Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:1, 2,  3 
;Comments: I see this being added to pages on the same day the articles come out. Gives me the impression of possible COI. Regardless, there seems to be discussion that it is not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a specific time period in my mind. But the ones who's reliability or unreliability is established, we can close the subsection and add it to the list. Ideally, an uninvolved editor should close, so maybe we can ping some admin or someone who's active here for that. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  123Telugu 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments:Specifically BOLNEWS which is used 400+ times as a reference on Wikipedia. Cannot find editorial standards so unsure if reliable or not. Although the network is out of Pakistan, it has many references for Indian and other non-Pakistani cinema.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOL Network 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?: 1, 2, 3
;Comments:
Now, this is still true because we still have no other proper tracker website for Indian movies, especially Bollywood. Biased or not, the BO figures are almost close to the reported verified amount. So I'll put this one as a reliable source. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.com) 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments:One thing to watch for (and maybe we just need a disclaimer if the overall source is found to be reliable) is anything marked as written by "DC Correspondent." These are contributor posts and often have a disclaimer that they have not been vetted by editorial staff. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deccan Chronicle 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?: 1
;Comments:I brought this up at RSN a while back but only had one comment. It is being used a few hundred times as a reference but do not see it as being reliable. Bringing it here since it seems to have a lot of film references and we are addressing many of them now. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  EastMojo 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments: It is used over 2000 times as a reference on Wikipedia. Here is their about page. I do not see editorial oversight and sounds more like TMZ in my opinion. Just at first glance I think it could be used maybe to verify basic information such as film roles but nothing for notability.  --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmfare 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:  1 ("Branded Content" discussion), 2
;Comments: Used 800+ times in Wikipedia. Note that it is NOT overseen by Forbes editorial staff. It is (what I believe) branded as Forbes (likely from licensing agreement). It is actually owned by Network 18. It is used as a reference in many film and actor pages.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes India 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments:
In my experience with press release work, Hindustan Times stands out as a prominent website for publishing paid brand posts. It's crucial to note that any article lacking a specific author shouldn't be relied upon. Furthermore, it's advisable to avoid using articles with a disclaimer or those tagged as brand posts. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Help us to remove these 42 Sponsored Hindustan Times articles cited on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been cleaning some of these up. I am also finding there are quite a few paid posts from other sites on those Wikipedia pages and sent three to AfD already. I would actually lean towards saying only using HT with staff written articles for verification of basic facts (release dates, etc.) and NOT for notability. And NEVER using anything that is paid, branded, no-byline, or otherwise falling under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindustan Times 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments: There are currently 1000+ uses of Indiantelevision.com, the same owner as TellyChakkar.com. And this raises concerns on its reliability. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiantelevision.com 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments: There are currently 17 uses of Outlook India "business spotlight." I believe the publication would be reliable OUTSIDE of that but these are paid-for articles. I would support reliability but maybe a note in the box that says those marked as "business spotlight" or sponsored should not be used as a reference (in the process of removing the 17 I linked to above once I get the time). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The paid-for shall not be considered as reliable at all. Reliable outside the paid-for articles. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outlook 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:1, 2, 3
;Comments: Website editorial guidelines for reference.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: With an editorial team and a published editorial policy, as well as an affiliate disclosure, Pinkvilla.com can be deemed reliable due to their reportings to be very close to the actual BO figures and other film related news. But, I'll still stay clear of the gossip section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How'd one determine an actual BO figure? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What I do is go through the established RS. Most of the time, all of them stick to a particular figure (lets say X). Sometimes, they have discrepancies, and I use the figures as a range (  X - Y crores). Pinkvilla almost always give the same figures as other RS and it is always less than the promotional figures tweeted by filmmakers and other primary sources. Hence, I use them as RS. (As they say, if it looks like a RS and posts like a RS, it is most probably is a RS , lol.) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinkvilla.com 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments: Similar to the note on Outlook India above, First Post has sponsored content marked as "brand wagon" (often included in the URL as well). I have no comment on the reliability of the overall publication but will say the branded posts should not be used in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Financial Express 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments: Similar to Outlook, The Tribune has paid articles "Impact Feature". Grabup (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tribune 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?: 1, 2
;Comments:
Zee News is owned by Zee Media Corporation. They also have other publications such as Daily News and Analysis. Not sure if we should address any of these individual or JUST Zee News for the purpose of the RfC. Just throwing it out there. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: DNA is already added in the RfC above. I'd say while we are at it, let's review all the sources. India.com is deemed unreliable per this discussion. So, that's out. I don't know other publications under them. If there are any that are used frequently, by all means add them to the miscellaneous category below. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zee News 

