||This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Threads with no replies in 20 days may be automatically moved.
Frivolous award shows in India
I have been thinking about this since a very long time and time to finally act now. As we all know, there are 100s of frivolous and laughable award shows with laughable categories solely created to award stars who attend these shows. Even the so called "reputed" award ceremonies are known for similar things. But I think the unnotable awards should be completely removed from wikipedia. I am talking about the awards given by Indian magazines such as Vogue, GQ, Filmfare, Femina and Hello, all of which award style and glamour. We all know everyone who attends these ceremonies get one award or the other. Even the worst -dressed stars like Deepika Padukone win awards like "Stylish Diva of Year" and so on. I would like to invite Krimuk2.0, Ssven2, Numerounovedant, Pavanjandhyala, Kailash29792 and the other editors from India to present their view in the same.Krish | Talk 21:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- You cannot be seriously thinking to eliminate the Filmfare Awards. It is certainly the most well known awards ceremony in the country, and only topped in prestige by the National Film Awards, isn't it? Bollyjeff | talk 23:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, not Filmfare Awards but Filmfare Glamour & Style Awards.Krish | Talk 00:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- If those award shows have Wikipedia articles, then they are notable to be included. Else, I am fine with their removal from the very face of Wikipedia. However, I am sceptical about removal of Awards that are notable simply on the basis that they are awarding every actor out there, which is not for us to decide. The reputed awards can certainly remain. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- While i agree with Krish regarding the nature of some of the awards shows in India, I am not too sure about how smooth their removal process (from Wikipedia) would be. It would lead to one contentious claim to another about which award is or isn't frivolous. NumerounovedantTalk 04:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: New format for currency
Hello, I have seen that most quality Indian cinema articles use million denomination over crore. While this is fine per MOS:COMMONALITY, most visits to these pages are from Indians, and the million format can be quite difficult to comprehend for people who have lived their entire life using crore denominations. I am proposing that both millions and crore denominations be used in this format: ₹x crore (₹ x million). Perhaps a template can be created to ease the conversions. What do you think of this proposal? Please let me know the task force's opinion on this. Thanks, -- King Prithviraj II (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- You might find this hard to believe, as did I, but in guidelines such as Naming Conventions, India is not considered part of the English speaking world. Presumably most Indians would be visiting something like hi.wikipedia.org where crore would be used. Make sense? Probably not, but it might get too messy to have multiple denominations, especially in the infoboxs. Maybe in the box office sections, but there we often add conversion to $dollars. Bollyjeff | talk 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey Guyz, This is to inform you to join wikipedia discussion whatsapp group. To discuss any topic. Here is the link https://chat.whatsapp.com/0e4EnwRB3axGmcVpmlYouv. Regards Jack Shukla AKA TKSS & Paplesh. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Why the frequency of box office edits?
I try to answer edit requests for protected page and almost without fail whenever I look at the relevant categories there are one or more edit requests by unregistered or unconfirmed editors asking for an update to box office figures for some movie. I am aware of the poor quality of most Indian cinema box-office numbers and I attempt to follow this task force's guidelines whenever possible to respond to these requests. That said, I am somewhat perplexed by not only the frequency but also the urgency of these requests. Some are quite vitriolic, accusing Wikipedia of racism over these edits. Granted, there is often hyperbole in edit requests but these are just disputable figures for how much money a movie supposedly made. Is it because of rivalry between different language communities within India or is there some other factor at work here? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:Film discussion about multiple sources for film financials
All, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Using multiple sources for film gross figures about using multiple sources to calculate film financials. I started it there to get more eyes and thoughts on this, but absolutely hope that editors here will participate and offer some perspective for folks (like me) who have a bare inkling at best on the nature of the Indian film industry. Appreciate any time and guidance given. Ravensfire (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Proposal for poster filling board/taskforce
Hi. Given that many film articles are lacking posters, I wish to propose for a proper taskforce/noticeboard/group which can help in filling the infoboxes with proper film posters. The ones actively participating annually can be given barnstars or some other form of appreciation, which can boost their morale and help them participate with much interest. Inviting constructive comments. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 15:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I too am in favour of such a task force being established. However, I feel it could be specifically related to non-American film articles as they are less often edited than American ones. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, a contested merger is taking place at Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan contesting the merger of its award list into the parent article. Thanks, King Prithviraj II (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Film Industry Nicknames
These are my proposals:
- In the lead of Indian film articles we should always use this statement or it's derivatives: Example is a 20XX Indian XYZ-language (XYZ industry nickname for instance Bollywood for Hindi-language fims) film...
