Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main page Discussion Participants Alerts Announcements Main article To-do list Assessment Notable articles
Hindi cinema recognised content Malayalam cinema recognised content Tamil cinema recognised content Telugu cinema recognised content
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page +talk
→Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→Multimedia talk
→Naming conventions talk
→Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→Article alerts
→Cleanup listing
→New articles talk
→Nominations for deletion talk
→Popular pages
→Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→B-Class
→Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Welcome to theIndian cinema task force!We're a joint task force run betweenWikiProject FilmsandWikiProject Indiato ensure thatIndian cinema-related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style, in aneutralmanner usingverifiableandreliablesources.

Scope[edit]

The scope of this task force is to improve the quality and quantity of information on Wikipedia about Indian cinema, and raising the quality of already-existing articles.

Indian cinema may include domestic films, films made by Indian filmmakers abroad, films produced or co-produced by Indian companies, and foreign films shooting in India. However perWikipedia:WikiProject Film#Scope,this task force should not include articles about actors, directors and filmmakers. Those articles are covered by adding parameters for theActors and FilmmakersandScreenwritersprojects accordingly.

A category tree can be foundhere.

Participants[edit]

Main page:Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Participants

Tagging and assessment[edit]

Indian cinema task forceassessment statistics
Indian cinema articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 8 4 9 5 26
FL 1 10 19 73 6 109
A 1 1
GA 4 21 64 100 5 1 195
B 5 12 19 96 18 7 157
C 1 26 147 1,083 254 89 1,600
Start 2 48 340 10,645 2,333 864 14,232
Stub 6 94 9,120 552 280 10,052
List 1 162 338 1,316 217 45 2,079
Category 1 9 2 1,098 31 1,141
Disambig 1 3 65 6 75
File 9 49 91 149
Portal 53 53
Project 21 21
Redirect 3 7 347 503 78 938
Template 1 4 359 6 370
NA 2 2
Other 6 9 15
Assessed 23 302 1,039 22,809 2,157 3,599 1,286 31,215
Total 23 302 1,039 22,809 2,157 3,599 1,286 31,215
WikiWork factors(?) ω =138,939 Ω =5.28

worklist•log•category

Any article related to this task force should be marked by addingbothparameters to the project banners at the top of its talk page:

This will automatically place it intoCategory:Indian cinema task force articles.

To-do[edit]

Article alerts

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 27 Jun 2024 –Eashvar Karthic(talk·edit·hist)was AfDed byDareshMohan(t·c);seediscussion(19participants;relisted)
  • 20 Jun 2024 –Singara Chennai(talk·edit·hist)was AfDed byDareshMohan(t·c);seediscussion(4participants;relisted)
  • 12 Jun 2024–Kali Raat(talk·edit·hist)AfDed byLtbdl(t·c)was closed asredirectbyLiz(t·c)on 03 Jul 2024; seediscussion(9participants;relisted)

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Templates[edit]

Cinema of India notice[edit]

Place this template{{CinemaofIndia}},at the bottom ofcore articles or categoriesabout the Indian film industry. Please, do not transclude this template in Indian film and actor articles as it can be too generic, but only those articles/categories appearing in the template itself. Employ this template judiciously and not indiscriminately; if an article isstub-classwith little content or if another template is already included, consider whether the addition of{{CinemaofIndia}}will improve and enhance the article. It will produce:

Awards[edit]

The Bollywood Star

TheBollywood Staris awarded to Wikipedians with great contribution to articles related toBollywood.To award this barnstar to an editor, paste the following code on their talk-page and include a general message about their contributions to any article or area ofIndian cinema:

{{subst:Indian Cinema Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

The South Indian Cinema Award

TheSouth Indian Cinema Awardis awarded to Wikipedians who tirelessly foster or contribute to the improvement of articles relating toIndian cinema,particularlySouth Indiancinema and its music. To award this barnstar to an editor, paste the following code on their talk-page and include a general message about their contributions to any article or area of Wikipedia that deals with South Indian cinema:

{{subst:South Indian Cinema Barnstar|message ~~~~}}



Both awards are listed onWP:WPPAunder WikiProject Awards.

General guidelines[edit]

Shortcut

Films[edit]

Main page:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

Indian film articles often lackconciseness.This is due sometimes to the over-enthusiasm of editors for the subject matter. It should be understood that such articles are intended to convey straightforward information about films to readers. The plot synopsis should observe a limit of 400-700 words, and it should include a full overview of the plot including the ending. The basic structure of a film article should follow theManual of Style for films.Articles on films should include a lead paragraph, infobox, and synopsis. SeeLage Raho Munna Bhaifor an example of a featured Indian film article.

