Talk:October (2018 film)

Content removal

Hmm...Let's do this.Can anyone please explain--

• How a line that reads Upon release of the film's trailer, its end melody was widely accepted among fans of Varun Dhawan. isn't pure promo-spamming.Inclusion of content demands verifiability but not vice-versa.
• Why do we need a passage stating, the individual days, when each song was released and how it's of any encyclopedic importance?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: (1) I had done amendments for that. (2) Please carefully read Singles section of this article. Many more with same example. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I will grant you that:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: First, I am not like you, second, and I'm happy for that, third, I can't get your pun or whatever you said. Don't throw garbage. 😂 Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Executive producers

@Yashthepunisher: They should be mentioned in the infoboxes as they are the most respectable beings involved in the film's production. Any specific reason you can provide to remove them? Let me call more frequent film article editors to know their views. @Cyphoidbomb:, @Adamstraw99:, @Adamstom.97:, @Kailash29792:, @Favre1fan93:, etc., etc., etcetera. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The film infobox is for producers, not executive producers (or co-producers, associated producers, etc). If sources really highlight the executive producers for a particular film (which is not always the case), they can be named in the article body. There is no need to mention them for every single film. (And I'm sure that people would disagree with you on their being "the most respectable beings"; they certainly aren't the ones that claim the Best Picture awards.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I second Erik. EPs don't really do much in films, in contrast to TV shows where EPs like Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg and Marc Guggenheim have the final say creatively. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am really not sure about the community standards about this.. Please go by community consensus Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: Per {{Infobox film}} instructions: "Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now I'll remove them from everywhere, no matter which wikiproject. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: They are the most respectable because they give their final say on the creativity. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Okay, now I'll remove them from everywhere, no matter which wikiproject." @Harshrathod50: That is a totally irrational response to the above discussion and would be considered disruptive, per WP:POINT. Other communities might have a legitimate interest in this content. Ex: {{Infobox television}} has a parameter for |executive_producer=, so indiscriminate removal would be disruptive. Perhaps you need more time to familiarise yourself with Infobox instructions and the various Manuals of Style just so you don't wind up making rash decisions that result in negative scrutiny focused on you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Harshrathod50, I don't think that's true. Executive producers (in films, anyway) are generally hands-off, especially creatively. They are usually the main investors. The producer is the key coordinator for the film and can be involved in many ways (though they can defer to the director if the director is very self-proven). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:I know how much these discussions downsize my reputation. I feel so enraged when my edits get undone. Don't worry, I will not remove them unless they really aren't notable. No thanks! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Tab Bhi Tu

I thought it best to discuss before doing anything controversial. It is about this song Tab Bhi Tu. I don't think this song is released as a single. It is rather promotional single. There is no separate page for it on iTunes, though other commercial music streaming services got a separate page for this song but no info about release date is mentioned there. Same is the case with Manwaa. Many news sources are talking about both these songs. They embed "audio versions" of these songs uploaded by Zee Music Co. on YouTube in their articles and take the release of these videos as the release of these songs. If one takes this practice in account, then the album is having four singles. I think Manwaa is also a promotional single. If "Zee" adds Chal to YouTube and also uploads its audio version then the album would be having five singles now. But this is not right. I think October Theme and Theher Ja are the true singles of the album and propose for removal of Tab Bhi Tu as a single. I hope this proposal too doesn't go in vain. Pinging for faster input: @Cyphoidbomb:, @Adamstraw99:, etcetera. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done, can be removed Adamstraw99 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Budget

There is repeated citation of production budget from the source: http://www.zeebiz.com/companies/news-october-starring-varun-dhawan-clocks-rs-3160-crore-box-office-collection-in-two-weeks-43862

So I'm quoting the relevant text from the above source:

The movie is estimated to have made a budget of Rs 45 crore with cost of production at Rs 35 crore.

My conclusions:

1. The statement is wrong.
2. Poor grammar which hints at questionable editorial.
3. Also I had cited multiple sources saying that the film's production budget is ₹20 crores, which further questions the above websites reliability.
4. How come is this website reputable? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I'm summoning the involved admin. I know that you got so much work on your plate. But please check the matter because someone is edit warring with me over this, without being part of the discussion here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: Though I understand that Zeebiz states they're part of the Zee network, I've never heard of this particular publication. The fact that they're citing "Bollywood Moviez review" (which I assume is actually bollymoviereviewz.com) is a bit laughable. Sometimes these media outlets get so desperate for news they start citing faceless blogs written by god-knows-whom, which is just irresponsible, and we would be irresponsible for accepting the information. As for the budget, I think what they're trying to say amidst their shitty journalism, is that the film's production cost was ₹35 crore, with an additional 10 crore for advertising/marketing. The |budget= parameter of the infobox only cares about the straight production cost, not other costs, so 35 crore would be the figure to consider, if the source were good, which I do not believe it is. Neither Zeebiz nor bollymoviereviewz have established themselves as authorities on Indian film finances. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for the ultimate input, I hope now that IP editor understands. Today, I too was wondering if "budget" parameter included promotional figures, but now it is cleared. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Komail Shayan