- Why? That's because it gives foreign readers an idea of what that particular language's film industry's nickname is.
- Exception: Cinema of Punjab has no nickname.
- See these: Gold (2018 film) and Hate Story 4 for instance.
Harsh Rathod 04:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- As one of those "foreign readers" - I think this is a terrible idea. It just adds more clutter to what can already be congested ledes, and just isn't that interesting. Why should a foreign reader need the nickname of an entire cinema culture in a film article? The language is relevant - if I don't know Telugu then I know I will need subtitles, but I'm not sure why I would need to know that it's a "Tollywood" film. Aside from Bollywood, all those "X"ollywood terms are not widely used outside India,so it's not like you'd need to know the term to eg find it in a film library. So it just looks like clutter to me.Le Deluge (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Le Deluge: This is not the first time my proposals are straight away rejected. Bit still, at some point, please think how did you happen to learn the word bollywood? Where did you read it first? Do you deny the fact that amercian cinema is also called hollywood? Do you know what is sandalwood? Of course, you will google it now. Even for me, this word is new. I had learnt it recently. Please read this discussion. Following the consequences of this discussion one editor took it personal and raised questions on my editorship. See the Tollywood section of my talk page. That was so disrespectful and humiliating stunt. They also call my edits crap. But I learnt that cinema of Kannada is called sandalwood. Now, do you think this word should be mentioned in the lead of film articles? Since it is new for you and me both. Harsh Rathod 17:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't personal at all - it's just a bad idea. The first sentence of an article is for mentioning the 2-3 most important things about the subject - and explaining what "x"ollywood means is not one of the most important things about a film. We don't explain that a) a film is a Hollywood film and b) what Hollywood means in every US film. As an aside, some of the most "Hollywood" of films are made outside the US - in Canada, the UK etc. In fact the whole thing of defining film industries in terms of Hollywood is very much an Indian thing that isn't common elsewhere (Nollywood is the only one that comes to mind) - we talk about French cinema and Spanish cinema rather than Frollywood and Spollywood etc. The phrase Telugu cinema is precise, self-evident and unambiguous - why confuse things by introducing the ambiguity of Tollywood into things? And why does this have have to be in the first sentence of film articles? I repeat - nothing personal, but it's a terrible idea.Le Deluge (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Le Deluge: I was talking about mentioning both things in the lead. The language name and then nickname. Harsh Rathod 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- You still haven't explained why the industry nickname is so important that it belongs in the very first sentence of a film article. The fact that a nickname is not well known and "new for you and me both" is a powerful argument not to include it, as it falls foul of Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone
"the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader". Le Deluge (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Vokay! Apologies for my behaviour. Harsh Rathod 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am completely against the idea of including film industries' nicknames in lead sections of film articles. Rather I'd begin an article like, X is a <year> <language> film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Another rejection. 😐😑😣😔 Harsh Rathod 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree with the proposal. There have been instances of films from a film industry having different languages other than the industry's primary language. Bollywood churns out a considerable number of films with English spoken in them. See Anna M. M. Vetticad's footnote on this article for more info. Bollywood or Tollywood is not going to tell a non-Indian much about its language. It may be useful in the production section, though. King Prithviraj II (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with … It may be useful in the production section, though. But I was talking about mentioning this in the lead. Another rejection. 😪😴 Harsh Rathod 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree with the proposal - there is a language parameter in the infobox which already copes with this. Also, a number of films are being issued in multiple languages (not just overdubs) which would give even more clutter. I also foresee arguments/editwarring about which language comes first and people trying to include dubbed versions - 2.0 (film) is due to be issued in 15 languages, and there are already frequent additions of some of the dubbed languages to Hindi and Tamil.
