Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

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

Reliability of sources listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

 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)

Good work Herald. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Could someone add a section for Indiantelevision.com as well. Please refer this. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 12:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Now please add your views and comments too :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Makes sense. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Except for Cinejosh I see the others as usable. But maybe I'm wrong about Cinejosh. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Verdict

Bollywood Hungama by Hungama Digital Media Entertainment

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

BOL Network

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)

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)

Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.com)

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)

Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.co.in)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Business Standard

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)

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)

Verdict

Business Today

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

CNN-IBN's IBN Live

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Daily News and Analysis

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Deccan Chronicle

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)

Verdict

Deccan Herald

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Dina Thanthi

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Dinakaran by Sun Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

EastMojo

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)

Verdict

Filmfare

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)

Verdict

Film Companion

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Film Information

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

run by Komal Nahta; see here, for example

Verdict

Firstpost

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Forbes India

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)

Verdict

Hindustan Times

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)

Help us to remove these 42 Sponsored Hindustan Times articles cited on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Verdict

India Today by Living Media

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)

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)

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)

@Kuru, thanks for User:Kuru/fakesources; it's really helpful. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, this is gold. Thanks Kuru :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Indiatimes by The Times Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Indiantelevision.com

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)

Verdict

Magna Publications

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mid Day

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mint (newspaper) by HT Media

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mumbai Mirror by The Times Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

NDTV

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

News18 India

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Outlook

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)

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)

Verdict

Pinkvilla.com

Included in RS/P?

N

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)

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)

How'd one determine an actual BO figure? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Verdict

Rediff.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Reviewit.pk

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)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Sify

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

Verdict

The Economic Times

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Express Tribune

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Financial Express

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)

Verdict

The Hindu Business Line

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Subsidiary of The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU)

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Hindu

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:THEHINDU

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Indian Express

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:INDIANEXP

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The News Minute

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Statesman

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Telegraph

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Tribune

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)

Verdict

The Wire

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:RS/P

Verdict

Y Reliable source

Zee News

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)

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)

Verdict

• In addition to the aforementioned sources, the following references are also brought up multiple times and are used in various pages.

Koimoi

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

OTTPlay.com

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

N

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)

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)

Verdict

The Times of India

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)

Help us to remove these sponsored articles published by Times of India, (1), (2). Grabup (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Verdict

The New Indian Express

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

IndiaGlitz

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

cinejosh.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

behindwoods.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

thesouthfirst.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

latestly.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Twitter sources on The Greatest of All Time

Pinging @Geniac, The Herald, CNMall41, and Anoopspeaks:. Please take a look at Twitter sources on The_Greatest_of_All_Time#Marketing, The_Greatest_of_All_Time#Distribution and The_Greatest_of_All_Time#Pre-bookings and though all are primary (or maybe not), can they be called reliable? The production company makes this claim on twitter that is used as source, "The film's trailer, released on 17 August 2024, became the most watched Tamil film trailer in 24 hours with 33 million views. It gained a million views within an hour, and 1 million likes within 5 hours.". The southfirst source also used twitter source from AGS production company of the film. I do not think this is reliable as its not different than a company making claims on the gross of the film they produced. Need consensus. Please also check other twitter sources also for Prebooking and distribution. RangersRus (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we should accept Twitter as a source. For example, if there is no coverage from independent and reliable sources about the claim, ‘The film’s trailer, released on 17 August 2024, became the most-watched Tamil film trailer in 24 hours with 33 million views,’ then it should not be added to Wikipedia. Primary sources can confirm details, but for an event to be notable enough to be included in the article, it requires independent secondary coverage. GrabUp - Talk 17:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree but the changes get added saying "tweets from official accounts are WP:PRIMARY, but not unreliable." RangersRus (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Vestrian24Bio, I saw that you are adding tweets as citations, saying ‘Tweets from official accounts are WP:PRIMARY but not unreliable.’ Shouldn’t there be some sort of secondary coverage of events like these to include them in the article? GrabUp - Talk 17:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: The article is making an ‘exceptional claim’ by stating, ‘became the most-watched Tamil film trailer in 24 hours with 33 million views,’ which is only supported by Twitter or WP:PRIMARY sources. You are repeatedly adding it back. Please read WP:REDFLAG, which says, ‘Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing.’ GrabUp - Talk 18:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If the sole source for a claim like that is the production company, that's a red flag towards inclusion. They're obviously highly biased towards promoting their project and have no expectations towards being neutral in the matter, nor solid verification. (Not to mention, stats like this are so easily gamed and abused.) Ravensfire (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Never use Twitter, even if it is the only source. If the information was noteworthy, a media outlet would pick up the news and publish an article on it. I have seen it on other film pages (especially when there is FANCRUFT trying to put tons of quotes) and remove it. I would remove them and the associated content if there isn't another source to support. Anyone trying to put the content back would need to use the talk page per WP:ONUS should they want to revert. In fact, I will gladly do so here if no one else wishes to. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@RangersRus Using a primary source is not an issue, but if used, there should be a way for other editors to verify it. This is not possible with X posts, as they rely solely on the owner's claims, and users have no means to verify whether those claims are truthful. Additionally, the section only cites The Times of India, which cannot be relied upon for factual reporting WP:TOI. Currently, the entire Distribution and Pre-bookings sections, as well as parts of the Marketing section, fall under WP:MARKETING. They should be removed immediately. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed these two sections for now and added ‘better source needed’ to the home media section, as it only cites unreliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 02:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