• @Harshrathod50: re: this edit where you reinsert content about Komail Shayan, you should be aware that over the last few years, Iranian IPs (almost exclusively) have attempted to force unsourced information about this guy into articles, so it's understandable to me why Ravensfire removed it. Though I see the Firstpost article credits him, I can't help but wonder if it's legitimate given the history of disruption here. Do you know anything about this guy? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Wait, I misread the content in the section in question. I thought when you resubmitted "but all the doubts were cleared after release of second trailer" this suggested that the rumour of Komail Shayan's involvement was proven correct by the second trailer. Was it? Or was it disproved? I don't see his name in the first trailer. Why do we care about rumours? Wikipedia is not a gossip mill. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Cyphoidbomb: Okay, okay, I commented out that part. But will consider uncommenting in case that person makes a name for himself in bollywood in the coming decade. Yes, you are right WP is not a gossip mill but please read this article's Background section. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Cyphoidbomb: I think it is okay to add rumour stuff in the articles but writing about conversation between two parties may be explicitly called as gossip. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I see zero reason to give this person any visibility. It's a hoax that actually gets traction in mainstream sources only because they see it in Wikipedia. In other words, those rumors are basically from here and other use-generated sites, and this is just feeding them. This is where we need to exercise editorial control and give this the visibility it deserves - none. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Harshrathod50: We're not keeping a commented-out rumour in the article for ten years. The content contravenes WP:CRYSTAL, which states: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Only if a rumour itself becomes noteworthy, i.e. if reliable sources are discussing the rumour and its impact on society, would we include that sort of content. We have published information about who the musicians actually are, and that's what we should be focused on, not an academically useless rumour. Note also that per WP:V, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. The fact that we can point to a Firstpost article and say, "See, they reported X" doesn't mean we are required to include it. Especially when it is demonstrable that an Iranian IP added this phony information on 2 February 2018, 12 days prior to Firstpost's article. Firstpost clearly didn't fact-check and just took the information from us. This rumor exists solely because this article was vandalised. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, after reconsidering several times, I think you both are right. I'm shocked to learn that even reputed sources like Firstpost would extract info from WP even though WP relies on them for info. It is very hard to track down true journalism. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Film name

@Cyphoidbomb, Krimuk2.0, and Ravensfire: Because you people frequent film articles. Upon reading many many Japanese film articles I saw that almost all of them use | film name = parameter to insert the Japanese language titles. Isn't WP:INDICSCRIPT applicable to all languages? Moreover, they also insert it to the lead section. If they can do it then why this discrimination with Indian film articles? I propose for the use October film's official Hindi title आॅक्टोबर in the lead and infobox. Also, the Hindi title is quit different from the usual Hindi-translation of October, i.e., अक्टूबर. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, WP:INDICSCRIPT doesn't apply to Japanese articles, because Japanese does not use Indic script. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Okay, then is it okay to add Hindi title in infobox and lead just once no where else? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, WP:INDICSCRIPT does apply to this article and any Indic script in the lead or infobox will be removed. This was explained to you on your talk page back in February, under both User talk:Harshrathod50#Infobox film and User talk:Harshrathod50#WP:Indic script. - Arjayay (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Yes, you are right that I was previously explained about it. The Hindi title of the film, i.e. आॅक्टोबर, is used officially, which right away rules out any possibility of an edit-war over the spelling. It is due to the variation in Hindi spellings that WP:INDICSCRIPT came into existance. It is not like I crafted the spelling on my own. To be logical, no Hindi poster for Missing (2018 film) was released, so no Hindi title for it, pretty simple. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It was NOT due to variations in spelling that WP:INDICSCRIPT came into existence, but language warring. However, the reason is immaterial, it is the established consensus, that needs to be followed. - Arjayay (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Arjayay: I need more time to bring more good arguments. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: Then we'll maintain community consensus, for good or for bad, until your newer proposal supersedes it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Writer's credit section and other changes

@Harshrathod50: responding to your query on my talk page, and in re: these changes to the article We can't present opinions as facts. That's the first thing.