Furthermore, definitions such as these are a common target for vandalism/edit warring, and some are disambiguation pages - if you say Tollywood do you mean Tollywood (Bengali cinema), or Tollywood (Telugu)? If people want to know the language, they can just check the infobox. - Arjayay (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Another rejection. 😪😴 Harsh Rathod 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Editors can consider primary language used in production. Harsh Rathod 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree with inclusion of nickname A version of this discussion was previously started at Talk:Hate Story 4. Harshrathod50 didn't get any traction changing the lead there from "Hindi-language" to "bollywood" [sic], and though his next effort was to slap Bollywood in parantheses next to Hindi-language, this too just creates needless clutter and I reverted it. Since he was making these changes to a swath of film articles, I asked him to come here. In leads we typically answer the Five Ws and provide some disambiguation if necessary. Sometimes we can do that in one elegantly cluttered sentence, sometimes it takes several. "Bollywood" is an abstract concept that loosely describes films made by Indian studios in the Hindi-language, typically produced by the Hindi ethnic group. Does a Hindi-language film have to be produced in Mumbai for it to be Bollywood? Can a Bollywood studio make a Hindi film entirely in Switzerland and call it a Bollywood film? If a studio from Karnataka makes a film entirely in Hindi is it a Bollywood film? That's a really heady concept to mandate for inclusion in the lead. A standard lead would intuitively tell us that it is a film (what), that it was made in 2018 (when), that it is from India (where), that it stars ___ and was directed by ___ and written by ___ (who). Noting that it was produced in Hindi (what) also serves to disambiguate from other films of that name. Like how we distinguish Drishyam, a Malayalam-language film from Drishyam the Hindi-language remake. Describing films as Bollywood or Sandalwood or Pollywood (as some like to describe the Punjabi industry) requires readers to have foreknowledge of the nicknames for the nicknames to have any value. Alternatively, every time we use the term, we'd have to clarify what the term means, which just creates more clutter. "The film was produced in Bollywood, the Hindi-language film industry centered in Mumbai." And as correctly stated by Le Deluge, we need to be precise with our language so that the widest audience possible can understand the most important aspects of this film. Maybe an argument could be made that this language could be presented somewhere in the article body, but I don't see its value in the lead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree with above disagreement: @Cyphoidbomb: I stopped all my activities the moment you made it this much big. See this page I had edited recently. I made it as YOU want. So be happy, everything is as YOU want. Don't worry about this bolly, polly, tolly matter. I have some other plans for it. Actually, I'm not able to explain everything properly. No doubt, I'm not of English origin. Harsh Rathod 08:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Harshrathod50: Uhhh, I don't know why you're making this about ME. It's clear that the majority of the people above and at the Talk:Hate Story 4 discussion didn't support the practice. These aren't my rules, they are the preferences of the community, and part of my duty as an experienced editor is to tell you what these preferences are. I don't always agree with the community preference, but I adhere to it. Whatever your mysterious next plan is on the matter, you may want to run it past other editors here first to save yourself some headaches. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Simply because it is always you that got problems with everything here. Also your previous comment targetted me. 😤 Harsh Rathod 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Harshrathod50: And again, see above. I was obviously not the only one who had a problem with it. Any existing guideline or policy that we have at Wikipedia comes from the community having a problem with something, not just Cyphoidbomb. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: No fighting please. I WP:ADMIT that I was wrong with everything I did. My ideas are so bad that they suffer instantaneous rejection. CyphoidBomber feels good seeing me defeated everywhere. 😏 Harsh Rathod 16:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Mukherji or Mukerji?
