Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
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
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
Coordinators talk
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
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

Reliability of sources listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES

[edit]

I've observed that many users often refer to WP:ICTFSOURCES when assessing the reliability of sources used in articles related to Indian films/actors. I believe it's time to completely update the current list located at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Many of the sources listed there are involved in press releases, paid branding, and brand posts. The last discussion on this matter took place eight years ago, and within this timeframe, the credibility of many sources has likely changed. Therefore, I'm initiating a new discussion to update the list. I'm pinging @JavaHurricane as they discussed this matter in the NPP discord channel a few months ago. I'm also pinging users who participated in the previous discussion for their input. @Bollyjeff, @Cyphoidbomb. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most of the sources are biased and paid. A certain concrete guideline must be set and preferably an RfC must be done to single out the actual tracker websites.
Also, I should add that in down South, such tracker websites do not exist. Sites such as Pinkvilla only track the movies only if the movie makes headlines. Hence, that should also be kept in mind. The discrepancies between the actual collections and the publicized collections by the producers have caused multiple edit wars in many pages, especially in Malayalam movie pages. So, if we can get a consensus on that, it would be great. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I am starting this RfC for the abovementioned reason – to analyse the authenticity and reliability of current ICTFSOURCES, and to reassess and update the sources enlisted. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald, I plan to share my detailed thoughts when I have a bit more free time. In the meantime, would you mind listing the sources we typically use and sharing your opinion on each? This would be really helpful for streamlining the process and finding even better sources. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good plans here to update the list. I think also it should be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ. The table format is more in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, allowing for rationales and links to past discussions on each source. Something I've been meaning to tackle for a while. --Geniac (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer:, shall we revisit this RfC this weekend? Summer box office need a good guideline and pointers. What I was thinking is, let's just pick apart the ones under reliable section and scrutinize every single one and try to reach a consensus. A level 3 heading for each, which will help future editors to link faster and search faster. Savvy? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started an essay for better source analysis, which when completed, can incorporate this RfC results and can be transcluded into the page, or can even be made as an opinion/guideline essay. I am thinking of a table like WP:RS/P in alphabetical order for faster and easier navigation. Anyone can drop by and help out with suggestions or edits. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald, this is EXCELLENT. I think once complete, it will be easier to update in the same manner WP:RS/P is based on any future WP:RSN thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have created a shortcut WP:ICTFSA (Yes, a pun on essay and Source Analysis as well). More sources can be added onto it from ICTFFAQ or after consensus from here or RSN. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Herald. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone add a section for Indiantelevision.com as well. Please refer this. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now please add your views and comments too :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please do not edit the verdict line when there is no clear consensus in RS/P, or on RS/N or any talk pages. Only the clear consensus discussions are deemed automatically reliable.

123Telugu

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1, 2, 3
Comments
I see this being added to pages on the same day the articles come out. Gives me the impression of possible COI. Regardless, there seems to be discussion that it is not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About us shows that the site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy. This itself makes it unreliable I think. RangersRus (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald:, is there a time period for commenting you are hoping for? Wondering if some of these such as those discussed already at RSN should be added to the list. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a specific time period in my mind. But the ones who's reliability or unreliability is established, we can close the subsection and add it to the list. Ideally, an uninvolved editor should close, so maybe we can ping some admin or someone who's active here for that. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on WP:RSN to get verdict on these sources moviecrow.com, 123telugu.com, Indiaglitz.com, cinejosh.com, behindwoods.com, thesouthfirst.com, latestly.com. Still what you think of these sources? @CNMall41: @The Herald: RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Cinejosh I see the others as usable. But maybe I'm wrong about Cinejosh. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too have doubt about cinejosh.com but also for moviecrow.com (does not have any information on this site about the company. Maybe a blog or personal site). 123telugu.com has been considered unreliable for boxoffice numbers and as a whole site unreliable but had no final stance to completely put it on the unreliable list. Indiaglitz also has nothing on the company information and the contact us link takes you to homepage. This too seems a personal site or a blog. Others too I have doubts. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
123Telugu can be used for general film-related updates and independent interviews. This site have many articles that are related to smaller Telugu films doesn't have in the mainline media. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question is reliability. The site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy and this puts the reliability of this source in question adding onto what is said here by an administrator Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_8#Reliability_of_123Telugu.com_-_123telugu. RangersRus (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Bollywood Hungama by Hungama Digital Media Entertainment

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

BOL Network

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments
Specifically BOLNEWS which is used 400+ times as a reference on Wikipedia. Cannot find editorial standards so unsure if reliable or not. Although the network is out of Pakistan, it has many references for Indian and other non-Pakistani cinema.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a recent RSN discussion which indicates it's generally unreliable. It was also added to WP:NPPSG as unreliable based the discussion. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.com)

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1, 2, 3
Comments

Per BOI's About us page, "The figures on the website are not taken from producers or distributors of the respective films but independent estimates from our sources and then cross checked through cinema collections." If true, this suggests that they're not acting as mouthpieces for the production companies (i.e. acting as a primary source by proxy). Archive

In mid-2019 we discovered that BOI's budget figures included print and advertising costs. (See this discussion) Worldwide, when people reference a film's budget, they mean the production budget, i.e. the cost of making the film, not the cost of marketing it. So we should try to find a better source for budget than Box Office India. If we have no choice but to use BOI, then we should include notes that clarify that the budget figure is not consistent with other figures. Ex: "(Note: this figure includes print and advertising costs.)" or similar.

— WP:ICTFFAQ table

Now, this is still true because we still have no other proper tracker website for Indian movies, especially Bollywood. Biased or not, the BO figures are almost close to the reported verified amount. So I'll put this one as a reliable source. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald I completely agree with the above. There was also a discussion in which the credibility of BoxOfficeIndia.com was questioned for South films. However, since the user was identified as a sockpuppet, it can only be seen as an attempt to discredit BoxOfficeIndia.com rather than the other way around. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.co.in)

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Business Standard

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Paid articles are published by Business Standard here. Articles which's URL contain "content/specials/" are sponsored. Grabup (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All articles in the Content/specials/ doesn't contain disclaimers, some contains, same like India Today. Here are some examples:
  1. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/pioneering-thoughts-with-dipen-bhuva-a-fusion-of-healthcare-cybersecurity-and-ai-124040900630_1.html
  2. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/hutech-solutions-announces-sanjeev-kulkarni-as-new-chief-product-officer-cpo-124040900662_1.html
Grabup (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Business Today

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

CNN-IBN's IBN Live

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Daily News and Analysis

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Deccan Chronicle

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
One thing to watch for (and maybe we just need a disclaimer if the overall source is found to be reliable) is anything marked as written by "DC Correspondent." These are contributor posts and often have a disclaimer that they have not been vetted by editorial staff. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Deccan Herald

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Dina Thanthi

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Dinakaran by Sun Group

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

EastMojo

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1
Comments
I brought this up at RSN a while back but only had one comment. It is being used a few hundred times as a reference but do not see it as being reliable. Bringing it here since it seems to have a lot of film references and we are addressing many of them now. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Filmfare

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
It is used over 2000 times as a reference on Wikipedia. Here is their about page. I do not see editorial oversight and sounds more like TMZ in my opinion. Just at first glance I think it could be used maybe to verify basic information such as film roles but nothing for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Film Companion

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Film Information

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
run by Komal Nahta; see here, for example
Verdict

Firstpost

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1
Comments
Verdict

Forbes India

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1 ("Branded Content" discussion), 2
Comments
Used 800+ times in Wikipedia. Note that it is NOT overseen by Forbes editorial staff. It is (what I believe) branded as Forbes (likely from licensing agreement). It is actually owned by Network 18. It is used as a reference in many film and actor pages.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Hindustan Times

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments

In my experience with press release work, Hindustan Times stands out as a prominent website for publishing paid brand posts. It's crucial to note that any article lacking a specific author shouldn't be relied upon. Furthermore, it's advisable to avoid using articles with a disclaimer or those tagged as brand posts. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help us to remove these 42 Sponsored Hindustan Times articles cited on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been cleaning some of these up. I am also finding there are quite a few paid posts from other sites on those Wikipedia pages and sent three to AfD already. I would actually lean towards saying only using HT with staff written articles for verification of basic facts (release dates, etc.) and NOT for notability. And NEVER using anything that is paid, branded, no-byline, or otherwise falling under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

India Today by Living Media

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
India Today has published paid articles within its "Impact Feature" section, with 50 articles currently cited. It's important to note that sponsored content should not be used as a citation. I encourage anyone to help remove them; I'm actively working on it as well. Grabup (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't included disclaimers in all of their Impact Feature articles, but there are some instances where disclaimers have been added to articles. "Disclaimer: The contents herein are for informational purposes only. If you have any queries, you should directly reach out to the advertiser. India Today Group does not guarantee, vouch for, endorse any of its contents and hereby disclaims all warranties, express or implied, relating to the same."
Examples:
1. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/piramal-finance-offers-home-loans-with-seamless-process-and-competitive-terms-2510232-2024-03-04
2. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/could-2024-be-the-year-gold-has-been-waiting-for-a-long-time-2503014-2024-02-16
3. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/breaking-barriers-celebrating-women-achievers-across-industries-2490394-2024-01-18
Grabup (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly the case; also note that the people in the byline at the bottom of the page will typically come back with marketing positions in the company. I've updated my entry here and will be happy to help remove these. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kuru, thanks for User:Kuru/fakesources; it's really helpful. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is gold. Thanks Kuru :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Indiatimes by The Times Group

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Indiantelevision.com

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
There are currently 1000+ uses of Indiantelevision.com, the same owner as TellyChakkar.com. And this raises concerns on its reliability. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Magna Publications

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Mid Day

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Mint (newspaper) by HT Media

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Mumbai Mirror by The Times Group

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

NDTV

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

News18 India

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1
Comments
Verdict

Outlook

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
There are currently 17 uses of Outlook India "business spotlight." I believe the publication would be reliable OUTSIDE of that but these are paid-for articles. I would support reliability but maybe a note in the box that says those marked as "business spotlight" or sponsored should not be used as a reference (in the process of removing the 17 I linked to above once I get the time). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The paid-for shall not be considered as reliable at all. Reliable outside the paid-for articles. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

Pinkvilla.com

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Red XN
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1, 2, 3
Comments
Website editorial guidelines for reference.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With an editorial team and a published editorial policy, as well as an affiliate disclosure, Pinkvilla.com can be deemed reliable due to their reportings to be very close to the actual BO figures and other film related news. But, I'll still stay clear of the gossip section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How'd one determine an actual BO figure? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I do is go through the established RS. Most of the time, all of them stick to a particular figure (lets say X). Sometimes, they have discrepancies, and I use the figures as a range (est. X - Y crores). Pinkvilla almost always give the same figures as other RS and it is always less than the promotional figures tweeted by filmmakers and other primary sources. Hence, I use them as RS. (As they say, if it looks like a RS and posts like a RS, it is most probably is a RS , lol.) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think pinkvilla is a reliable source. They underreport south india movies collections a lot. I think for better reporting. Need to rethink about pinkvilla as reliable source for south indian movies. NithishSagi (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)NithishSagi (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Verdict

Rediff.com

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Reviewit.pk

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1
Comments
I brought this up at RSN a few months back. Looks like auto generated content from Twitter and also possibly paid. I would suggest adding this as an unreliable source.
Verdict

Screen (magazine)

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Sify

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1, 2
Comments
Verdict

The Economic Times

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

The Express Tribune

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

The Financial Express

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Similar to the note on Outlook India above, First Post has sponsored content marked as "brand wagon" (often included in the URL as well). I have no comment on the reliability of the overall publication but will say the branded posts should not be used in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

The Hindu Business Line

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Green tickY
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Green tickY
Comments
Subsidiary of The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU)
Verdict
Green tickY Reliable source

The Hindu

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Green tickY
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Green tickY
Comments
Reliable per WP:THEHINDU
Verdict
Green tickY Reliable source

The Indian Express

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Green tickY
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Green tickY
Comments
Reliable per WP:INDIANEXP
Verdict
Green tickY Reliable source

The News Minute

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

The Statesman

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

The Telegraph

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

The Tribune

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Similar to Outlook, The Tribune has paid articles "Impact Feature". Grabup (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

The Wire

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Green tickY
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Green tickY
Comments
Reliable per WP:RS/P
Verdict
Green tickY Reliable source

Zee News

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
1, 2
Comments

Zee News is owned by Zee Media Corporation. They also have other publications such as Daily News and Analysis. Not sure if we should address any of these individual or JUST Zee News for the purpose of the RfC. Just throwing it out there. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DNA is already added in the RfC above. I'd say while we are at it, let's review all the sources. India.com is deemed unreliable per this discussion. So, that's out. I don't know other publications under them. If there are any that are used frequently, by all means add them to the miscellaneous category below. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict
  • In addition to the aforementioned sources, the following references are also brought up multiple times and are used in various pages.

Koimoi

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

OTTPlay.com

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Red XN
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Red XN
Comments

According to their website (About us page), they apparently use 4 sources; Hindustan Times, Film Companion, Live Mint and Desi Martini, of which HT and Mint are reliable per RSP and RSN. Desi Martini is a partner site for HT. Film Companion, I'm not so sure cuz the page doesn't mention anywhere about their sources or their origin or history, hence sounds dubious. But other than that, OTTPlay.com should belong in the reliable side of the spectrum. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming across this one quite a bit when sourcing filmographies. I think the main issue I have is that it is a commercial website and they benefit from aggregating news. A lot of the articles are bylined "Team OTTplay" so not sure if these are coming from the reliable sources or if they are original content from that site. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict

The Times of India

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
WP:TOI
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
  • Per RS/P The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. That puts TOI in either unreliable or no consensus region. It is generally unreliable for box office figures since I have seen them using Sacnilk.com and promotional figures a lot. They may be reliable for news articles, but IMO it all should be taken with a pinch of salt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help us to remove these sponsored articles published by Times of India, (1), (2). Grabup (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found another subsection with containing Lifesyle/Spotlight on The Times of India, this subsection is cited 185 times without drafts and 193 times with drafts. I found a article on the same subsection which contain a disclaimer “ The article has been produced on behalf of Globsyn Business” but other articles majorly does not contain any disclaimer.
*193 cited list
Article containing disclaimer Grabup (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

IndiaGlitz

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

cinejosh.com

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

behindwoods.com

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

thesouthfirst.com

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

latestly.com

[edit]
Included in RS/P?
Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?
Comments
Verdict

Indiantelevision.com

[edit]

In the section Reliability of sources listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES, @User:C1K98V made an important point considering the reliability of Indiantelevision.com, which is that it is the parent company of TellyChakkar. TellyChakkar has been considered unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, so should Indiantelevison.com be also considered unreliable or not? Prior to this, has there been any consensus on the usage of the website as a reliable source? Awaiting consensus from @RangersRus:,@Benison:, @Geniac:, @CNMall41:, and @Kailash29792:. We are the Great (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable. Their About page makes it clear they are primarily interested in promoting their paying clients. "Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution." Geniac (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not reliable and my evaluation is same as Geniac's and agree with the analysis. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is a problem because most Bollywood movie articles use this source. I’d suggest that we hold off on it until others chime in into this discussion. We are the Great (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are the Great, I agree with Geniac's analysis too. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Viggy.com reliable? It was first dismissed at the Teahouse reportedly as not reliable as per Talk:Katthegalu Saar Katthegalu#Source. But when I dug and found out who wrote for Viggy.com (since the website says Roopa and me), it turned out me was journalist B. N. Subramanya (who didn't have an article but won a sub category at the National Film Awards, Viggy.com now redirects there). See User_talk:Kataariveera#Viggy.com.