• "The film was hit with plagiarism charges after its release but bailed out of the controversy flawless falling under the doctrine of scènes à faire." "Hit with"? Is that proper encyclopedic tone? "Bailed out"? "Flawless"? Who decides what is flawless? You? Why is an encyclopedia speaking so casually and winking while it snaps its fingers? Something more along the lines of "The filmmakers were accused of plagiarising the Marathi film Aarti - The Unknown Love Story, which was a dramatisation of real-life events. The producers denied plagiarism, stating X defense. While an independent review by the Screenwriters Association found some similarities between the films, they disagreed that it was plagiarism, noting that the real-life events that likely inspired both Aarti and October were widely published in the news, and were not protected by copyright."
• "Generally, no importance is given to the writers in Indian film industries" Says whom? Wikipedia? We're stating this evaluation of importance as a fact. Should this be presented as a quotation?
• "...it is all about how the film is shot..." Casual. Encyclopedias don't speak like this.
• Perhaps something more like "Sircar felt that writers of Indian films do not receive as much credit or attention as directors, actors and film budgets do. 'Writing is the backbone of any film,'Sircar said. "In October I deliberately gave the writer’s credit in the trailer and made sure the industry notices.' Sircar featured Juhi Chaturvedi's name prominently in X and Y places."
• When we say "which led to people awkwardly asking Juhi that normally there is no name for the writer", the statement about awkwardness sounds like Wikipedia is making the determination that it was awkward, rather than this was a feeling that Chaturvedi was experiencing. The smart way to approach this, if we felt that the phrasing was valuable (which I don't think it is), we might present it as a quotation.

All of my suggested changes are shorthanded, and may not be factually accurate. Lastly, I don't think this needs to be a unique section. This would intuitively belong in a Production section amid other content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Some of the matters listed above had been taken care of, please bring more if you find any. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: I don't think that we entirely solved the problem here. We can do some shaping of quotations, removing portions and using ellipses, but we can't do that for an entire block of content. At some point the omissions indicated by ellipses become really distracting and it starts to look like we're manipulating a quote into an entirely different narrative. We're allowed to summarise, provide that we properly attribute feelings/opinions to the subject. A statement like "which was appreciated by most of the writers in the industry", is entirely unsupported. Who decided what most of the writers in the industry felt? Who could possibly know that or quantify that? That doesn't belong in the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I have taken care of this, too. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: The issue with the choppy quotation still exists, but I don't have time to micromanage this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Soundtrack image

I've removed the soundtrack album image as it's a non-free image that's not needed in this article given we've got the film poster image. See WP:FILMSCORE. The album itself does not meet album notability so a stand-alone article (which could have the album image) is not viable. Ravensfire (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Controversy vs. Plagiarism accusations

@Harshrathod50: Your explanation for the movement of the "Plagiarism accusations" section back to "Controversy" in this edit doesn't make sense to me. Firstly: Restablished previous content flow style. Anybody having problems come to this artcile's talk page. I got my reasons. What are your "reasons"? Maybe opening a discussion yourself before making the change would have been helpful instead of vaguely opposing the article construction and making someone else come to the talk page to defensively argue their case.

Secondly, re: the statement "Plagiarism allegations" is an inapproprate heading because those are not just mere plagiarism allegations that we are talking about. The story is whole lot bigger and I can't find sources to further expand this section. Well, the current content speaks entirely about plagiarism accusations, so you're half-wrong there. And if you're not in a position to expand the section to include whatever other controversial content you are vaguely alluding to, you shouldn't be needlessly stonewalling other editors' changes. Further, we are not required to have a "Controversy" section, and many editors feel that having these sections needlessly draws attention to negative events, which makes it difficult to maintain WP:NPOV. That doesn't mean that content about controversies shouldn't exist in the article, rather that maybe they could be smartly incorporated into other areas of the article, kinda like how the content was smartly incorporated into the Marketing and release section. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please give me some more time to reply. I was very demotivated when you called my statements allusions. I recollected myself and gave so much thought to this word and will come back after some time to show why the story is whole lot bigger and why it needs to stay under one heading for the time being. You are so right that bad headings provoke negative response and there is nothing wrong saying that but avoiding such a practice won't cure the negative response either. I've seen users removing content saying that so and so part was negative about the subject. I don't find any need to open a discussion. The paragraphs under controversy section are not complete. There are factual conflicts and incomplete statements. I've no intentions of stonewalling anything. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:October (2018 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrClog (talk · contribs) 11:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on May 16, 2019, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. Because I found the "Plot" section to be a copyright violation, I tagged it as such and thus this nomination is a quickfail. It will likely need a whole new plot section it wants to pass review.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— MrClog (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you please mention the website the plot has been copied from? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned in the {{copypaste}} template, this site. --MrClog (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog and Harshrathod50: Hey, not that it matters, as there is already a new plot, but the older plot was not copyright violation as the mentioned website has copy-pasted the plot section from Wikipedia. It has done it for all of the films - except maybe Kalank (as it wasn't released when the webpage was hosted and the plot section was not there?) They have even copied their "Quick Info" from the lead section of the article - and have forgotten to edit it! *facepalm* Thanks! Vivek Ray (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vivek Ray: Yes, you are right. The month MrClog notified us about their review, I was having examinations and didn't get involved so much. It appears like MrClog didn't do in-depth review. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what depth you expect. A major film festival's site uses certain text and I felt it was safe to assume someone copied from that site. Were you the one who wrote the Plot section? If so, I do not get why you have the time to ask from which site there was a copyvio but not the time to state "I didn't copy from anyone, please take a further look into it" - something I would have gladly done. --MrClog (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)