Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main page   Discussion   Participants   Alerts   Announcements   Main article   To-do list   Assessment   Notable articles  
Hindi cinema recognised content   Malayalam cinema recognised content   Tamil cinema recognised content   Telugu cinema recognised content
More information WikiProject Film, Project organization ...
WikiProject Film
General information ()
Main project page + talk
Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
Multimedia talk
Naming conventions talk
Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
Article alerts
Cleanup listing
New articles talk
Nominations for deletion talk
Popular pages
Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
B-Class
Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Israeli cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox
Close

Welcome to the Indian cinema task force! We're a joint task force run between WikiProject Films and WikiProject India to ensure that Indian cinema-related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style, in a neutral manner using verifiable and reliable sources.

Scope

The scope of this task force is to improve the quality and quantity of information on Wikipedia about Indian cinema, and raising the quality of already-existing articles.

Indian cinema may include domestic films, films made by Indian filmmakers abroad, films produced or co-produced by Indian companies, and foreign films shooting in India. However per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Scope, this task force should not include articles about actors, directors and filmmakers. Those articles are covered by adding parameters for the Actors and Filmmakers and Screenwriters projects accordingly.

A category tree can be found here.

Participants

Tagging and assessment

More information Indian cinema articles by quality and importance, Quality ...
Close

Any article related to this task force should be marked by adding both parameters to the project banners at the top of its talk page:

This will automatically place it into Category:Indian cinema task force articles.

To-do

More information Article alerts ...
Close

Templates

Cinema of India notice

Place this template {{Cinema of India}}, at the bottom of core articles or categories about the Indian film industry. Please, do not transclude this template in Indian film and actor articles as it can be too generic, but only those articles/categories appearing in the template itself. Employ this template judiciously and not indiscriminately; if an article is stub-class with little content or if another template is already included, consider whether the addition of {{Cinema of India}} will improve and enhance the article. It will produce:

Awards

The Bollywood Star

The Bollywood Star is awarded to Wikipedians with great contribution to articles related to Bollywood. To award this barnstar to an editor, paste the following code on their talk-page and include a general message about their contributions to any article or area of Indian cinema:

{{subst:Indian Cinema Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

The South Indian Cinema Award

The South Indian Cinema Award is awarded to Wikipedians who tirelessly foster or contribute to the improvement of articles relating to Indian cinema, particularly South Indian cinema and its music. To award this barnstar to an editor, paste the following code on their talk-page and include a general message about their contributions to any article or area of Wikipedia that deals with South Indian cinema:

{{subst:South Indian Cinema Barnstar|message ~~~~}}



Both awards are listed on WP:WPPA under WikiProject Awards.

General guidelines

Films

Indian film articles often lack conciseness. This is due sometimes to the over-enthusiasm of editors for the subject matter. It should be understood that such articles are intended to convey straightforward information about films to readers. The plot synopsis should observe a limit of 400-700 words, and it should include a full overview of the plot including the ending. The basic structure of a film article should follow the Manual of Style for films. Articles on films should include a lead paragraph, infobox, and synopsis. See Lage Raho Munna Bhai for an example of a featured Indian film article.

Please do not add hyperbole or subjective phrasing to describe films. Describing films as "super hit", "failure", "flop", or "declared as all-time blockbuster status" should be avoided at all costs. We are not here to gush over films or to mock them, we're here to present a neutral, academic overview. See WP:PEACOCK and our policy on neutral point of view.

Mundane marketing techniques like television and public appearances, the release of first look posters, teasers and trailers are not noteworthy. See WP:TRAILER for guidance.

Please be circumspect when writing about film financials, as all Indian film financial details are based on trade estimates and should not be taken as gospel. There is significant corruption surrounding these financial details and figures are often inflated and deflated by producers and competitors for various reasons of self-interest. Times of India briefly discontinued their box office coverage for this reason. Keep in mind that an estimate that is a few hours more recent isn't necessarily more accurate, higher numbers aren't necessarily more accurate, and when in doubt, presenting a range is always an option. (Ex: "gross = 30–40 million") Related, please stay focused on the big picture--we aren't here to track every aspect of a film's finances, only the most important broad strokes, which typically means budget and gross box office figures. Presenting information about nett gross, nett, and distributor share tend to clutter articles and make film finances difficult to compare to other films. Information about satellite and music rights sales, as well as tangential revenue streams, are not typically noteworthy. See this discussion.

Monetary conversion templates such as INRConvert should not generally be used in list type articles or infoboxes per this consensus and this discussion. The prevailing attitude was: 1) Converting to US dollars is arbitrary. 2) Default conversion templates create problems with inflation, Ex: where the gross from a 2008 film is converted to the present year's US$ rate. 3) The inflation adjustment option in the template results in infobox clutter.