GrabUp, you did the right thing by removing various Twitter sources. However, you also removed tertiary sources like Bollywood Hungama. I advise you to re-add reliable, non-Twitter sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for pointing that out. I added that along with another source. Bollywood Hungama was reporting on North India distribution, and I found News18 on Google reporting on Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala. GrabUp - Talk 05:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"The official merchandise of the film was launched by Filmydice, Meesakar, ColourCrafts and Namma Tribe on 25 August 2024." is from a Twitter source. So remove it. 2409:4073:2E9C:6F2E:0:0:EF88:8B06 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Just pointing out, here's a list of pages using twitter citations, also here Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous pages with unreliable sources and editors interested in specific areas can help by improving those pages just like it is being done here. RangersRus (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Idlebrain.com, telugu.way2movies.com, movienewz.in, telugucinema.com

These sources are very clearly unreliable and look like blogs with no staff and owners. Idlebrain.com About us has nothing about the owner and staff. Telugu.way2movies.com is same and clearly a personal blog which does not exist anymore it seems and only the archived pages on wikipedia can be viewed. Movienewz.in is also same personal blog and this domain too does not seem to exist anymore and the archived pages can only be viewed on Wikipedia. All the same applies to Telugucinema.com Please give consensus. RangersRus (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree about Idlebrain. There is plenty of referenced information in the Idlebrain.com Wikipedia article. The absence of an about us page is common to many reliable sources and is not the be all and end all. There should also be consideration of whether what they publish is actually unreliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for some details on this site. It is clear that the site was personal site of G.Venkata Ramana aka Jeevi, a B.Tech grad from BITS, Pilani, started idlebrain.com in 1999 to keep his pals informed on the Telugu film industry, and Jeevi is not a professional journalist in this area and I am not sure if that is something to consider when it comes to reliability because he is clearly a BTech grad. This too I will have others weigh in with their opinions. RangersRus (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The Hindu also says "Today, the site has become a leading player in the segment, and it is Jeevi's full time job. The site logs over one lakh visitors a day and each visitor goes through seven to eight pages.Known for up-to-the minute information, he's wisened up, "With popularity comes responsibility. Initially you get adventurous while providing info but later there is insistence on confirmation of news rather than speculation," he says. Scores of Telugus all over the world rely on web reviews to choose a film for weekend viewing. Most distributors have informed Jeevi that his reviews affect BO performances." That he started it as a B Tech graduate is similar to Mark Zuckerburg when he started Facebook and not relevant to its reliability. That it is covered in reliable sources is relevant and the lack of any negative information regarding reliability is also relevant, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg is not even a comparison here. A journalist through academic and profession maybe is much more reliable than someone who is not. The Hindu site took source from Jeevi's interview and that is where all the information you mentioned in your comment came from, such as site logs. If research on the site was from secondary independent source, maybe it would have been more helpful. RangersRus (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is the evidence ? The quote from him in the Hindu isn't in the interview, and the prose and information is different. The Hindu is a reliable source and the piece has a byline from the journalist at the end so we should rely on that source not original research or guess work, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the whole primary source link? It says, “We have about one lakh visitors every day, about 40% of them from the US and about 50% from metros in India,” Jeevi mentions. Other quotes come from here too that Hindu borrowed. Hindu is a reliable source, yes but if a journalist just borrows information from a interview, it's very iffy. RangersRus (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I read the full scan. Are you referring to a different Hindu article? There are two referenced in the wikipedia article and neither has that quote or information about 40 % of visitors coming from the US and 50% from metro India. The quote in the Hindu "With popularity comes responsibility. Initially you get adventurous while providing info but later there is insistence on confirmation of news rather than speculation," also isn't in the interview. Also the prose is different so I think we should accept it as a reliable source particularly as the Hindu has a reputation for fact-checking or it would not be considered a reliable source by WP:RSN, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I am only referring to the Hindu source you shared in the discussion and I was referring to this quote from interview "We have about one lakh visitors every day" and others you mentioned. If a reliable source uses information from interviews or a boxoffice figure from unreliable source like sacnilk, and no matter if the prose is same or different, then such reliable sources have been refrained from being used. RangersRus (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a snippet of the quote, and the full quote isn't in the Hindu. The Hindu says "The site logs over one lakh visitors a day and each visitor goes through seven to eight pages" whereas the interview doesn't mention that the visitors go through seven or eight pages. Also the quote in the Hindu "With popularity comes responsibility. Initially you get adventurous while providing info but later there is insistence on confirmation of news rather than speculation," isn't in the interview so there is no evidence that the Hindu article isn't original. Real evidence would be using the same full quotes. The Hindu journalist may well have spoken to Jeevi themselves. We can't dismiss a reliable source without proper evidence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

