Talk:N. T. Rama Rao filmography

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Edits[edit]

Made a few simple edits. --BwB (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits[edit]

I'm working on this article as part of the March 2011 CE backlog elimination drive. Any suggestions for improving the article? Octopet (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on N. T. Rama Rao filmography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Director column[edit]

Hey Kailash29792, my objection was not whether to use the director column in general or the WP:BRD cycle. It was specific to this article, so the article's talk is the right place for discussion.

In over 250 films, Rama Rao has had notable collaborations with multiple directors. These include B. Vittalacharya, C. Pullaiah, P. Pullaiah, Tapi Chanakya, Dasari Narayana Rao, K. Bapayya, K. Raghavendra Rao, Kamalakara Kameswara Rao, V. Madhusudhan Rao, L. V. Prasad, Vedantam Raghavaiah, C. S. Rao, K. V. Reddy, B. A. Subba Rao, D. Yoganand etc. (collaborated for more than five films). Handling all of these in prose is a mammoth task and if remove these all together, then it amounts to ignoring many combinations that shaped his career. The director column is the best way to handle this situation, imv. --Ab207 (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's engage Davey2010 as he was the one who started removing director columns. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing the director column from a good ton of articles on the basis that they're not at WP:FILMOGRAPHY and IMHO they're irrelevant too - Readers come to the article to see the list of films/shows that subject has been in ....not who directed the film they starred in, As I've been saying in my edit summaries the director bit belongs in the respective subject article(s).

Unless FILMOGRAPHY is changed to include this then I see no reason why it should be included. –Davey2010^Talk 09:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that there's no harm in adding an extra column when the need arises. For example, language column is not mentioned at FILMOGRAPHY, but it's significant in Indian context where actors tend to work in multiple languages. Informing the readers about notable director collaborations is intrinsic to actor filmographies. When they are too many to handle in prose, director column is the best possible solution. --Ab207 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO language is relevant as obviously not all films are English and so not including it could make our readers believe it's in English, Although you didn't mention it Network is sort of relevant too - I see these 2 columns as basic information that a reader may want to know or need whereas IMHO readers wanting to know the director is slim to none, It'd probably be best to get consensus on the FILMOGRAPHY talkpage, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some other filmography articles that are rated as featured lists [1] and of course, there's inconsistency. Interestingly, it looks like american actors/actresses tend to skip the column and indian actors/actresses tend to include the column. I would check the version that was promoted to FL, not just the current version. The main time I would see a variance is for someone that has served as director/producer/actor in various combinations so there would be check columns for each. I often did not see a director column in those lists. I think it's worth a discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact as of June 2020, a majority (53%) of FLs had director columns. As Ravensfire pointed out, a chunk of them come from Indian filmographies for some reason. IMO, the column is not particularly problematic. It provides some relevant info where a segment of the audience might be looking for, without taking displacing other important content. As Wikipedia is not paper, I don't see it as something that absolutely has to be removed. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Davey went ahead. Since I'm neutral, I'm not gonna revert him. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'd have personally preferred it but if the community thinks otherwise, I guess I'll leave it here. Pinging MSG17, a major contributor to the article for courtesy. Thank you Davey2010, for engaging in a meaningful discussion. See you around :) -- Ab207 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the ping Kailash29792 :), Generally speaking it's me who should seek consensus for the removal however given I've removed these from over 20 odd articles with no issue I sort of see it as others should seek a main consensus for the changing of the FILMOGRAPHY example table, (I'm simply following it), That being said Ab207 you're more than welcome to go to WT:FILMO and start an RFC on it and get oustider opinions on this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, it's actually better to keep fewer columns. That way can allow other columns like Role(s) and Note(s) more space. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true Kailash29792!, Not all but a few note columns can be very long (example) so I absolutely agree keeping to a minimum is a good idea :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Davey2010, but as I said I'll leave it here. I went ahead and removed the column from the FLC we've been working on, and I'll join you in removing it elsewhere as well, as there's no point in letting the inconsistencies remain. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ab207, thank you for pinging me. I didn't know about this - I just thought that it was standard for Indian filmographies to have the director column. I don't care either way, although it is definitely more convenient for mobile users as well as sourcing entries not to have it. MSG17 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While removing a bunch of them, I observed that its almost always mentioned for male actors and less so for actresses. So there's a subtle sexism in there, ofcourse that's just my theory. But since we are not making any exceptions, its better get rid of them altogether. --Ab207 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! No complaints from me for removing that column. Excessive detail that's frankly not needed. It may be worth dropping a note on WT:ICTF and possibly add mention to the main ICTF page section on discographies. Ravensfire (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we should do that. In the absence of clear policy, nothing stops editors from silently reading them like this.--Ab207 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating tables[edit]

Now we have three tables, On-screen, off-screen and production credits. These can be easily be covered in two tables like Clint Eastwood filmography. We can even go a step ahead and cover it in a single table like List of Tom Hanks performances. @MSG17 and Kailash29792: Thoughts? -- Ab207 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to delete the other two tables after fully referencing each entry anyway. We can do it now. MSG17 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As there are 120+ films which need references, I reckon its gonna take at least a month more at this pace. There's an easy way of adding youtube links but I'm adding RS so that the corresponding articles can survive AfD. --Ab207 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ab207 and MSG17, I support the idea of production credits being merged into "Off-screen roles". Also, how about adding a language column? This is because NTR has appeared in at least 15 non-Telugu films, most of which are Tamil. Compare this with Rajinikanth filmography, even though Rajini was not mainly known for his non-Tamil films. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would just be better to merge it all into one table - it is standard practice and, much like MGR, NTR seems to only have been behind the screen in films where he also played roles on screen. (It should be noted that the unsourced data in the other two tables are inaccurate; a lot of those films were not produced my NTR but by his relatives.) As for the language section, I don't think it would be adept to add it. 15 out of around 300 films that NTR is estimated to have starred in is only 5%. Rajini seems to have a lot more than that, although I looked closer and saw that his films shot in multiple languages have an entry for each language. MSG17 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the benefit-cost ratio for language column is somewhat low here. Rajnikanth did over 60 non-Tamil films out of ~170 (around 35%), hence there was a need. --Ab207 (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

Kailash29792, why did you delete all the awards that were given to films that NTR directed or produced? A filmography is for all roles, not just acting. There is some precedent at M. G. Ramachandran filmography that shows an award to a film that the subject produced. MSG17 (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the list should only show those awards that NTR personally received like Best Actor (like many FLs), hence I removed them. Please re-add if any other actor FL includes such awards. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have noticed that, once again, there is a divergence in standards: American and British filmographies don't have awards listed in the notes (I think they mention them more in the lead), while Indian filmographies do. I will think about this and what awards I should include in the notes. MSG17 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E-book[edit]

See what you can add from this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late notice, thanks! I actually bought the full e-book a while back, but it has abysmal formatting, so this is much better. MSG17 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]