Talk:List of Hindi films of 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Hindi films of 2014 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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).

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Indian

	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.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2014, when it received 12,221,398 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 26 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Name Conflict of This Page with other pages

I saw that all the early pages related to bollywood films by years are named such as "List of Bollywood films of 0000" for example List of Bollywood films of 2013, List of Bollywood films of 2002 and so on all the early years pages are named like this. So why this one which is of the same format different? It will be better changing this article name to "List of Bollywood films of 2014" or changing all the names of the previous article to "Bollywood films of xxxx" written by year for avoiding conflict and putting these names in the same category. Dr. Shahid Alam(Talk to Me) 19:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and reliable sources

On 30 January 2014, Financial Express reports, Salman Khan's 'Jai Ho' box office collections turn it into Rs 100 crore movie Source.
On 3 February 2014, Box Office India reports, Jai Ho collected 13.50 crore nett in its second weekend taking its ten day figure to a little over 95 crore nett. The fact that even after ten days it has not yet crossed 100 crore nett is disappointing Source.
On the same day, 3 February, India Today reports, It has surpassed Rs.100 crore mark in the domestic market in 10 daysSource.
On 4 Februray, International Business Times reports, At the domestic box office "Jai Ho" made a business of about ₹102.58 crore, after completing its second weekSource.
On 4 Februrary, VNews says, Jai Ho Total Box Office Collection: 126.64 CrSource.
on 4 February, Times of India reports, 'Jai Ho' finally enters Rs 100 crore club Source

These all inaccuracy led the page witnesses an edit war and temporary semi-protection recently. And I'm more than just sure, that It'd be happening all the time taking into consideration differences reported by the sources considered reliable by Wikipedia. Can anybody suggest what should be considered more plausible and why? Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave my opinion here, Box Office India should not be considered a reliable source, anymore. It'd partially help the article to be accurate. Why? Among all the sources available only Box Office India reports differ. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason: After a certain period of time, Box Office India urls go dead. For example, see List of Bollywood films of 2013. I recently found there tons of the Box Office India urls not working (have been marked dead link). The fact is, they do not work apparently after a year. Anup Mehra ^✈ 08:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W Bollywood Movie releasing on 14 March 2014

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_(2014_film) Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WTheFilm Please add to you calender. Thanks ShivangSehgal (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)ShivangSehgal[reply]

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a platform to promote a subject. See, WP:PROMOTION. Let the article survive AfD. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a request to an add a "BOLLYWOOD MOVIE" releasing on 14 March to "Bollywood films of 2014" under "Scheduled releases" - "January–March" A simple submission (Information update to the article). Wonder how it came across as a "PROMOTION"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShivangSehgal (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me explain. As said earlier, Wikipedia is not an advertisement agency. Subject must be notable (significant coverage in the reliable sources) for inclusion. The article, W (2014 film) releasing since 2013 (W (2013 film)) is created by most probably your earlier account same as the production house, Legacy Films (now blocked) and expanded by the other people including you (the respected producer) related to subject. The article is tagged with {{coi}}[[See, WP:COI). Article doesn't meet Wikipedia standard and that's why it is nominated for deletion. The case is similar to Ebn-E-Batuta. It'd be better if you try resolve the concerns raised. Find secondary. independent reliable sources and cite them in the body of the article. See, referencing for beginners. Anup Mehra ^✈ 10:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. You must understand there is a difference between "Advertisment" & "Information". Our intention is not to "ADVERTISE" but to give out "Information" about the film. "COME WATCH THE MOVIE" where information states "THERE IS A MOVIE COMING" are not the same. About the release date, Changes, postpones are not UNCOMMON. recently with Lakshmi (2014 film) due to censor issues. I do Agree to the COI tag (I am sure you would prefer 20 non COI fake wiki accounts, easy to create contributing to the article instead of One single genuine source). I know these are not your rules and you are just being a good netizen and following wiki rules. So now that you (INDEPENDENT SOURCE" know there is a Movie by the name of "W" & a well versed wiki user, would you mind "Contributing" & "Editing" the article instead of blaitantly imposing policies and you do care about content. There are many external links which point out to the movie being released on the date. Hoping for your help. ShivangSehgal (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)ShivangSehgal[reply]

