page, why is the page blocked for everyone. Just partially block him from that page. If he comes back as an IP, we can deal with it later. I checked the page history both Optim594 and Khogen2410 are just protecting the page from his edits.

P. S. The spacing on the distribution section is bad, so it needs to be fixed. DareshMohan (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow, you're making me look like the culprit here. YashTheBosss (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Mahavatar_Narsimha&action=history

This draft created by Kleem Productions. It was made even before the premiere of the movie and had all of the information. It was definitely made by real Kleem Productions. Optim594 (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's hard to say the exact original language for animation films, unless released in a single language, having a perfect lip-sync or established sources. The lip-sync is not perfect in either Hindi or Kannada versions. Although, the CBFC certificate shows all the other versions are dubbed from Hindi version, we can't rule out the possibility that the film being multilingual. Many of the live-action films faced similar issue. Recent examples being Aranmanai 4 and Kuberaa. Both the films have CBFC original version certificates in Telugu and Tamil, but Aranmanai 4 was only mostly dubbed and partially reshot in Telugu, whereas Kuberaa was mostly dubbed and partially reshot in Tamil. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The lip sync is same in all versions , video is same, only audio is different, the closest to match lip sync is the Hindi version, it is also not perfect but the closest. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2067711 See this film festival website it clearly states that the movie is Hindi.

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-malayalam see the cbfc certificate, if it was really a multilingual film, the Malayalam version would have been dubbed from Tamil to get closest lip sync, but it is dubbed from Hindi. Optim594 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Is it necessary to be dubbed from "only" Tamil to get closest lip sync? Anyways none of the versions have perfect lip-sync. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes there is no perfect lip sync but still the movie was animated was made with Hindi language in mind it is the closest

If there was really a Tamil original version it would have been dubbed from that like Baahubali

https://x.com/movie__maniac/status/1949744850674536564 Telugu version has Hindi dialogue Optim594 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no criteria or rule that one version should be dubbed "only" from another particular version. Fyi, Baahubali's Malayalam version is dubbed from Telugu. It's okay to have other language dialogues. There are literally full-fledged Hindi songs in Telugu films. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, this Malayalam should be dubbed from Tamil argument was incorrect. But what I meant from this tweet is that Telugu version was dubbed from Hindi and by mistake one dialogue remained undubbed Optim594 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Mahavatar_Narsimha&action=history Please see this revision history, I request you to see this, the draft was created by Kleem Productions in November. It was originally deleted but I request the admin to retrieve this information. Optim594 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mahavatar_narsimha Original language is Hindi according to rotten tomatoes Optim594 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Oops. I checked the all languages versions of the official trailer released on July 9 2025. I checked the difference in the videos, even the color grading is different for speaking scenes. Although some part has Hindi lip sync for all versions, there is different lip sync according to the language in different versions, except Malayalam, as it has same video as Hindi, also same color grading. I think languages can be mentioned as Hindi, Kannada, Tamil and Telugu in the infobox and Malayalam can be specified as dubbed version. The three versions are dubbed versions but since there is lip sync those can be mentioned as main languages. The makers should have clarified that these 4 are the languages. It will be interesting to see what will be mentioned on the page of Ramayana Part 1 2026 as that is also going to have AI lip sync for dubbed versions, but I think it will have Hindi-language as usual. I should have checked official trailers earlier, I checked success trailers but it was just that there werent seperate edits for different languages, success trailer had same video stream for all languages. Optim594 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:OR - you are doing the research, not a WP:RS. What do the sources say. Say that. If they conflict, note the conflict. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

According to the CBFC certificates, the four languages are original versions and Malayalam is dubbed

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-tamil

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-telugu

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-kannada

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-malayalam Optim594 (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

According to Australian Classification and Rotten Tomatoes, the original language is Hindi. https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/mahavatar-narsimha https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mahavatar_narsimha Optim594 (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@DareshMohan and Optim594:What do the certificates for the different languages say? Looks like they are pretty clear on the dubbed part (from Hindi).