message: ;Included in RS/P?:
;Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?:
;Comments:
According to their website (About us page), they apparently use 4 sources; Hindustan Times, Film Companion, Live Mint and Desi Martini, of which HT and Mint are reliable per RSP and RSN. Desi Martini is a partner site for HT. Film Companion, I'm not so sure cuz the page doesn't mention anywhere about their sources or their origin or history, hence sounds dubious. But other than that, OTTPlay.com should belong in the reliable side of the spectrum. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am coming across this one quite a bit when sourcing filmographies. I think the main issue I have is that it is a commercial website and they benefit from aggregating news. A lot of the articles are bylined "Team OTTplay" so not sure if these are coming from the reliable sources or if they are original content from that site. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTTPlay.com 

message: https://cinemaexpress.com/ which seems to be subsidiary of Indian Express, it provides articles about films. can it be used as source for references.
Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Cinema Express is known for South Indian film related news and reporting and a part of The Indian Express, there is no consensus about the reliability of it. I think Cinema Express should be considered as a generally reliable source. Grabup (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Since IE is used as an RS, it's subsidiary is also considered as one due to the same editorial team. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: so should we add Cinema Express in reliable section of WP:ICTFSOURCES? Aadirulez8 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Kailash29792 (talk)  03:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinema express can it be considered reliable? 

message: Hi, It seems that the permission for Bollywood Hungama images is not valid. So we may have to delete all images (more than 17,000 currently on Commons) unless Bollywood Hungama confirms that the permission is valid. Apparently they didn't answer to emails. See discussion on c:Template talk:BollywoodHungama. Any idea? Yann (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is gonna be a huge setback if they don't answer back. But nonetheless, I'd say let wait out the discussions happening in the template talk, as well as the Village Pump to see how it all unfolds. Here in ICTF, the discussion on this topic is not going to attract a major crowd. So let the broader community consensus come up and then we can discuss it here accordingly. Maybe if they are not willing to reply and a non free media rationale is applied, we have to limit the website usage in our articles. Whatever be the case, over 17k instances is too large to ignore. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow, that was an interesting read on commons.  I hope that BH replies and that this works out.  I think all of the top tier actors and actresses will be okay, so many of the rest will lose their images.  Following that discussion with interest. Ravensfire (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a bit of a long-shot, but if any editors here happen to know someone who might know someone at BH that could help get some resolution on this, it would be very helpful.  The challenge really is that everyone is clear on what the compatible licenses allow - and trying to put additional restrictions on them would not be acceptable.  For example, a requirement that the BH watermark remain on the image is probably not going to fly.  Ravensfire (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bollywood Hungama images 

message: Are we suppose to club grosses of initial and re-releases together like this? I mean considering the inflation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know seriously. Inflation is a different matter, but clubbing re-release earnings with original earnings... in an industry where reliable BO info is rare, is just confusing. I'd say keep the original gross separate from re-release gross. --Kailash29792 (talk)  03:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghilli

message: It is good to change the current name (Cinema of West Bengal) to "Bengali cinema, India" or "Bengali cinema (India)", where the latter two names are similar to the names of other language-film industries of India (example being Telugu cinema, Hindi cinema, Tamil cinema, etc.). Anyways, the current article differentiates it with the Cinema of Bangladesh and also mention about it in the top section. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree one should be Bengali cinema. But then see Tamil cinema vs Sri Lankan Tamil cinema and Malaysian Tamil cinema. Kailash29792 (talk)  00:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change of the article Cinema of West Bengal