Quick question as to community preference: at Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna the film poster presents Rani Mukerji's name with an H (Mukherji) rather than as Mukerji. What's the best way to deal with this? Do we use the credited name, or the name that Wikipedia seems to prefer? This sometimes comes up with Shahrukh Khan vs. Shah Rukh Khan and I'm sure others as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- - i think Mukherji or mukherjee is the correct one if we see the history of traditional use... see Mukherjee-Samarth family... no idea since when rani became Mukerji :-( --Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well the poster of her latest film has her as Mukerji, it seems that she changed her spelling at some point during her career as she was widely referred to as Mukherji in her early reviews. But generally in these cases we'd use the spelling she herself uses rather than what it "should be" based on "traditional use", certainly for her main article. It gets complicated with the films where her "official" spelling has varied through her career, I'd generally use Mukerji for anything except where a film specifically refers to her as Mukherji, but at the same time wikilink to Rani Mukerji to make the connection clear.Le Deluge (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- She officially goes by "Rani Mukerji", but is credited in films directed by Karan Johar as "Rani Mukherji", and was credited as "Rani Mukherjee" in some of her earlier films. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- So in the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, would we use "Mukerji"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, I think we should use "Mukherji" there since that's how she was credited in the film. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I just reverted a change like that, which also changed SRK spelling, thinking it better to stick with the WP:common name everywhere. Also, how can you know for sure how they are credited in a certain film? Bollyjeff | talk 02:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
These are my dilemmas:
- Many films have background score and soundtrack album. If one weighs both of them equally, then music parameter should be asigned with values for both. Then why does this article use only background score artist in music parameter?
- If a production company officially employs an artist for the sole purpose of composing background score for a film and also credits him for it, then shouldn't we use ony background score artist in the music parameter (provided the soundtrack album of that film is not notable?) As is the case with this article.
- As is in practice nowadays. Many articles asign music parameter with both background score and soundtrack album artists. This fills film's infobox with jargon. Even if there is special section for the soundtrack in that film's article. Shouldn't the soundtrack album artists be asigned in the infobox album put in the soundtrack section of that film's article?
- It is clearly mentioned in Template:Infobox film that music parameter is for the film's music composers and not for the songs composers then why is this ignored by the admins? Harsh Rathod 10:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think this is a question best asked at Template talk:Infobox film. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: No, it is best suited here. Don't you have to say anything on it? Harsh Rathod 12:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- The usual practice is to mention the music director/ composer in the infobox. The soundtrack album is usually considered distinct from the film and often has a separate section/article, while the same is not the case with background score. As this task force primarily deals with Indian films, this sort of thing is better discussed at WikiProject Film or the Infobox talk page for more output. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I raised this discussion at Template talk:Infobox film "Music_by:" last year. Only got one response, and his feeling was that the parameter should be flexible, as there might be instances where the soundtrack of film intended to be a musical (like Oklahoma!) might be more important than the incidental music that connects the story together. Since Indian films are a bit different from western musicals, and in some cases the item numbers are irrelevant to the story and just serve to entertain (and stretch film length), there might be valid arguments for not including the information in the infobox. However, I don't see why the ICTF wouldn't be a good place to have the discussion. It's rare to get useful comments about Indian films from WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the best place to discuss it here. I get into edit wars now and then because of this. And has to explain this thing everytime in the edit summary. 😡 Harsh Rathod 08:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Even here no one is replying. So, I will continue with my preferred editing practice on this matter with no hesitation. Harsh Rathod 04:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Harshrathod50: Lack of feedback after 2 days doesn't mean you have carte blanche or community consensus. You may encounter push-back, at which point you will need to do more discussing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Okay, okay, okay, okay! I will wait, wait, wait, ...and wait! I don't understand carte blanche. Explain it in the context of your previous comment. Harsh Rathod 14:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Harshrathod50: wikt:Carte blanche (literally "white card") means free license. "Just because I gave him the keys to the car doesn't mean he has carte blanche to drive as fast as he wants." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Oh, I see! But still, do you have any reason to stop me? Harsh Rathod 15:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Harshrathod50: I don't have a specific reason to stop you, other than personal experience, but when your impulsive edits are reverted by IPs that don't value discussion, and you're basically edit-warring by yourself, well, then I guess we'll speak again! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Category:Films scored by ARTIST
Just what the heck do we mean by the above category? Is it that this category contains (1) films whose background score is composed by ARTIST or (2) song(s) in the soundtrack album of that film is/are composed by ARTIST?
There are so many instances of wrong categorisations in this type of categories. Some people are mistaking it as (2) and some as (1).
Shouldn't there be a special page/essay on this matter? Harsh Rathod 07:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)