I should note that most Indian animated films or animated television series are originally made in Hindi (or English) and then dubbed into local languages. There are exceptions but this is the case with most "multilingual" releases. Voice overs are generally recorded prior to animation and are then matched with the latter. There is also the phenomenon of having the characters just move their mouths so any language maybe added later but that does not appear to be happening here. Gotitbro (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-tamil

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-telugu

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-kannada

https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha-2025-malayalam

These pages have certificates Optim594 (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Surprisingly none of the CBFC certificates mentioned dub except for Malayalam version, which says dubbed from Hindi. DareshMohan (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes only Malayalam certificate mentions it is dubbed

What do you think about this info from this page https://www.moviebuff.com/mahavatar-narsimha

Fun Stuff

Movie Connection(s):

Dubbed into: Mahavatar Narsimha (Tamil)

Dubbed into: Mahavatar Narsimha (Telugu)

Dubbed into: Mahavatar Narsimha (Kannada)

Dubbed into: Mahavatar Narsimha (Malayalam) Optim594 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I have only checked the Malayalam version and thought every other version is dubbed from Hindi version. Keeping it as a "multilingual" should somehow solve the problem, rather than keeping "only" one or two particular languages. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This mentions the movie as Hindi https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2067711 Optim594 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/how-mahavatar-narsimha-became-a-viral-hit-in-hindi-with-1200-increase-in-box-office-collection-9015906

The Hindi version is expected to cross Rs 80 crore soon, with dubbed versions also doing well in their respective regions.

This implies that other versions are dubbed versions Optim594 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gangs of Wasseypur: Part II#Requested move 5 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gangs of Wasseypur: Part I#Requested move 5 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Anyone aware of this user's activity. Seems to make arbitrary arrangements with a bias towards the Deol family, Sikh Jatts, Punjabis, Himachalis in that order [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] among others. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel it should be reliable as it is run by Baradwaj Rangan, but it is blacklisted. DareshMohan, Jayanthkumar123 and ActivelyDisinterested, we need consensus. I've listed it here. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Sites are blacklisted not because of reliability, but due to someone trying to spam the site into the encyclopedia. This was added to the blacklist in May by Slakr. Slakr any chance you remember the details, or was it just another spamming attempt?
Baradwaj Rangan look reliable for Indian cinema, but is it so critical to remove the whole site from the blacklist and not simply whitelist URLs as needed? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find any recent reviews of him on the Galatta website. He is more into video interviews on YouTube. If possible, why not instead consider his own web portal as a reliable source for film related content. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No to using his Wordpress site. He is a reliable critic but self-published material we should shy away from. Any other reliable source that publishes his work could be considered.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Kailash29792, what would the source be used to cite? Notability purposes or verification of content on a Wikipedia page?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Jayanthkumar123, here is proof that BR is now back into text reviews. Here are more recent ones. CNMall41, GP is neither a blog nor wordpress. And I think BR's wordpress site is primarily a repository for his offline reviews before they had official online links. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that GP is not a blog or wordpress site. I also agree that he is a valued critic and has plenty of reviews published in reliable sources which I for one would consider reliable. I am curious about what GP would be used for if considered reliable. Is there something on that site that cannot be found in another reliable source? For his offline reviews, were these in other print publications? The one I looked at is not attributed to any publication. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Then I would suggest to make Galatta Plus a reliable source. It can be used mainly for film reviews. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Here are BR's interviews along with the embedded YouTube links. Jayanthkumar, I'm still waiting for further word from the whitelist page. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Everything is written by him and he is the Editor-in-Chief, though really no one should ever be both author and editor, outside of editorial pieces. The point of an EIC is oversight, fact-checking and maintaining journalistic objectivity which one cannot do for their own work so essentially there is no editorial oversight. It is an WP:SPS by an expert thus must be used with care especially regarding content about BLPs.