But that quote is still from an interview whether Hindu conducted it themselves or not, coming from Jeevi himself and its primary instead of a research by secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The second Hindu article in the Wikipedia article here has no quote and also has a byline from a journalist, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This mention has been cleared here. RangersRus (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not really a proper discussion with only two editors involved and disagreeing Atlantic306 (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, the Telugucinema.com Wkipedia article has referenced information about the site ,including from The Hindu newspaper. That would suggest that the site is also reliable unless there is evidence of unreliability in what they publish, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Telugucinema is still very doubtful when it comes to reliability. One of the source says "Recently, telugucinema.com was warned not to carry reviews anymore because a reporter had posted the review after seeing the preview. This apparently affects the box office collections, according to distributors. While the inside story is not known, this will last as long as the film industry and the critics don't get overdramatic." So its clear that the site is problem. It also uses Gmail address for contact. Anyone please weigh in with your opinions on this source. RangersRus (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using g-mail, but the review story was a bad sign but was it the only instance and was the reporter disciplined ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes even greatandhra.com too had reference but it is considered unreliable on WP:ICTFSOURCES. Some reliable sites also use unreliable Sacnilk source for boxoffice figures and we don't use sources that borrow from unreliable source. We have to look at all loopholes when considering reliability. RangersRus (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Some RSN discussions I found for idlebrain's unreliability. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Reliablity_of_idlebrain.com_for_Telugu_cinema, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Is_IdleBrain_a_good_source_for_Telugu_movies. RangersRus (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they can be called proper discussions. In the first one there are only 2 editors who disagree with each other and in the second one there are also only 2 editors and the one saying it is unreliable has been permanently blocked from Wikipedia, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice the block on second one but the first is pretty clearcut in line with what I was noticing too. Lets see what other opinions we can get here. RangersRus (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Also this is the total list of RSN discussions about idlebrain linked here which includes one that determined that it was reliable Atlantic306 (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I see one that maybe you are talking about but it is not a consensus nor a complete discussion because one out of the other doubts it's reliability. RangersRus (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging regular ICTFers @Geniac: @The Herald: @CNMall41: @Grabup:. Please give thoughts on the 4 sources. RangersRus (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with idlebrain.com and telugucinema.com. telugu.way2movies.com are movienewz.in do not appear reliable; nameless, faceless scrapers. Geniac (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

RangersRus, on a surface level, I agree with Geniac. Idlebrain.com looks a bit sketchy but I trust Geniac's expertise. I'll do a detailed analysis if possible, but nevertheless, it looks fine to me in a glance. Other, they are just aggregators and blogs. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Let telugucinema.com remain as it has helped save countless pre-2000s articles from deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We have to reach concensus on these sources before we can decide to list them as reliable or unreliable. Thank you @Geniac: and @The Herald: for your say on these sources but can you please give detail analysis for each when you get enough time? RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Rundown:

• telugu.way2movies.com: No staff listed. No bylines. Not reliable.
• movienewz.in: Blank contact page. No staff listed. No bylines. Not reliable.
• telugucinema.com: The owner, Jalapathy Gudelli, appears to have related education and experience.
• idlebrain.com: There are many broken links on this website, but the owner, G. V. Ramana, seems trusted by other people in the industry.

Geniac (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I get you but there are many reliable sources helping with pre-2000s pages and I do not think it will be a problem. Telugucinema still needs to be analyzed but no matter what the outcome is, I do not think it will be problem to find supporting reliable sources for pre 2000 articles. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For - "Let telugucinema.com remain as it has helped save countless pre-2000s articles from deletion" - I have not looked closely at the source. However, may I suggest based on the comment about its earlier use that maybe a time frame should be imposed similar to Newsweek?--CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What should be DEFAULTSORT for name of Actor/Actress

I see most of the names have DEFAULTSORT with Last name as first, because of that it shows up in wrong place (Alphabet section) in category template pages. Shouldn't it be first name and then last name?

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No, surname sorting is correct. See WP:SUR. Geniac (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What about in the case of Patronymic name, where a person's last name is not family name but father's name?

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother, As I read further in article, its mention that its ok to sort name with firstname | lastname for Patronymic.

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Exclusion of Dating, Live-In Relationships, and Broken Engagements from BLP Articles under Indian Cinema Task Force

Dear editors,

I am proposing the addition of a clause under the Indian Cinema Task Force's Manual of Style WP:ICTFMOS that explicitly excludes details about dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements from BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force. This suggestion comes after observing a concerning trend in how these personal aspects are disproportionately highlighted, often at the expense of a celebrity's professional achievements.

In the Indian entertainment industry, particularly among A-list celebrities and prominent television personalities, there is a growing trend of using staged relationships, live-in arrangements, and broken engagements as strategic PR tools. These narratives are often orchestrated by media companies and PR managers to generate attention. Even after marriage, celebrities continue to commodify their personal lives by discussing past relationships on public platforms, further distorting reality. In some cases, reputable sources report these fabrications as fact, making it challenging to distinguish truth from PR manipulation.

What exacerbates the issue is how Wikipedia's principle of verifiability WP:V is sometimes exploited by PR managers. Once these stories are published in otherwise reliable sources, they are often cited in BLP articles, lending them an air of legitimacy. Journalists and other media outlets sometimes reference Wikipedia content, leading to a circular reinforcement of potentially misleading information.

Another critical issue is the disproportionate emphasis on these personal details in articles about female celebrities, while their male counterparts often receive only brief mentions. This not only perpetuates gender biases but also diminishes the focus on their professional contributions to the industry.

To address these concerns, I propose the following:

1. Exclusion of dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements: These personal aspects should not be included in BLP articles, as they do not typically contribute to the individual's notability in their professional domain.

2. Focus on professional achievements: Articles should primarily highlight the subject's contributions to the cinema or television industry, ensuring that their professional work takes precedence over personal life details.

3. Gender-neutral approach: BLP articles should ensure balanced representation, avoiding any poetic or narrative embellishment in one article while reducing the significance of similar content in another.

I believe these changes will help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and ensure a fair and accurate portrayal of celebrities, especially in the context of articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force.

I welcome any feedback or further discussion on this proposal. W170924 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in support of a proposal like this under the task force. It is already addressed in WP:BLPPRIVACY which is what can be used to argue exclusion (or inclusion) of such things. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41:Thank you for your feedback. While WP:BLPPRIVACY addresses privacy, it does not fully account for cultural differences or the PR manipulation common in the Indian entertainment industry. In Western societies, dating is publicly accepted, often akin to marriage without formal commitment. In India, dating tends to be private, usually involving minimal interaction and frequently arranged by families to assess compatibility. These differences are often misrepresented in Wikipedia articles, where PR-driven narratives based on Western norms distort the personal image of Indian celebrities.
PR management often sensationalises relationships, including broken engagements, as extensions of dating, strategically manipulating a celebrity's image for public attention. This becomes problematic when such stories, though exaggerated or fabricated, are published by reliable sources and included in BLP articles. These narratives, especially concerning female celebrities, result in a disproportionate focus on their personal lives rather than their professional achievements. Broken engagements, in particular, can carry significant social stigma in India, yet they are often portrayed in a way that sensationalises the personal experiences of individuals, further distorting their public image.
WP:BLPPRIVACY does not fully address these cultural nuances or the impact of PR-driven narratives, particularly in the Indian context. For example, live-in relationships are widely accepted in the West but remain controversial in India, often used to sensationalise a celebrity’s image. My proposal discourages the inclusion of such PR-manipulated personal details, ensuring that articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force remain professional, culturally accurate, and gender-neutral, focusing on the subject's contributions over sensationalised personal matters.
This fills the gaps in global policies like WP:BLPPRIVACY by ensuring that Indian Cinema articles reflect cultural sensitivity and prevent PR exploitation.W170924 (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like an argument you could make should you wish to remove information from a page while citing BLPPRIVACY. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41:While WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLP provide general guidance on removing certain information, they do not fully account for the cultural nuances of the Indian entertainment industry or the PR-driven narratives that often result in misrepresentation. My proposed reforms aim to address these gaps by eliminating tabloid-like content currently present in BLP articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force.W170924 (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not upto WP:ICTF, please refer to WP:BLPN — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer:Thank you for the suggestion. While WP:BLPN is relevant, my proposal focuses on the unique challenges within Indian cinema, such as cultural differences and PR-driven narratives that lead to tabloid-like content overshadowing professional achievements. A dedicated clause under ICTF would better address these issues, which general BLP guidelines may not fully cover.W170924 (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

W170924, as DaxServer mentioned, the consensus must be established in BLPN. Indian articles can't be singled out and given a different BLP guidelines. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald:I understand, but my proposal isn't about creating separate BLP guidelines for Indian articles, rather it aims to address cultural nuances and PR manipulation that disproportionately affect Indian cinema, which general BLP policies may overlook.W170924 (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

W170924, As stated by everyone here, ICTF, which comes under the greater WikiProject Film, which is a part of larger enwiki community, have BLP guidelines established in place. The consensus we take here are based on those already existing guidelines and it cannot supercede or circumvent the already established community guidelines. You have to take it up to BLPN. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As stated by others, now being reiterated by mean, you need to take this up at the BLP Noticeboard. We cannot circumvent community established guidelines with a policy here at the project. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, participants @CNMall41, DaxServer, and The Herald:, for your feedback and guidance. I have posted the revised version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Proposal%3A_Exclusion_of_Dating%2C_Live-In_Relationships%2C_and_Broken_Engagements_from_BLP_Articles_under_the_Indian_Cinema_Task_Force) at the BLP Noticeboard for further discussion.W170924 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please give consensus on these sources Vedantsamachar.in, kelopravah.news, theruralpress.in and more

• Source Vedant Samachar disclaimer at the bottom of the page says (translation), "Some elements of the site will contain material (news/photos/videos etc.) submitted by users. Vedanta Samachar accepts no responsibility for such material. The correspondent/reporter will be solely responsible for such material published in Vedanta Samachar; Vedanta Samachar or its owners, printer, publisher, editor will have no responsibility for it."
• Source Kelo Pravah gets its contribution from the public as it's a citizens journalism. It says in its about us page under citizens journalism (translation) "If you come across any important incident, accident, corruption, motivational story, story, social issue or any other matter around you, please share it with us. We assure complete protection of your privacy. Your contribution will enable us to provide better and meaningful news."
• Source TheRuralPress says "The opinions and views expressed in articles, blogs, comments, or other content on TheRuralPress.in are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of S S B Media House." "While we strive to ensure that the information on this Website is accurate and up-to-date, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the Website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the Website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk."
• Source Cineserie.com clearly a personal BLOG.
• Source Jayjohar.com clearly a personal BLOG of someone named Jay Johar.
• Source CGA2Z.in is this even reliable?
• Source about an actress on amazon?
• Source Quicklookfilms.com BLOG?
• Source Anuj Sharma. Anuj Sharma is an actor and this seems like his own page?

RangersRus (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• • Comment - The first three are unreliable in my opinion. Anytime there is no editorial oversight and a disclaimer that basically says "f**k it, we are not responsible" is all I need to see. The only others I will opine on are Amazon (should be treated like IMDb) and QuickLookFilms which appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight. Not even sure how reliable it would be for stats such as budget. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

    CNMall41 Agree and thank you. Can some more other ictf regulars also give consensus? @The Herald:, @Geniac:? RangersRus (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

    • vedantsamachar, kelopravah, and Amazon contain UGC, so not reliable.
    • theruralpress, cineserie, and jayjohar have no staff listed. Bylines just link to a list of articles that that person wrote. No evidence of reliability.
    • cga2z looks like a personal website for job placement, so not reliable.
    • quicklookfilms has reviews taken wholesale from reelviews.net, so not reliable.
    • anujsharma appears to be the actor's official website, so is as reliable as any other of the same.

    Geniac (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

    RangersRus, Thanks for the ping. Agree with Geniac. None of them are useful. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

naidunia.com

I am unable to read to determine if this has any editorial oversight, is a fan blog, or a legitimate reliable source. Any assistance is appreciated. CNMall41 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, They are digital media wing of Jagran media, which is an RS. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald:, thanks. Do they have a section on editorial oversight or is there something on Jagran media website that covers it. Unfortunately, I cannot translate all of the pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, since they are a subsidiary of Jagran, I'm going with the same editorial team as theirs. Author page and editorial policy gives me a good level of confidence in their work. They are the largest newspaper in the country with good reliability and almost accurate factual reporting. We can use them for our ICTF articles. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeh Dil Aashiqanaa

Can someone watch this page Yeh Dil Aashiqanaa. A user is removing sourced content by giving weird reasons [1]. Thanks. Sid95Q (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sid95Q, reverted, and indeffed by 331dot. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Leo is the highest grossing movie not Jailer

Leo is the highest grossing movie of this year. But here showing Lowest box office collection than Jailer. Leo is the highest movie collection not Jailer 117.230.89.157 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

117.230.89.157, Source? — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

glamsham.com

[2] Reliability? DareshMohan (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not - "You acknowledge that glamsham.com and its affiliates do not control, represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any of the information available on the web site" - On their about page.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Film Companion

Here Some IPs are changing status of Film Companion from reliable to unreliable. Can someone add discussions where it was deemed reliable so that we could avoid these edits. Sid95Q (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I added this discussion Sid95Q (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sid95Q, Sounds good enough for now. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

bobbytalkscinema.com

Last time (here) I started a conversation about the reliability of this website. Recently, it has been used extensively on pages like Dharmendra. So again, I am starting the discussion to get consensus on the reliability of this website. Sid95Q (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I found that Bobby Sing has a profile on News18 network and writes articles for the network, [3]. He has been writing before IBN brand was phased out and replaced with News18. Writing for major networks like News18 and freepressjournal, I will say he is reliable but would like other regular Ictf genius to have a say too. @Geniac:, @The Herald:, @CNMall41:. RangersRus (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Being that it is his personal blog, I would say it is unreliable. If we can show he is an expert or well-known for his reviews, they maybe we can use it, BUT, it would be for his opinion, not facts (see his own disclaimer on the blog). He has written for News18 but there are only five posts he has made and none since 2015. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Check these links [4], [5], these are used as a source on various articles. Sid95Q (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I striked my reliability comment because personal opinion on a personal blog from someone who I can not find to be well known critic and has not written significant articles for a newspaper is very uncertain. Disclaimer clearly says that it is his personal opinion and this is to evade any inaccurate information. I am leaned towards unreliable but would like to see more consensus. RangersRus (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WSJ blog site

I get site unreachable. Can regular ICTF users please check if you find the same? @Geniac: @The Herald: @CNMall41:. RangersRus (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Same. Also tried Waybackmachine and nothing although I am not sure if that service has been fully restored as of yet. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wayback is still down, and for the unaware, this is why. Meanwhile, view an alternate archive. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Tupaki.com and mycitylinks.in

Two sources Tupaki.com and Mycitylinks.in that I have doubt on reliability. Mycitylinks has no editorial insight that I can find. The writer of the article, after clicking on the name link, nothing on the profile. Tupaki.com has no ownership and editorial insight. About us sounds self publicity. Please give consensus. RangersRus (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Photobucket

This is clearly unreliable and used on many film pages. Users create blogs, service provided by photobucket.com, to write articles. I have removed these from 2 film pages but figured to get consensus before further removal from film pages. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Veera Narayana has the original article(s) shared via Photobucket, but his account is no longer operational. He could share with us through other means. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It is better to find reliable sources and post those instead of using dead urls and blogs created on photobucket.com RangersRus (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

These particular photobucket urls used to be good quality snapshots of the Telugu print media articles which are otherwise difficult to find on web. Dead urls, yes, but not blogs that needed to be removed as unreliable. Will try to salvage what I can. — Ab207 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ab207: The url is dead, yes, and if these photobuckets are used for snapshot of hard to find news articles, I get it but isn't there a Wikipedia recommended url for storing such snapshots? RangersRus (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

and how is rajinifans.com reliable? RangersRus (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)