Talk:Cinema of India

Further expansion

• Awards
• Music and international interaction.
• Lengthier description of the diaspora, especially the South Indian diaspora since industry in south is more diverse.

Above mentioned are a few more topics that i intend to take care of in near future. JSR 0562 17:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Review as requested by JSR

• I would like to see more detail about Regional industries in this article, a tabular description is not enough.
• A section devoted to Bollywood and another to Regional, would make a clear distinction between the two, which is not clearly seen here. I suggest a reorganization of layout
• Suggested layout:
  • History
  • Bollywood covering Hindi cinema
  • Regional
    • Bengali
    • Kannada
    • Malayalam
    • Marathi
    • Tamil
    • Telugu
    • Other
  • Film music
  • Global discourse
• "Film music" mostly covers Bollywood, so should be under some "Bollywood" section OR should cover other regional cinema too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood and thanks for the review. I had some sources with me but actionable suggestion and clarity make things a lot better. JSR 0562 15:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Also,

1. the table in Regional industries does not look good. It should be changed to prose. Also, it also makes sense to have a separate article on this topic and have the summary here.
2. History section also should be a summary of a separate article on History of Cinema, which can discuss it in more detail.
3. Awards section basically talk about Bollywood awards only. Awards for other industries also should be mentioned. Plus table should be avoided, tables are meant for multi-dimensional data, for one or two dimensions, it is better to use straight prose.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

One reason why I always favor tables is that they serve short descriptions and discourage edits such as these examples. In my view, greater mention of the regional industries is best done in their own articles. I, however, agree that this article is somewhat dominated by Bollywood, particularly in the awards and film music sections, and more needs to be done in order to correct this shortcoming. I am preparing to write for another article which I should save on Wikipedia soon and that has been taking up all my time. After that rewrite I can devote myself here fully to take care of the shortcomings. JSR 0562 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"In my view, greater mention of the regional industries is best done in their own articles." - This is very biased view. Indian Cinema is not equal to Bollywood, it does not matter which point of view is used here: money, quality, awards, revenue, quantity anything. Those edits were there because you made a section on Bollywood and kept other industries in a table. Encyclopedia does not need to indulge in one-upmanship.--GDibyendu (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear GDibyendu, I was following the pattern which can be found in the begining of this very section. The above (removal of Bollywood section) is a new point that you have raised and it should be accommodated since you have raised concerns. Just remember that Bollywood has had the maximum number of films made and the maximum global exposure of all Indian industries. Amit Khanna cited in the article points to almost 300 films annually accounting for almost half the overall Indian cinema revenue. Why the Marathi industry dropped down to 10 films per year in 1996 would you still like a section for it? However, the last thing I want is to get drawn into India's regional rivalries and compromise on article stability so I won't argue further on this. But please try to be less passionate next time. Any error made by anyone can be corrected but its important to not sour things for unpaid volunteers like you and me. JSR 0562 06:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)