I now see the responses at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Galatta Plus. It looks like this is now moot anyway. S0091 (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, anyone interested should see WP:RSN#Pinkvilla 2025.Jayanthkumar123 (talk 11:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI - I've closed this RFC as the last one about the same source only closed last month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jayanthkumar123 I think you (or anyone else) might be more successful waiting a bit to open another RfC (maybe 6 months?) and making it specifically about their box office number (i.e. Are Pinkvilla's box office numbers reliable?). I don't think that specific question was resolved in the previous RfC. Also, I think it would be helpful to outline why you (and others) believe their box office number are reliable. A way to do that is to show reliable sources use their numbers and/or what they use to determine to it. If successful a carve-out should be noted at WP:PINKVILLA, similar to WP:NYPOST and others (unreliable for blah but reliable or marginally reliable for blah). S0091 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Used over 300 times in Wikipedia despite it only being a couple years old. Looks like a blog with no editorial oversight and likely content farm. They do have quite a claim on their "about" page as if they are the only website in the world offering no ads. Looking for feedback on reliability but I am sure you can already tell my opinion based on the tone of my writing. Don't want to simply bulk remove these without additional feedback from the community. CNMall41 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I also noticed this issue, I support the bulk removal of them. DareshMohan (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

[69]. Rajesh Khanna won the BFJA Award for Best Actor (Hindi) and Amitabh Bachchan won the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor. DareshMohan (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Your best option is probably to start a draft on the article to get that accepted. Ravensfire (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it was deleted without senior editors such as myself or this whole taskforce being informed. If we had been, we could've saved it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: I made a draft Draft:Namak Haraam, is it notable now? DareshMohan (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Submit it for review and be patient. This was something deleted at an AFD discussion just over a year ago and should NOT be arbitrarily moved to articles space. That's a good way to get it speedy deleted. Wait for a reviewer (and I'm not one). Ravensfire (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I sent you rediff link that has the list of songs from the film. Please add them to soundtrack and attribute rediff source. RangersRus (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There is ZERO need to notify any group or editors. The AFD did have a decent cross section of experienced editors with a good analysis of the sources. Ravensfire (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have the draft under review. @DareshMohan: @Kailash29792: @Ravensfire: The last AFD was for a Pakistani TV series of same name that was deleted. Your draft is for a 1973 Indian film. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I also added a note to the draft's talk page. S0091 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Nice catch! For a 1973 film, there's more in this article than many other 1973 Indian film articles. Nice work. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Can we at least retrieve the sources from the older film article and transfer to the draft? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There wasn't a previous article about the film, log for Namak Haram and log for Namak Haraam, For former was AfD'd and the latter was a recreation under a different title but both were about the Pakistani TV series. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There was an article about the film, look at the proof. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

That's the same log I link to above and that article was deleted due to WP:Articles for deletion/Namak Haram. If you read the AfD, it was about a Pakistani TV series, not a 1973 Indian film. S0091 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 Ok, it did exist under the title Namak Haraam. The last version on Internet Archive is August 21st https://web.archive.org/web/20250821002925/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namak_Haraam. According to logs, it was G4/G5 deleted on the 24th. I am not sure what happened but I am going to request the deleting admin to restore it. S0091 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm busy (which I will explain in the subsquent topic) so I can't fix the article (seems almost like they want me to). So either @Kailash29792: or preferably @S0091: and @RangersRus: improve the article themselves. DareshMohan (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@DareshMohan no problem if you are busy. The film meets notability by a mile. RangersRus, when you accept it please check the box to move the comments to the talk page so those sources are there. S0091 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@DareshMohan, @Kailash29792, @RangersRus ok, after much confusion between two very similar titles about two very different topics, Namak Haraam the 1973 film, is now restored. It only has a couple sources so the draft's sources are actually better. Like I state above, it meets notability by a mile so should never, ever, ever face deletion. I will work on incorporating some of the additional sources from the draft into the article over the next few days or so. S0091 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@S0091: do you want me to decline the draft then? RangersRus (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and merge both. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Since I don't have time to create all of the articles or finish the drafts I started, User:DareshMohan/sandbox is open for the public. DareshMohan (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems like, Tamil editors me and Srivin are making up for the lack of responsive/active Kannada editors like @Bangwiki:. I mean Chiloka.com even criticises the lack of older articles. DareshMohan (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Is The Economic Times a reliable source? They are owned by WP:TIMESOFINDIA's owners The Times Group. 103.154.37.183 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The New Indian Express is a bifurcated South Indian edition of The Indian Express, this can be added to reliable sources list? @Kailash29792 Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, add Cinema Express too. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Cinema Express is already present, adding The New Indian Express to the list. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The outlet Asianet News Network has been cited more than 600 times on Wikipedia (link to usages), but it is not currently listed at WP:RSP or WP:ICTFSOURCES.