As a test to see if Viggy.com is reliable, I half-heartedly created Draft:Y2K (2004 film), but it was rejected twice. Does that mean a film without reviews is inherently not notable? DareshMohan (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a progressive minded leftie, I vote for Viggy being reliable. Created by a National Award winning critic, it's not just a blog. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. The site allows to post materials submitted by users and says "Certain elements of The Site will contain material submitted by users. viggy.com accepts no responsibility for the content, accuracy, conformity to applicable laws of such material." No editorial insight. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the right hand side below the guy with sunglasses, that refers to the discussion forum, which I'm not talking about. I'm talking about reviews and press releases from the site. If doubtful, at least anything that explictly mentions Roopa Hegde or B. N. Subramanya as authors should be considered reliable. DareshMohan (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where in disclaimer that that the material submitted by users points to discussion forum. We had two or three other sources that were personal sites or blogs of critics and said to be unreliable such as Bobbytalkscinema.com, milliblog and this site falls in same criteria of unreliability. RangersRus (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so blogs of critics are unreliable like this, got it. Why don't we claim Viggy as 90% unreliable while any articles where the author is specified like the Na Kanda Rajkumar section by Banasu [1] and interviews by [2] Roopa Hegde are reliable. The main issue is that they forgot to specify the author on other articles which lead to the confusion if they or users wrote it. DareshMohan (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information about pre/post productions and interviews cam be considered right? Additionally, consensus can be obtained regarding cinema reviews and generally how the movie fared without geting into box office figures. Cant this be followed? Kataariveera (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say yes, and no one is in any hurry/rush to delete Viggy sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 2000s Malayalam films without Sify or Rediff reviews

[edit]

So Malayalam films of the 2000s are sourced with a Rediff or Sify review additionally with an Indiaglitz or Nowrunning review. Do you think it would be a good idea to add all the Sify reviews from the archives [3]. I am asking here because I don't want to mass delete a bunch of articles that are only sourced by Indiaglitz. Examples: Shambu (2008 film). Do you prefer PROD or AfD in this matter? See Shalabam. This is not canvassing as I'm not asking you to vote there. I am not adding Rediff reviews since they are already added to articles. DareshMohan (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have desktop access and are not restricted by external forces, you may become the Messiah of 2000s Malayalam films. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a film page has unreliable sources, you are good to remove them and if no reliable sources can be found with 2 or more reviews, you can AFD it. RangersRus (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up Shambu (2008 film). RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Film Information reliable for box office collections?

[edit]

[|Film Information] is owned by film analyst Komal Nahta. It follows a pattern of daily and circuitwise collections for a film, somewhat similar to Bollywood Hungama.

Is it reliable for box office collections? BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BhikhariInformer, I can't find any editorial oversight or any disclaimer page anywhere. There's no link to how they get their figures, nor any revelation of such sort. Aside from the part that it's been run by Komal Nahta, nothing whatsoever is given anywhere (or from what I could find). I'd refrain from using this as a RS. It gives off a BLOG vibe. If you can find some link to their editorial policies and team, we can give it a go. Thanks and happy editing. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a verdict on Anandabazar and Asianetnews

[edit]

You can see the initial response on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here: link1, link2. Based on the discussion, do these sources qualify to be added to WP:ICTFSOURCES? If yes, please add them with any necessary conditions. If not, kindly take the appropriate actions as I will be offline for an indefinite period.

My opinion on the sources:

  • Anandabazar: Reliable with respect to Bengali news.
  • Asianetnews: Reliable for Malayalam and Kannada box office figures.

Anoop Bhatia (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Asianet News is reliable. Can you check their editorial information? DareshMohan (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Asianet News is its independence (or lack thereof). It is owned by Disney Star. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd place Asianet is the same category as TOI, but a slight margin towards general reliable. They do have an inclination towards paid reviews, so it must be taken with a pinch of salt. But otherwise, for general BO figures and reviews, they are alright. Extra caution to be taken when the movies are produced by Disney, their parent company. That can make them a primary source in that case. Thanks. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, due to a single editor repeatedly recreating this article, this "probably notable" (see AfC comment), will never be accepted? Check the career section, I tried rewriting to make it neutral. Wouldn't he pass WP:NACTOR for his roles in films from 2022-2024? DareshMohan (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely meets NACTOR. Since there were many UPEs involved in its creation, if a good-standing user like you were to submit this at AfC, I would be happy to accept it. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]