Please do not add hyperbole or subjective phrasing to describe films. Describing films as "super hit", "failure", "flop", or "declared as all-time blockbuster status" should be avoided at all costs. We are not here to gush over films or to mock them, we're here to present a neutral, academic overview. SeeWP:PEACOCKand ourpolicy on neutral point of view.

Mundane marketing techniques like television and public appearances, the release of first look posters, teasers and trailers are not noteworthy. SeeWP:TRAILERfor guidance.

Please be circumspect when writing about film financials, as all Indian film financial details are based on tradeestimatesand should not be taken as gospel. There is significant corruption surrounding these financial details and figures are often inflated and deflated by producers and competitors for various reasons of self-interest.Times of Indiabriefly discontinuedtheir box office coverage for this reason. Keep in mind that an estimate that is a few hours more recent isn't necessarily more accurate, higher numbers aren't necessarily more accurate, and when in doubt, presenting a range is always an option. (Ex: "gross =₹30–40 million ") Related, please stay focused on the big picture--we aren't here to track every aspect of a film's finances, only the most important broad strokes, which typically means budget andgrossbox office figures. Presenting information about nett gross, nett, and distributor share tend to clutter articles and make film finances difficult to compare to other films. Information about satellite and music rights sales, as well as tangential revenue streams, are not typically noteworthy. Seethis discussion.

Monetary conversion templates such as INRConvert should not generally be used in list type articles or infoboxes perthis consensusandthis discussion.The prevailing attitude was: 1) Converting to US dollars is arbitrary. 2) Default conversion templates create problems with inflation, Ex: where the gross from a 2008 filmis converted to the present year's US$ rate.3) The inflation adjustment option in the template results in infobox clutter.

Biographies[edit]

Articles on Indian actors and directors should be understood to fallprimarilyunder the control ofWikiProject Biographyguidelines.More specific guidance can be found at theActors and Filmmakers workgroup.Articles about living peoplemuststrictly adhere to theBLP policy.Biography articles fall into a standard pattern of alead paragraph,followed by sections dedicated to background, career, personal life, awards, filmography, external links, and references. SeeSatyajit Rayfor an example of a featured article about an Indian film director.

Articles on Indian musicians generally consist of the following sections: lead paragraph, background, career, awards, partial discography, external links and references.

Note also that biographies of living people must beimpeccablysourced. Any contentious or potentially contentious information needs to be attributed to areliable mainstream published sourcewith anestablished reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.And with identity theft a major modern concern, personal information like birth names and birth dates need to be reliably sourced as well, as publishing this information based on personal knowledge, public records, etc., could potentially violate the subject's privacy. SeeWP:BLPPRIVACY.

Filmographies, discographies, and awards[edit]

If applicable, a comprehensive filmography, discography, or awards listing can be split off to a new article. These pages are expected to link into one another upon creation.

Images[edit]

It should be noted that Wikipedia's rules on Image uploads areextremely strict,and all uploads must be accompanied by a comprehensivefair-use rationale.Help:Imageis a good guideline that explains the process of uploading images and what needs to be completed.

Copyrighted images of actors, actresses and directors from websites all over the Internet aredisallowedand will be deleted. An easy rule-of-thumb to remember is: "If you don't know where it comes from, don't upload it."

Several editors have worked hard to make sure that all pictures used are acceptable for Wikipedia. One such strategy is to search for images of living people on an image-sharing site such asFlickr,where only images released under a Creative Commons 2.0 license are acceptable. In other words, the image must be released under a license that allows sharing and remixing of the work.

External links[edit]

External links should follow the Wikipedia guideline onexternal links.Official websites of films or film actors are preferred over non-official websites. Fansites are often of low quality and feature commercial links. There are many sites for popular actors and linking to one makes it fair to link to all. Therefore a consensus is emerging that only links to the actor's official site and IMDB article are allowable, as well as content on reputable sites (BBC news interviews, etc.).

List of films[edit]

A list of feature films released in a particular year is separately maintained for each language. Do not add dubbed versions in these pages as the list is intended for original productions only. Mentioning notable deaths and award ceremonies should be avoided which instead may be added in the[YYYY] in filmarticle. Web series / television series debuts are also excluded in the list of films article. A separate article for series meeting theWP:NLISTcriteria may be created for this purpose. Seethis discussion.

Guidelines on sources[edit]

Shortcut
Legend
  • Generally reliableGenerally reliablein itsareas of expertise:Editors showconsensusthat the source isreliablein most cases on subject matters in itsareas of expertise.The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how muchweightto give the source and how to describe its statements.
  • No consensusNo consensus,unclear, or additional considerations apply:The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neithergenerally reliablenorgenerally unreliable), and may be usabledepending on context.Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
  • Generally unreliableGenerally unreliable:Editors showconsensusthat the source isquestionablein most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, beself-published,or presentuser-generated content.Outsideexceptional circumstances,the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about aliving person.Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used foruncontroversial self-descriptions,and self-published or user-generated content authored by establishedsubject-matter expertsis also acceptable.
  • BlacklistedBlacklisted:Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form ofexternal link spamming,the source is registered on thespam blacklistor theWikimedia global spam blacklist.Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in thespam whitelist.

Generally used sources[edit]

Sources
Source Status Comments
Allindiansite.com Generally unreliable
Andhra Box Office Generally unreliable
Andhra Cafe Generally unreliable
Andhrakaburlu.com Generally unreliable
Assamtimes.org Generally unreliable Discussedhere
auditionform.in Generally unreliable
Bestoftheyear.con Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Bollymoviereviewz.com Generally unreliable
Bollyspice.com Generally unreliable
Bollywoodbubble.com Generally unreliable
Bollywoodlife.com Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Bollywoodsociety.com Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Bollywood HungamabyHungama Digital Media Entertainment Generally reliable
Box Office India Generally reliable Also Discussedhere– Note that film budget figures at BoxOfficeIndia.com include print and advertising costs, so we should note that if we can't find a better source. Ex: {{small|Note: figure contains print and advertising costs}}[a]
Business Standard Generally reliable
Business Today (business magazine)byLiving Media Generally reliable
Catch Generally reliable
Cinechicken Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Cinigoer.com Generally unreliable
Cinema Express Generally reliable Subsidiary of Indian Express
CNN-IBN's IBN Live Generally reliable
Dailyhunt.com BlacklistedGenerally unreliable Discussedhere
Dailymovieupdates.com Generally unreliable
Daily News and Analysisby Zee Media Corporation Generally reliable
Deccan Chronicle Generally reliable
Deccan Herald Generally reliable
Dina Thanthi Generally reliable
DinakaranbySun Group Generally reliable
Dreamdth.com Generally unreliable
Filmfare Generally reliable
Film Companion Generally reliable
Filmibeat.com Generally unreliable
Firstpost Generally reliable
Greatandhra.com Generally unreliable
Hindustan TimesbyHT Media Generally reliable
India.com byZee Media Corporation Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Indiaforums.com Generally unreliable
India TodaybyLiving Media Generally reliable
Indiatimesby The Times Group Generally reliable
Indiglamour.com Generally unreliable
Indo-Asian News Service Generally reliable Use parameter "agency=", Discussedhere
International Business TimesbyIBT Media Generally unreliable SeeWP:IBTIMES
Iwmbuzz.com Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Jan Bharat Times Generally unreliable Discussedhere
KeralaDaily.com Generally unreliable
Koimoi Generally unreliable
Magna Publications Generally reliable
Mid Day Generally reliable
Mint (newspaper)by HT Media Generally reliable
Mumbai Mirrorby The Times Group; Generally reliable
NDTV Generally reliable
News18 IndiabyNetwork18 Group Generally reliable
Nettv4u.com Generally unreliable
Nowrunning.com Generally unreliable
Oneindia.in Generally unreliable SeeWP:OPINDIA
Outlook (Indian magazine)by Outlook Publishing India Generally reliable
Pinkvilla.com Generally reliable Generally reliable for film-related content; avoidcelebrity gossip)
Press Trust of India Generally reliable
Radio Sargam Generally unreliable
Rediff.com Generally reliable
Republic TV Generally unreliable SeeWP:REPUBLICTV
Sacnilk.com Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Sahi Nahi Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Screen (magazine) Generally reliable
Serialupdates.me Generally unreliable
Sify Generally reliable
Spicyonion.com Generally unreliable
Streamingdue.com Generally unreliable
Televisionpost.com Generally unreliable
TellyChakkar Generally unreliable Discussedhere
Tellydhamaal.com Generally unreliable
Tellytadka.com Generally unreliable
Tellyupdates.com Generally unreliable
The Economic TimesbyThe Times Group Generally reliable
The Express TribunebyLakson Group Generally reliable
The Financial Express Generally reliable
The Hindu Business Lineby The Hindu Group Generally reliable
The Indian ExpressbyIndian Express Group Generally reliable
The News Minute Generally reliable
The Review Monk Generally unreliable Discussedhere
The Statesman Generally reliable
The Telegraph (India)byABP Group Generally reliable
The Times of IndiabyThe Times Group No consensus SeeWP:TOI.Note thatWP:RSNconsiders Times of India to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. SeeWP:RSP.Do not useTimes of India bio pages for details like birthdateas many of them were found to be inaccurate.
The Tribune Generally reliable
Upperstall.com Generally unreliable
Zee Newsowned byEssel Group&Zee Entertainment Enterprises Generally reliable