Seeking input on whether Asianet News Network should be considered generally reliable, unreliable, or context-dependent. Feedback on its editorial quality, independence, and past use in articles would help determine whether it should be added to the sources list at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion at at RSN back in November which pointed to Asianet Suvarna News. Their editorial policy says Asianet News Digital Media, place the well-being, prosperity, security and unity of our Nation, above everything else. and according the our article about them, they have published fake news so some caution should be applied. I would not use them for contentious or exceptional claims about a BLP. Anyone familiar with their box office numbers? S0091 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Its been frequently used for Malayalam movies, I can see them used in [70]. Need to review on its box office reporting in specific. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed a few articles on box office reporting. Few of them take reference from Sacnilk which is unreliable. Few examples - [71], [72]

Few others are reported as:

[73] - "According to the report of leading trade analysts",

[74] - "according to the box office report"

Need further discussion on its reliability in box office reporting. Your thoughts Kailash29792. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Treat all reliable info as reports, like "According to..." or "reportedly". I don't know their accuracy, but they can be included. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes in that case it can be added to reliable sources list, lets wait for opinions from other editors. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources that receive discussion and consensus by participation of multiple editors are only to be added to the ICTF source list, no matter the outcome, reliable or unreliable. Inclusions will be done by ICTF STAFF only. RangersRus (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What's ICTF STAFF? Sid95Q (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Task force members. RangersRus (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have a doubt. Several of the sources in the list are not even added with discussion from multiple editors. Then why they are at this list? Bikram96 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussions were either archived or took place in WP:RSN before. Now we make sure to link discussions in the list for quick access. RangersRus (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

But archived discussions with multiple editors are not listed there. It will be helpful if the discussions were present there. Bikram96 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

ABP Live is owned by ABP Group, this can be added to reliable sources list? @Kailash29792 Bikram96 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Added to the list. Bikram96 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to get consensus from multiple editors. RangersRus (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Then tell your thought about this source. Bikram96 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

No reply here about its reliability from multiple editors. If no multiple editors replied, what we can do? Bikram96 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If there is no consensus about is reliability or unreliability, then it should not be added to the list. That does not meant it can/cannot be used. It means it is still undecided and potentially would be challenged in the future. However, note that this discussion is less than a day old. There is WP:NODEADLINE so give people time to opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I know this task force is for films and the article does have some crossover with film. I think it probably needs a overhaul but in the interim could really use some trimming (and/or maybe splitting?) if anyone it interested. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Many 2010s articles by Sampurn Media were hosted by The New Indian Express such as [75]. Reliable? DareshMohan (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

This shows Sampurn "Wire" so it is likely a press distribution service. Wouldn't consider it independent if it is. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems reliable because Srivathsan Nadhadhur from The Hindu writes for it [76]. DareshMohan (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Amar Ujala and Desimartini - Discussed here

News 7 Tamil - Discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 10#Reliability of News7 Tamil

E24 Bollywood - Discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 10#Reliability of E24bollywood.com?

Mathrubhumi - Discussed here

OTTPlay - Disccused here and here

Udayavani - Discussed here

Edits by IP – Source Additions topic in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 10 summarizes and states all as reliable.

All have consensus. So reverting those back. Computeracct (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 and @Epicion: Please note that these entries have been removed again, by a different user @EarthDude

stating

These changes need consensus. A lot of the discussions given do not show adequate community consensus

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Film%2FIndian_cinema_task_force&diff=1310053911&oldid=1310052377

I see consensus as per wiki rules in the archive discussions.