Well, I find the subject non-notable. I've earlier been made an unsucessful attempt to find sources and establish notability. There are one or two sources that says Film is about to release in 2013. But there is apparently zero sources published recently quoting the movie name about to release on 14 March 2014 (as claimed by the producer, i.e. you). I do not reject the idea that it might be just because of one alphabet title of the film. You are insisting the movie is notable, hence I'll request you again to show the significant coverage of subject in reliable sources(See, WP:42). I'm trying to make you understand that subject must be notable. Wikipedia illustrates different notability guideline for different subjects. For films, See, Wikipedia notability guideline for films. And I would like to make it clean, simple and straight that it is the only notability issue the article is nominated for deletion. I'll leave few page links here, might be found useful to you. Such as Wikipedia reliable source examples and guideline related to citing sources, WP:REFB. I'll be happy answering more questions related to Wikipedia. Regards, Anup Mehra ^✈ 14:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as there you are being offended by the use of WP:COI and argues, I am sure you would prefer 20 non COI fake wiki accounts, easy to create contributing to the article instead of One single genuine source. No I would not prefer that. If evidence found, I report them at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Anup Mehra ^✈ 14:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Quite nice, will take note. but just f.y.i.

The promotions has just begun 10 days ago. So yes, will take time till it reaches via notable mediums. Will bother you from time to time about wiki suggestions though, lol. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.190.181.238 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I must appreciate the efforts made to find sources to help article to reach Wikipedia notability standard. I'll scrutinize the reliability of the sources made available by you.

Source 1 is a re-print of press release. And that is why unfortunately it could not be considered reliable. WP:NF says, Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent..
Source 2 does help. But it is the only one till now.
Source 3 is a dead link but I've found a Google cache copy of the article. Google's cache of source 3. It again is a re-print of the press release. Hence doesn't help.
Source 4 is indeed a reliable one. But It doesn't contain any texts but only photo gallery of four stills captured during the film promotion at Navi Mumbai film festival. I'm sorry but it doesn't help as well. To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage.

I'll cite the source no.2 in the body of the article. The only alphabet W as the film title possibly hinders google search engine to find sources related to the film. I'll make an another request to you to find sources. I'll also suggest you to archive the article in your sandbox in case, if deleted now for notability cause and later found multiple sources around the date of release or thereafter, could be reinstated. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I should mention earlier, these sources at least suggest the releasing date of the film W. I guess, it should be then included in the the list. I'm adding it right about now. And I am not bothered anyway. I'm here to help. You are invited to leave me messages on my talk page at any moment you find yourself stuck on Wikipedia. Regards, Anup Mehra ^✈ 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anup I cannot begin to express how immensely thankful I am for your help on wiki and inclusion of W. Thank you so much! ShivangSehgal (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)ShivangSehgal[reply]

You're welcome. But literary you should not have thank me. I'm not a dictator. I was just trying the article to be accurate based on reliable sources. You could do it yourself following help-links mentioned by me earlier somewhere in my comment. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The genre for "Darr @ the Mall" should be "Horror" and not "Drama". This is because Darr @ the Mall is a horror movie. Thanks. 223.239.204.194 (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done The relevant change has been made. Thanks for the correction suggested. Regards, Anup Mehra ^✈ 11:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict column