Dadasaheb Phalke Award copycats[edit]

see discussion atICTF board
Shortcuts

Named after a legendary Indian filmmaker, theDadasaheb Phalke Awardis a sub-award of the Indian government'sNational Film Awards.It is essentially a lifetime achievement award honouring a person's "outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema".[1]This is a coveted award for filmmakers, and there is only one award issued each year. To capitalise on the Phalke name, some small organisations have adopted their own Dadasaheb Phalke awards, and when media outlets don't ask questions and just reprint press releases, we often see the "Dadasaheb Phalke" award erroneously attributed to actors/directors/composers and others who might not deserve the national prize. Some news organisations fail to make this distinction. Examples:

  • In 2016,Mid-Day reportedthatSooraj Pancholiwon a best debut award at a Dadasaheb Phalke award organised by 90bids.com.
  • In 2018,Times of Indiareported that 34-year-old Ranvir Singh was going to win the Dadasaheb Phalke award, when what he was presented with was theDadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award,an award issued by some other institution.
  • In 2019, TimesNowNews, who inthis slideshowincluded a write-up of how the Phalke award is "India's highest honour in the entertainment sector", apparently did not notice that the event was an award handout for a two-year-old film festival named after Phalke, not for the actual national award.
  • In 2019, ABPLive.in ran a headlineherethat a Bigg Boss 12 contestant was being given the award for "Best Entertainer – Reality Show".
  • In 2019,International Business Timesreported "Ram Charan's wife Upasana Konidela has been honoured with the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for the Philanthropist of the Year... India's highest award in cinema presented at the National Film Awards ceremony." Clearly this is not the same award. Times of India this time clarifies Charan's award as the"Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award".
  • By 2020, ABPLive.in still hadn't figured out what this award is, writinghereabout the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards, "Presented annually at the 'National Film Awards' ceremony by the Directorate of Film Festivals, the 'Dadasaheb Phalke Award' is our country’s highest civilian award in the field of entertainment."
  • In 2021,The Hindu's Businesslinereported that Dhanush won "prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award (South)" for Best Actor.Gulf Newssaid "South Indian stars Dhanush, Mohanlal win Dadasaheb Phalke Awards".Free Press Journalwrote "Dadasaheb Phalke Award 2020... The award honoured the individuals from the Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada film industries for their outstanding contribution towards the growth and development of cinema." None of these sources mention explicitly that this is related to the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival (DPIFF), which it apparently is, and Free Press Journal really makes it sound like the winners are taking home that government prize, in part because they're using virtually the same phrasing found atIndia's Directorate of Film Festivals.

So when adding this award to articles, we must be double, even triple-certain that we are talking about the actual National Film Awards' Dadasaheb Phalke Award. Some clues: Afilmcan't win this award; apersonwins the award. Winners are typically older, because to make "outstanding contribution[s] to the growth and development of Indian cinema", you have to work hard for many years, not just be young, handsome, or pretty. You don't win the Dadasaheb Phalke Award forPhilanthropyor forMost Popular ActororExtraordinary Work to Reform the Society via a Movieor"for the song 'God Your Lady' in the filmVishwadi"orMost Iconic Jodi.You win it plainly, with no classifications. There is only one, and they worked hard to get it.

Some similar-sounding awards that arenotthe real award:

  • Dadasaheb Phalke Academy Awards – seethis TOI article
  • Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards – seeofficial website
    • Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South – launchingin 2019
    • Dadasaheb Phalke Icon Award - Possibly related to the International Film Festival Awards?[2]
  • Dada Saheb Phalke Film Festival Awards – seeofficial website
  • Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award – seeexample
  • Dadasaheb Phalke Film Foundation Awards – seeFacebook page
  • Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festial Awards South - seeexample
  • Legends Dadasaheb Phalke Award - seeexample
  • Dadasaheb Phalke icon Awards film - seeexample

See alsothis Hindustan Times articledescribing the confusion about these knock-off awards.

Annotated bibliography[edit]

Please use the following format when adding works: 

* <!-- bibliographical information -->
** Content:
*** <!-- optional content summary -->
** Reviews:
*** <!-- commentary on work by historians & other reputable sources -->
** Editor comments:
*** <!-- personal commentary by editors -->

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^PerMOS:SMALL,'small' tags ({{small}},{{smalldiv}}or<small>...</small>) should be avoided in an infobox. Instead, consider use of a footnote (e.g.,{{efn|Budget figure includes print and advertising costs}}) in an infobox, although that also requires the presence of{{notelist}}or equivalent in the appendices).
WikiProject India
This project is a workgroup ofWikiProject India,which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndiaand India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force&oldid=1222825542"