So IMO, if any of them have to be removed it has to be through discussion. Instead user is removing it directly. Computeracct (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Aside from Amar Ujala, Desimartini, and OTTPlay, all others had too minimal a participation to be regarded as community consensus. For instance, in many, it was just a single editor supporting the reliability and no one else. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

So we agree on Amar Ujala, Desimartini and OTT Play.

------------

As far as E24 Bollywood and News 7 Tamil, @Epicon is the 2nd person to agree. "Regarding the reliability of E24 Bollywood and News7 Tamil discussed here and here, I will follow Kailash's assessment.".

@DareshMohan also supported for E24 Bollywood and News7 Tamil.

So that makes it 3 each for E24 Bollywood and News7 Tamil.

Yeah, I know its not directly under the respective discussions as they were archived by the time of the 2nd discussion.

But they are there in this archive: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 10

---------

As far as Mathrubhumi and Udayavani are concerned,

Mathrubhumi and Udayavani are newspapers and found to be reliable per WP:NFSOURCES. If you want to contest these, please put up topics in this talk page instead of removing them.

I am a Kannadiga who knows that the Kannada regional paper Udayavani is reliable, FYI.

Since these were added with consensus and archived many months ago, if you have a solid reasoning why these are unreliable, please open separate topics on this talk page.

But please do put all of these 7 back as reliable for now. For those which you are contesting with solid reasoning, You can put as under discussion. Computeracct (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you connected to IP 2409:40F3:1E:90FA:FE5D:68D9:E9C:5538 who did the same edits earlier? I said in earlier post that Sources that receive discussion and consensus by participation of multiple editors are only to be added to the ICTF source list. RangersRus (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@RangersRus

No, I am not connected to that IP address.

I had not seen that post earlier.

As you can see now from my posts above,

3 of them had consensus from multiple people under discussion posts itself (Amar Ujala, DesiMartini, OTTPlay )

Amar Ujala, Desi martini here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 9#Desimartini and Amar Ujala

Kailash29792, benison and you yourself agreed.

OTT Play -> here and here

Benison and DareshMohan agreed.

2 others had consensus/agreement from multiple people (E24 Bollywood, News 7 Tamil) (though not necessarily under the topic as topic was archived)

Kailash29792 and Epicon

Only Mathrubhumi and Udayavani did not have more than one person consenting (Kailash29792 had consented)

(not sure if this from Epicon counts as consent?

• Mathrubhumi and Udayavani are newspapers and found to be reliable per WP:NFSOURCES.)

Epicon comment was in Aug 2025 and your post was in Sep 2025.

So can we please add those 5 back and open separate topics for Mathrubhumi and Udayavani Computeracct (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Benison did not agree to OTTPlay as reliable. For E24Bollywood I said doubtful. Lets be clear that not everything needs to go into the list. If any source is not on the list, does not mean its unreliable. Some sources just need to be analyzed more indepth. RangersRus (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

From benison for OTTPlay ->

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

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

I agree, not everything needs to go into the list, but it would be good to have those with clear consensus in the list so to avoid disputes in wiki pages.

Can we have Amar Ujala, Desimartini in the list. there is no question on those, right?

OTTPlay, again please see above.

What about news7 Tamil? We had Kailash29792 and Epicon agreeing on that.

E24 Bollywood, if you are doubtful, then sure we can have a separate topic.(we can have separate topics for Mathrubhumi and Udayavani also for discussion.) Computeracct (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes DesiMartini and Amar Ujala can be added. I will add it. For OTTPlay, this is Benison opinion. So need more consensus and discussion on it and others. RangersRus (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for adding back Amar Ujala and Desimartini. Computeracct (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have zero interest in recreating their articles, but the following TV series look notable based on sourcing: Nenu Super Woman (has a lot of sources) [77] [78].

Gaddar Telangana Film Awards is the new version of the Nandi Awards but has no article. DareshMohan (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the Telangana Gaddar Film Awards for anyone interested: ^[1][2][3][4] S0091 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This source is currently listed as unreliable based on breif discussion three years ago. I understand the hesitancy of using any source as unreliable whose editorial structure is unclear. However, box office numbers shared by the website are fairly close to the numbers shared by Box Office India (which is considered a reliable source) and this website publishes them earlier and more frequently than BOI. Since the last discussion was three years ago, I'd like to re-open the discussion and seek more input on the website. I do not lean one way or another but would be fruitful to have a wider discussion. Coderzombie (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Badassbrahmana: @Bangwiki: @Jayanthkumar123: @Monhiroe: @Manick22: @Batthini Vinay Kumar Goud: What is the solution for the lack of articles?

Kannada

1. Happy Birthday To Me (film) [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]
2. Pinki Elli [84] [85] [86]
3. Kothalavadi [87]

Telugu

1. Sundarakanda (2025 film) [88] [89] [90] [91]
2. Tribanadhari Barbarik [92]

Kannada

1. Mandya Haida [93] [94]
2. Uyyale (2011 film) [95] [96] [97]
3. Benki [98]

Malayalam

1. Super Zindagi [99] [100]

DareshMohan (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

RasihanRK (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The firstpost.com needs to blacklisted in this project RasihanRK (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Why? RangersRus (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Look at these 2 different articles of them:-

Dec 30 2023 - Rewind 2023: How Rajinikanth's Jailer, Thalapathy Vijay's Leo, Gippy Grewal's Carry On Jatta 3 ruled the box-office

Jan 3 2024 - Salaar worldwide box office: Prabhas starrer beats Gadar 2, Jailer and Leo, enters Rs 650 crore club

Just between 5 days, there is a big difference their data.

At Dec 30 - jailer is 650cr

At Jan 3 - jailer is 610cr

but Leo remains same in both, which confirms they don't follow a proper data. RasihanRK (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

No Indian website has truly reliable or consistent box office info. That's not an excuse to blacklist them. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That's the excuse community made for Pinkvilla..why not Firstpost?

atleast it should be in no consensual list as the difference is very big here.

And this iSthe only site which reported 650!!!

Also we must ensure what's the sources

For all the acceptable articles. Because the source for few the articles is sacnilk which is blacklisted.

@RangersRus RasihanRK (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Cinema Express also reported 650 crore. Bikram96 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not CE , that particular article is from a individual author.

She just mentioned it just like that.

We cannot consider that as a source unless it is from CE features.

Also CE Features, stated As it just collected more than 500 crore in another article.

These articles are always depends on the other trackers post. RasihanRK (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla unreliability had to do with its disclaimer and Firstpost's inconsistency is different problem. Inconsistency does not make firstpost unreliable or blacklisted but it would be better to not use it for the film or films boxoffice that is the matter of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

•Firstpost is a terrible low quality site for a box office source. Few of their articles are based on sacnilk's data.

So, What are you suggesting now.?

Can't we atleast add a description? RasihanRK (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

nothing needs to be done. Firstpost per past discussions had a consensus of reliability. For a film's boxoffice that is in question, since there is inconsistency in report, let us not use it for the film in question. Many reliable news media use Sacnilk and does not mean we stop using them. If a reliable source has report by Sacnilk, then we do not use them. But if same reliable source has independent report, then we can use them. RangersRus (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it.

Now, what can we do with this source added to the film in question?.

And also clarify that there are discrepancy in Cinema express too. Where one author quoted the number somewhere in between the article but other article published from 'CE Features' says different number. RasihanRK (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Please clarify with source links when you say - And also clarify that there are discrepancy in Cinema express too. RangersRus (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is their post from CE features which is not individual author -

https://www.cinemaexpress.com/tamil/news/2023/Sep/01/kalanithi-maran-gifts-cheque-to-nelson-dilipkumar-after-jailers-success-47213.html

And here is the post of an Individual author- https://www.cinemaexpress.com/tamil/news/2024/Oct/13/vettaiyan-box-office-day-3-rajinikanths-film-makes-rs-26-crore-on-vijayadasami

IT IS SO Random!! RasihanRK (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

So, what are we gonna do with this? RasihanRK (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that here you added the firstpost article that had a concern about inconsistency. Why? I hope this is not a Leo vs Jailer agenda here. If the firstpost report with concern on inconsistency can not be used for Jailer, it should not be used for Leo either. RangersRus (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Some people were not accepted when i reported it has inconsistency. So, i added the same source from the different article.

When i randomly checked few weeks back(before i even open account),

There are articles added to both the films. And then i read the guidelines and edited those with proper sources.

Some people keep reverting without quotes.

So i afraid that these people were keeping few articles from not getting blacklisted. RasihanRK (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@RangersRusany update? RasihanRK (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry didn't follow. What update you need? RangersRus (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

conversation was dropped at middle🤷🏻.

I've replied for all

I think we need to enforce no consensual for this types RasihanRK (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Is the task force certain that Bollywood Hungama is a useable source? I tried to verify something at War 2 (film) that was tied to a dispute that came up at AN weeks ago, only for a fake Cloudflare prompt to come up and ask me to hit ⊞ Win+R→Ctrl+V→↵ Enter to verify that I was a human. Thankfully, I knew that it was off and avoided activating whatever Powershell attack it was attempting. Given what happened, I have concerns about using Bollywood Hungama in our articles as it risks giving viruses to others. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama is a reliable source and I have visited the site numerous times and never came across the problem you had. Maybe the url, you were trying to go to was misspelled and probably took you to some fake site. RangersRus (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The URL was https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/bollywood/scoop-yrf-puts-standalone-ntr-jr-film-spy-universe-hold-failure-war-2/ per the edit history which matches the article when searched using Google. I don't believe that it was a fake site. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the url but did not get any cloudfare prompt. RangersRus (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Coming here from Talk:The Kashmir Files#Lead edit which pertains to this edit. The film appears to have been criticized as a 'propaganda film' by certain RS but wikivoicing this directly in the lede sentence goes against against MOS:FILMLEDE (which provides for a barebones listing of makers, genre and release). The same is the case with the majority of the films listed under the Category:Propaganda films, which in most cases do not wikivoice this as a genre.

Similar issues have also cropped up at The Bengal Files and The Tashkent Files (and others), all part of one series by the same director, Vivek Agnihotri. Would appreciate the comments of participants here.

Comparisions to well known [Nazi] propaganda films, univerally described as such, to justify the wording have been made but these appear to be unfounded. Indian cinema and politics is nothing new, cf. Tamil cinema and Dravidian politics, and films categorized as propaganda are out and abound. I can understand adding such reception/criticism (when attributed to RS) to the body or perhaps elsewhere in the lede but directly wikivoicing this in the lede sentence is what should not be done per MOS. What some scholars and reviewers describe the film as does not trump our MOS guidelines, there is a reason we avoid such labelling directly in the lede sentence, it opens up a can of worms for a whole host of films critiqued as such. Gotitbro (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have prepared a draft for a possible Artistry and public image section for Sanjay Dutt. Since many Indian actors’ articles have this section, I would appreciate feedback from other editors familiar with Indian cinema on whether the draft is appropriate and how it might be improved. Talk:Sanjay Dutt#Draft for Artistry section..Thank You Gooshh (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lokah#Requested move 12 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 11:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhash K. Jha (2nd nomination) - a second nomination after it was kept several times. I think given how frequently his name is used on Indain cinema articles, members should be aware of this nomination (it does not appear in the alert tab). Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Everyone!!

Several pages were tagged with AI generated tag because one user was apparently using ChatGPT. You can thread the message of editor who tagged them on pagedls like Talk:UTV Motion Pictures. Sid95Q (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lokah Chapter 1: Chandra#Requested move 21 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 16:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Naayak has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yevadu has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Soggade Chinni Nayana has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Businessman (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Govindudu Andarivadele has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Drushyam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Gopala Gopala (2015 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Kumari 21F has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)