I have boldly deleted the "verdict column" from the Highest Grossing Films table because it is unclear what it attempts to summarize. Critical response? Sales? It doesn't seem consistent with anything I've seen from MOS:FILM and seems comprised of personal interpretation. Who issues the "verdict"? Who decides what a "disaster" is? Who decides what a "blockbuster" is? What is the definition of "blockbuster"? These sorts of summaries are the type of thing that should be left to aggregators of critical content the way Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic look at professional reviews and issue an overall score. If the summary attempts to explain ticket sales, let the numbers from the ticket sales do the talking. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm.. It seems to you an WP:OR but it is not. In answer to who decides "verdict", it is reliable sources and not one but many. I've nothing to do with the definition of "blockbuster" because sources do not mention it. I'm neither interested to make an attempt to define these terms. It would be definitively be a WP:OR then. Lets have an another look to the article, Article consists what sources do support and there really is nothing WP:OR#Synthesis. They do clearly mention "verdict disaster/semi-hit/hit/blockbuster" and article includes the same. And I'm not sure what should we realy look into, MOS:FILM, MOS:LIST or MOS:TABLE? However, may I remind you, all could have occasional exceptions. Taking into consideration my explanation, I expect you either to raise some more questions or to restore the verdict column. Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you didn't clarify my other problem with the column, which is that it's unclear what the column is describing--CRITICAL disaster or FINANCIAL disaster. As for the "reliable sources" you claim are making these determinations, who are they? They're not cited in this article. In this revision I can see that Miss Lovely was listed as a "Disaster" (again, still vague what that means), but when I read the article, I don't see the word "disaster" anywhere, nor do I see a source that makes that claim. When I read Paranthe Wali Gali I don't see "disaster". I see "disaster" in Karle Pyaar Karle but that's only supported by one source, Box Office India. Are we using only one source to describe the film as a disaster? And is "disaster" the appropriate wording for an encyclopedic project that attempts to maintain neutrality? I don't know. It might be. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awh! There might be many more if one insists to find. And I'm afraid that they might not opine identical to each other. A source says disaster then we should assign disaster without going into deep making further assumption related to anything not mentioned in the source (critical or financial or any other). Box Office India is dedicated to reporting the box office collections and verdict on Hindi films. I'm uncertain about reliability though as sometimes reports differ from other national newspapers. It does regularly report verdict on each and every released (one just needs to find). If there is something unsourced then please do not delete but tag {{citation needed}}. The article is highly visited and soon someone following template would replace with a RS. I understand and respect your WP:NPOV concern. But article doesn't carry even a single sentence that might violet NPOV. Just a word, disaster what does source support for. And we may not consider other wording because it surely would violet OR#Syn then. Like using flop, not successful or any other word for disaster. It really doesn't violet NPOV policy. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the meaning of "disaster" isn't important, that we should parrot what BOI reports with no consideration for context or possible ambiguity? That doesn't seem constructive. We have to know what the information means to know if it's even relevant. As for neutrality, if Box Office India gave Karle Pyaar Karle a verdict of "Shitfest", would you argue that it should be in the Verdict table? List of films 2013 seems to be a comparable article. I don't see "flop" or "failure" or "shining success" anywhere. What is the point or the benefit of inserting someone's opinion about success instead of just using numbers? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Box Office India gave Karle Pyaar Karle a verdict of "Shitfest", would you argue that it should be in the Verdict table? I do not see how it forms an argument. If this could be that would you still be calling that, that? Man, It is meaningless. I agree that, List of films 2013 could be a comparable article. Another view, You've got multiple sources related to ZXCV. Why would you not include it an article? There are multiple reliable sources that does mention Verdict. I still do not see a reason why it should not be included and how does it violate NPOV. Sources do support. Include it. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my rhetorical question is to illustrate that the word doesn't represent a fact, it represents an opinion. If BOI used "shitfest" to describe a movie, by your argument it would have to be included because BOI is presumably a reliable source. Tables exist to summarize data. "Disaster" is not a fact, it is an opinion, and thus doesn't belong in a table. These are opinions: "Karle Pyaar Karle" is a disaster. "Karle Pyaar Karle" is a shitfest. These are facts: "BOI called Karle Pyaar Karle a disaster", "Business of Cinema called Karle Pyaar Karle a disaster". The difference is significant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is an opinion not a fact from your point of view and I would be agree with that for a moment. Now can you please explain why an opinion published in multiple reliable sources could not be included in an article on Wikipedia? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in an article about a movie, it is fine to have a "Critical response" section that provides a balance of positive and negative reviews from reliable sources. A (fabricated) example: "Panjit Shah of Box Office India called the movie 'a disappointment', but Joey Singh of Business of Cinema called the movie 'Fantastic!'" If both of those sources are in disagreement, what then do you put in the Verdict box? Nothing. Because it's not our job to decide what the average or total is of opinion content. And if the sources are in agreement, then what do we put in the Verdict box? Again, nothing. We are not "aggregators" of critical opinion. The proposed verdict box represents a summary of financial success, but is dependent on the sources we choose. Even with a few cherrypicked reviews that call a movie a "disaster" it still doesn't seem encylopedic that we should attempt to summarize opinion content, and then present it as a factual "Verdict". If we can't get past this point, then maybe our next step should be either to get a third opinion, or, if we want more opinions posting a request for comment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice, since the day Verdict column is removed, article didn't witness any edit war. I would be agree with your above comment. Disagreement in between WP:RS. Okay, let it be as it is present. Thanks and Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Hello, I've honestly no intention to re-initiate the debate. But I wondered what would you opine after seeing this article, List of film accents considered the worst? Just an opinion! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: Hello my spirited debate partner! :) That article is of questionable encyclopedic merit for precisely the reasons I've mentioned before. "Worst"? Ignoring all of the items on the list that are unsourced, the article takes selected opinions from various sources and draws a conclusion about them that isn't explicitly mentioned in any of the articles. Look at Nicolas Cage's entry: "his accent in the film [Con Air] has featured prominently on many lists of worst accents in film." Says who? Where are all these lists? Should we assume the Wikipedia editor has read all of them? There's only one reference, where respected critic Gene Siskel says, "Nicolas Cage is not convincing, with his too-thick Southern accent". He didn't say "worst". And even if he had, that's only one guy saying it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Since I've been making the same general argument for a few days, I feel like I'm on autopilot. To get a different perspective, I've opened a discussion about that article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. I don't mind being wrong, so if I am, the community will tell me. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I'm flattered by reading the term, "spirited debate partner". Thanks for that. UPDATE: The article is brought at AfD. And I voted delete. Ha! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on totals

Hi, can we get someone to please double-check the numerical totals for the various films in the Highest Grossing Films table? The concept of crores is messing with my brain. I found this source (which may or may not be reliable) that Jai Ho may have made a total of Rs 110 crore. That doesn't seem consistent with "₹2,025,800,000" Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, 110 crores is definitively not ₹2,025,800,000. I didn't find ₹2,025,800,000 anywhere in the article (It was most probably a disruptive editing and someone already fixed it perhaps). However, It is not worth messing up with. It is as simple as, one crore is seven zero after one or one crore is simply 10 million. And numeric totals for the films do vary in the reliable sources. I recently somewhere above on this page made an attempt to raise my concerns over it. What should be considered a reliable source when it comes to total earnings of a film. No body showed up. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking care of this. It's somewhat troubling that we can't find a consistent reliable source for totals if we have an article that exists solely to list the successful movies by their box office totals. That said, I have another note: Per MOS:NUM, numerals on the English Wikipedia should be presented in Western style, i.e. like this: 1,000,000,000 and not like 1,00,00,00,000. I've re-formatted the numerals a few times, but vandalism and reformatting keep thwarting my efforts. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvement made. And yeah there's a great variation between reliable sources. Some editors take Boxofficeindia as the only RS when it comes to Indian films. I'm not sure if there has been ever a consensus over this. Vandals are less these days. I guess, it'd be coming back around 20-25 of this month following some awaited movie releases. Buckle up! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More issues with totals - Gunday

I'm confused by the totals at Gunday. Are we taking daily/weekly box office reports and increasing the totals ourselves? Doesn't that seem kind of synthesis-y or orginal research-y? Also, I found this, so I'll be adding it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @Cyphoidbomb: I've been confused earlier with the same. I find a great range of variation between RS when it comes to bollywood movies gross income. Again, I would quote Talk:Bollywood_films_of_2014#Accuracy and reliable sources and not sure if there has ever been a discussion over this. What should be considered a RS and what not in regarding total collections of bollywood films and most importantly, why?! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table Arrange

Please arrange the table of Top 10 correctly. - Cod Swick! (Reply here) 16:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Codswick Can you please be more specific and clear related to changes you want to see in the article? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK

This article is List of Bollywood films of 2014. Any running total of top grossers or anything else belongs in a different article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is much better now. Less vandals as well. However, the present article looks like a copy of BollywoodHungama.com. Almost all sources belong to this particular site, I'm unsure reliability about. Guess what, a BollywoodHungama editor makes changes to an Wikipedia article without opening Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BollywoodHungama has started a new film database a la IMDB and there are several editors who seem to be spamming the links all over. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's no solution? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, if the site is generating a lot of spam, it could conceivably be reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Although, so could the users if they are only here for mischievous purposes. Does the site have any value? There are a lot of articles using it as a ref. As for the issue of having a running summary of box office totals, I don't particularly have a problem with its existence. The article is about 2014 Bollywood movies, and it seems to make sense that a running total of leaders could appear in the article. I'm not taking a position on whether or not it should, but I don't find it unreasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) BollywoodHungama has two wings, a relatively long-standing media wing which has (perhaps by default) been deemed a "reliable source" for media coverage, and a new film data base clone of IMDB which at this point is mostly worthless. The data base part is now being widely used because the media portion has been accepted. i dont think there is any easy identification in the URLs to be able to spot which are the inappropriate data base pages rather than the news coverage.

2) if this were an article "the bollywood film industry of 2014", then coverage of top earners would be viable, but this is List of Bollywood films of 2014 so calling out, as the first section none the less, a select group to highlight their earnings is beyond the scope of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i was trying to find examples of the media coverage and it looks like in the redesign, they absconded with all of the old URLS sending every old link to the data base page for the film and then from there you need to click on the "articles" tab to find the specific article that was cited! what a mess!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every previous year (for example,2013 or1999) contains Top 10 movie section of their years. so why not this? Please add, it is necessary. - 119.160.118.119 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That other articles need the mop, broom and pruning shears to comply with guidelines does not make the addition of non compliant materials here any more acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP 119.160.118.119, the concept you are describing is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rahul Saroj (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done as per request. No change made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

106.219.132.19 (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the colour codes

The list or table os colourful and I often noticed that other users got confused when filling the background colour on the table. I suggest to use these color codes when filling the backgrounds.

Extended content

Thanks - 119.160.119.80 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are these colors in conformity with Wikipedia's Accessibility guidelines? Color selections should be made in such a way as to consider people who are color blind as well as those with impaired vision. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These colors are only for the table using in the article. For example September has been colored with orange and august with plum in the article. Similary I defined every color using in the table so that editors will not confuse when making minor edits. - 119.160.118.62 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, on the section "october-december", the colors of November and December are not currently filled with the above given codes. please fill them. - 119.160.119.96 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what I am asking. Please read WP:COLOR, otherwise, the colors could very well be changed. If you are submitting a general color scheme for the article a good approach would be to invest the time yourself to make sure the colors conform to the color guidelines, since it doesn't make sense to change something that isn't problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran them through Snook's Colour Contrast Check. Here are the background colors that are definitely problematic: #FF0080, #FF00FF, #DB7093, and #50C878. The following are sort of okay, but could be improved: #40E0D0, #FF9900, #EEF003, #00B3FF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the use of color coding is in general problematic along with many other things about this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Collapsed table as it is no longer displaying properly. User account associated with the table has been indeffed for sockpuppetry and the relevant page was deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machhli Jal Ki Rani Hai

Machhli Jal Ki Rani Hai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.159.112 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machhli Jal Ki Rani Hai releasing on June 13th — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shriwardhmanmovieventures (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

This edit request to List of Bollywood films of 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

182.188.193.129 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

add - 1st August, 2014, Title "Chaarfutiya Chhokare" Genre- Social thriller, Director- Manish Harishankar, Cast- Soha Ali Khan, Seema Biswas, Zakir Hussain, Mukesh Tiwari, Harsh Mayar. The film is announced and ready to release by WAVE Cinemas. {{unsigned|== add - 1st August, 2014, Title "Chaarfutiya Chhokare" Genre- Social thriller, Director- Manish Harishankar, Cast- Soha Ali Khan, Seema Biswas, Zakir Hussain, Mukesh Tiwari, Harsh Mayar. The film is announced and ready to release by WAVE Cinemas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubhavkumarss (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note: new requests/comments go at the BOTTOM of the talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

This edit request to List of Bollywood films of 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Singham returns is realeasing on 15th August 2014, not listed in the current page

193.22.172.251 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another movie to be released on September 19, 2014

The film Ugly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_(film)) written directed by Anurag Kashyap is going to release on 19th September 2014. This film is not in the List of films releasing on 19th Septemeber. Can this be updated please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GunjanHModi (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ugly added to the List of films releasing on 19th Septemeber. Thanks for the correction suggested. --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinay Chakra

Hello admins, I want to say that please change the colors of month November and December. The color of November is #db7093 and of December is skyblue, according to last years. Please change that. I also want to say that, according to the source Abhinay Chakra, the film is releasing on 10 October 2014. So please move it from Aug 29 to Oct 10. Thanks. - 107.167.99.137 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - No source was provided to justify the change of release dates. Another editor may wish to contemplate whether or not to change the colors, which seems somewhat trivial to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

This edit request to List of Bollywood films of 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add the new title in this list Film2276 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top Grossing film section

An admin Red Pen of Doom saying that The section "Top grossing films" is does not belong to this article. I want to say that

From all previous years (from 1940), the "Top grossing films" section remain a part of all articles. So why after 74 years, it considered to not belong with it? Why this section ia removed?

So you have 2 options now

Remove all "Top grossing films" section from all other previous years

-OR-

Add "Top grossing films" section here too. Same like previous years

So what will you do now? - 119.160.118.57 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheRedPenOfDoom is not an admin. Firstly, you are making an "other stuff exists" argument. Secondly, let me ask you this: What source, or sources, do you propose are reliable enough to be able to present accurate data about film box office receipts? I don't have any faith in the accuracy of most of the entertainment sites that track Bollywood. There is too much inconsistency between the various sources, heavy bias, and even one of the major news outlets stopped reporting box office numbers because of concerns about inaccuracies. If there are no reliable sources, or very few reliable sources, how do we verify the accuracy of any of the information. I have also noticed that many of the "top ten" tables include absurd, subjective evaluations of the film, like, "failure", "semi-hit", "blockbuster", etc. That nonsense has to go. Anyhow, you might wish to bring this up with the India Cinema Task Force. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is "List of Bollywood films of 2014". the List of highest-grossing Indian films is <== that-a-way. We are an encyclopedia, not a random conglomeration about of any vaguely film related trivium. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

genre

Editors (who may or may not be the same people) keep changing the genre of Lingaa from Comedy to Action/Thriller [1][2][3] (One IP from Qatar, the other from Singapore) when the only source, BollywoodHungama calls it a comedy. Anyone have any info on this? Seems like a straightforward WP:CRYSTAL issue, but even if it is released we'd need something more than personal interpretation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyphoidbomb -Hope, you are doing well. Coming to the talk, to me it appears at first glance that they are right doing so, however not so much by making it uncited. Indian Express, Economic Times, "Metro Masti" are reliable sources and the journalistic work should always precede over database entries, as such Bollywood Hungama, and another one I found Film Beat. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupmehra, thanks for the input. I watched a trailer for the movie and it wasn't clear to me or a friend who was also watching whether or not it was a comedy. If you think the change is justified, I won't revert if you change it. Part of the problem as usual is that there are many drive-by editors who don't care to participate in even the briefest of discussions. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, I'll correct it citing two or three reliable sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed one maintenance tag {{one source}}, as the article clearly is not dependent on a single source. There are literally more than hundred. I also wanted to remove the {{ref improve}} one, because I don't see a part that would seek a citation. All entries are attributed to one or more sources. Shouldn't it be removed as well? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the issue there was that a number of editors came by and got rid of other sources in favor of BollywoodHungama. Or something like that. Though there are many sources, most of them are all from one place. Not sure what's appropriate here or if the one source template is being interpreted too literally. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awh! I've to agree with your words here. The article not entirely but definitely largely is dependent on a single source. We simply appear to have copied the film database from BollywoodHungama to here. One should not have removed the {{one source}} thing without addressing the issue. I'm not re-instating the tag right about now because I think, I'll be fixing it some time soon. Thanks for your valuable input. :) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB ratings

In these edits, an IP editor at 218.248.6.153 added IMDb ratings to the article in good faith. I have reverted the addition, as website user ratings are not noteworthy. Please note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Audience response. We shouldn't be highlighting only one source's opinions anyway, as this presents an unduly weighted perspective that may not be representative of reality. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY

In this edit I removed the rowspan and color formatting to bring the tables into alignment with WP:DTT. Per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, Wikipedia strives to make its data available to the widest number of visitors possible. Tables with rowspans and other odd formatting, like the vertical text that was previously employed do not facilitate accessibility for visually impaired readers who employ screen reading software. Yes, I know people like the colors, but there's no need for it and consensus already exists to make the data accessible to everyone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Bollywood films of 2014. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]