Biographies

Articles on Indian actors and directors should be understood to fall primarily under the control of WikiProject Biography guidelines. More specific guidance can be found at the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup. Articles about living people must strictly adhere to the BLP policy. Biography articles fall into a standard pattern of a lead paragraph, followed by sections dedicated to background, career, personal life, awards, filmography, external links, and references. See Satyajit Ray for an example of a featured article about an Indian film director.

Articles on Indian musicians generally consist of the following sections: lead paragraph, background, career, awards, partial discography, external links and references.

Note also that biographies of living people must be impeccably sourced. Any contentious or potentially contentious information needs to be attributed to a reliable mainstream published source with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And with identity theft a major modern concern, personal information like birth names and birth dates need to be reliably sourced as well, as publishing this information based on personal knowledge, public records, etc., could potentially violate the subject's privacy. See WP:BLPPRIVACY.

Filmographies, discographies, and awards

If applicable, a comprehensive filmography, discography, or awards listing can be split off to a new article. These pages are expected to link into one another upon creation.

Images

It should be noted that Wikipedia's rules on Image uploads are extremely strict, and all uploads must be accompanied by a comprehensive fair-use rationale. Help:Image is a good guideline that explains the process of uploading images and what needs to be completed.

Copyrighted images of actors, actresses and directors from websites all over the Internet are disallowed and will be deleted. An easy rule-of-thumb to remember is: "If you don't know where it comes from, don't upload it."

Several editors have worked hard to make sure that all pictures used are acceptable for Wikipedia. One such strategy is to search for images of living people on an image-sharing site such as Flickr, where only images released under a Creative Commons 2.0 license are acceptable. In other words, the image must be released under a license that allows sharing and remixing of the work.

External links should follow the Wikipedia guideline on external links. Official websites of films or film actors are preferred over non-official websites. Fansites are often of low quality and feature commercial links. There are many sites for popular actors and linking to one makes it fair to link to all. Therefore a consensus is emerging that only links to the actor's official site and IMDB article are allowable, as well as content on reputable sites (BBC news interviews, etc.).

List of films

A list of feature films released in a particular year is separately maintained for each language. Do not add dubbed versions in these pages as the list is intended for original productions only. Mentioning notable deaths and award ceremonies should be avoided which instead may be added in the [YYYY] in film article. Web series / television series debuts are also excluded in the list of films article. A separate article for series meeting the WP:NLIST criteria may be created for this purpose. See this discussion.

Guidelines on sources

Legend
  •   Generally reliable Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements.
  •   No consensus No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
  •   Generally unreliable Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
  •   Blacklisted Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is registered on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.

Generally used sources

More information Source, Status ...
Sources
SourceStatusComments
123TeluguGenerally unreliableDiscussed here and here
Allindiansite.comGenerally unreliable
Amar UjalaGenerally reliableDiscussed here
Andhra Box OfficeGenerally unreliable
Andhra CafeGenerally unreliable
Andhrakaburlu.comGenerally unreliable
ApunkachoiceGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Asian News International (ANI)No consensusSee WP:RSPANI
Assamtimes.orgGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
auditionform.inGenerally unreliable
BehindwoodsGenerally unreliableDiscussed here and here
Bengal PlanetGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Bestoftheyear.conGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Bollymoviereviewz.comGenerally unreliable
Bollyspice.comGenerally unreliable
Bollywoodbubble.comGenerally unreliable
Bollywoodlife.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
BollywoodShaadis.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Bollywoodsociety.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Bollywood Hungama by Hungama Digital Media EntertainmentGenerally reliable
Box Office India (.com)Generally reliableAlso Discussed here – Note that film budget figures at BoxOfficeIndia.com include print and advertising costs, so we should note that if we can't find a better source. Ex: {{small|Note: figure contains print and advertising costs}}[a]
Boxofficeindia.co.inGenerally unreliableSite is down, but still referenced by many articles. Discussed here
Boxofficeworldwide.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Business StandardGenerally reliable
Business Today (business magazine) by Living MediaGenerally reliable
CatchGenerally unreliable
Catchnews.comGenerally reliable
CinechickenGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Cinegoer.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
CinejoshGenerally unreliableDiscussed here and here
Cinema ExpressGenerally reliableSubsidiary of Indian Express
CNN-IBN's IBN LiveGenerally reliable
Cineserie.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Dailyhunt.comBlacklisted Generally unreliableDiscussed here
Dailymovieupdates.comGenerally unreliable
Daily News and Analysis by Zee Media CorporationGenerally reliable
Deccan ChronicleGenerally reliable
Deccan HeraldGenerally reliable
DesimartiniGenerally reliableDiscussed here
Dina ThanthiNo consensusDo not use for box office figures as many of them were found to be inaccurate and promotional. Discussed here.
Dinakaran by Sun GroupGenerally reliable
Dreamdth.comGenerally unreliable
ETV Bharat by ETV NetworkGenerally reliableDiscussed here
FilmfareGenerally reliable
Film CompanionGenerally reliableDiscussed here
Filmibeat.comGenerally unreliableOneindia's movie imprint was renamed FilmiBeat in 2014. Discussions: 1, 2
FilmyFocus.comGenerally unreliableFilmy Focus has a disclaimer where they do not stand by the accuracy of their content: "Disclaimer". filmyfocus.com. 6 September 2019. Archived from the original on 4 January 2025. Retrieved 5 February 2025.
FirstpostGenerally reliable
Fullhyderabad.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
GlamshamGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Greatandhra.comGenerally unreliable
GulteGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Hindustan Times by HT MediaGenerally reliable
IMDb (Internet Movie Database)Generally unreliableSee WP:IMDB
India.com by Zee Media CorporationGenerally unreliableDiscussed here. However, Zee News (zeenews.india.com) is a reliable source; see seperate entry below.
Indiablooms.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Indiaforums.comGenerally unreliable
IndiaglitzGenerally unreliableDiscussed here and here
Indiantelevision.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
India Today by Living MediaGenerally reliableThe Impact Feature section is sponsored content (see WP:RSNOI) and DailyO is an opinion-orientated site run by India Today.
Indiatimes by The Times GroupGenerally reliable
Indiglamour.comGenerally unreliable
Indo-Asian News ServiceGenerally reliableUse parameter "agency=", Discussed here
International Business Times by IBT MediaGenerally unreliableSee WP:IBTIMES
Iwmbuzz.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Jan Bharat TimesGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
kelopravahGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
KeralaDaily.comGenerally unreliable
KoimoiGenerally unreliableDiscussed here, here, here, here
LatestlyGenerally unreliableDiscussed here and here
Magna PublicationsGenerally reliable
MensxpGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Mid DayGenerally reliable
Mint (newspaper) by HT MediaGenerally reliable
Movie CrowGenerally unreliableDiscussed here and here
Movienewz.inGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Mumbai Mirror by The Times Group;Generally reliable
Music AloudGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Musicperk.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
NDTVGenerally reliable
News18 India by Network18 GroupGenerally reliable
Nettv4u.comGenerally unreliable
North East LiveGenerally reliableDiscussed here
Nowrunning.comGenerally unreliable
Oneindia.inGenerally unreliableOneindia's movie imprint was renamed FilmiBeat in 2014.
Onlykollywood.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Quicklookfilms.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Outlook (Indian magazine) by Outlook Publishing IndiaGenerally reliable
Pinkvilla.comGenerally unreliableSee WP:PINKVILLA
Planetbollywood.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Pratidin TimeGenerally reliableDiscussed here
Press Trust of IndiaGenerally reliable
Radio SargamGenerally unreliable
Ragalahari.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Rediff.comGenerally reliable
Republic TVGenerally unreliableSee WP:REPUBLICTV
Sacnilk.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Sahi NahiGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Screen (magazine)Generally reliable
Serialupdates.meGenerally unreliable
SifyGenerally reliable
Spicyonion.comGenerally unreliable
Streamingdue.comGenerally unreliable
Televisionpost.comGenerally unreliable
TellyChakkarGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Tellydhamaal.comGenerally unreliable
Tellytadka.comGenerally unreliable
Tellyupdates.comGenerally unreliable
telugu.way2movies.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
The Economic Times by The Times GroupGenerally reliable
The Express Tribune by Lakson GroupGenerally reliable
The Financial ExpressGenerally reliable
The Hans IndiaGenerally reliableDiscussed here and here
The HinduGenerally reliableSee WP:THEHINDU
The Hindu Business Line by The Hindu GroupGenerally reliable
The Hollywood Reporter IndiaGenerally reliableSee WP:THR and discussed here
The Indian Express by Indian Express GroupGenerally reliableSee WP:INDIANEXP
The Kolkata MailGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
The New Indian ExpressGenerally reliableSubsidiary of Indian Express
The News MinuteGenerally reliable
ThePrintGenerally reliableDiscussed here
The Review MonkGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
The Rural PressGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
The StatesmanGenerally reliable
The Telegraph (India) by ABP GroupGenerally reliable
The Times of India by The Times GroupNo consensusSee WP:TIMESOFINDIA. Note that WP:RSN considers Times of India to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable (2024 RfC). Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. See WP:RSP. Do not use Times of India bio pages for details like birthdate and box office figures as many of them were found to be inaccurate and promotional.
Tracktollywood.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
The TribuneGenerally reliable
Tollywood.netGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
TupakiGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
TV9 by TV9 NetworkGenerally reliableDiscussed here
Upperstall.comGenerally unreliable
Way2movies.comGenerally unreliableDiscussed here
Zee News (zeenews.india.com) owned by Essel Group & Zee Entertainment EnterprisesGenerally reliableHowever, www.india.com isn't a reliable source; see seperate entry above.
Close

Dadasaheb Phalke Award copycats

Named after a legendary Indian filmmaker, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is a sub-award of the Indian government's National Film Awards. It is essentially a lifetime achievement award honouring a person's "outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema". This is a coveted award for filmmakers, and there is only one award issued each year. To capitalise on the Phalke name, some small organisations have adopted their own Dadasaheb Phalke awards, and when media outlets don't ask questions and just reprint press releases, we often see the "Dadasaheb Phalke" award erroneously attributed to actors/directors/composers and others who might not deserve the national prize. Some news organisations fail to make this distinction. Examples:

  • In 2016, Mid-Day reported that Sooraj Pancholi won a best debut award at a Dadasaheb Phalke award organised by 90bids.com.
  • In 2018, Times of India reported that 34-year-old Ranvir Singh was going to win the Dadasaheb Phalke award, when what he was presented with was the Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award, an award issued by some other institution.
  • In 2019, TimesNowNews, who in this slideshow included a write-up of how the Phalke award is "India's highest honour in the entertainment sector", apparently did not notice that the event was an award handout for a two-year-old film festival named after Phalke, not for the actual national award.
  • In 2019, ABPLive.in ran a headline here that a Bigg Boss 12 contestant was being given the award for "Best Entertainer – Reality Show".
  • In 2019, International Business Times reported "Ram Charan's wife Upasana Konidela has been honoured with the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for the Philanthropist of the Year ... India's highest award in cinema presented at the National Film Awards ceremony." Clearly this is not the same award. Times of India this time clarifies Charan's award as the "Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award".
  • By 2020, ABPLive.in still hadn't figured out what this award is, writing here about the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards, "Presented annually at the 'National Film Awards' ceremony by the Directorate of Film Festivals, the 'Dadasaheb Phalke Award' is our country’s highest civilian award in the field of entertainment."
  • In 2021, The Hindu's Businessline reported that Dhanush won "prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award (South)" for Best Actor. Gulf News said "South Indian stars Dhanush, Mohanlal win Dadasaheb Phalke Awards". Free Press Journal wrote "Dadasaheb Phalke Award 2020 ... The award honoured the individuals from the Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada film industries for their outstanding contribution towards the growth and development of cinema." None of these sources mention explicitly that this is related to the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival (DPIFF), which it apparently is, and Free Press Journal really makes it sound like the winners are taking home that government prize, in part because they're using virtually the same phrasing found at India's Directorate of Film Festivals.

So when adding this award to articles, we must be double, even triple-certain that we are talking about the actual National Film Awards' Dadasaheb Phalke Award. Some clues: A film can't win this award; a person wins the award. Winners are typically older, because to make "outstanding contribution[s] to the growth and development of Indian cinema", you have to work hard for many years, not just be young, handsome, or pretty. You don't win the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for Philanthropy or for Most Popular Actor or Extraordinary Work to Reform the Society via a Movie or "for the song 'God Your Lady' in the film Vishwadi" or Most Iconic Jodi. You win it plainly, with no classifications. There is only one, and they worked hard to get it.

Some similar-sounding awards that are not the real award:

  • Dadasaheb Phalke Academy Awards – see this TOI article
  • Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards – see official website
    • Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South – launching in 2019
    • Dadasaheb Phalke Icon Award - Possibly related to the International Film Festival Awards?
  • Dada Saheb Phalke Film Festival Awards – see official website
  • Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award – see example
  • Dadasaheb Phalke Film Foundation Awards – see Facebook page
  • Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festial Awards South - see example
  • Legends Dadasaheb Phalke Award - see example
  • Dadasaheb Phalke icon Awards film - see example

See also this Hindustan Times article describing the confusion about these knock-off awards.

Annotated bibliography

Please use the following format when adding works:

* <!-- bibliographical information -->
** Content:
*** <!-- optional content summary -->
** Reviews: 
*** <!-- commentary on work by historians & other reputable sources -->
** Editor comments: 
*** <!-- personal commentary by editors -->

Footnotes

  1. Per MOS:SMALL, 'small' tags ({{small}}, {{smalldiv}} or <small>...</small>) should be avoided in an infobox. Instead, consider use of a footnote (e.g., {{efn|Budget figure includes print and advertising costs}}) in an infobox, although that also requires the presence of {{notelist}} or equivalent in the appendices).
WikiProject India
This project is a workgroup of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India and India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI