Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema/archive2

Help with Himesh

Hi; I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (only since early 2006 have I beeen a serious editor). One of my first projects was to create an article for Himesh Reshammiya. Since it was done completely from scratch, it did take a long time. However, it has been to subjected to various abuses (like putting in photos with websites shamelessly marked on them, and turning the thing from an encyclopedia article into various opinion pieces). I don't want all of my work to go down the drain, so I am please asking for some help in moderation.

NonexistentFool 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji (for the second time again!)

OK, it seems as is User:Shez 15 is not happy with the version which i think everyone else was ok with. He asked me to improve the article and i greatly reduced it. He seemed happy with me then and he even gave me a barnster! As soon as anyone removes anything they see as fancruft, he gets angry. Right now User:Zora is editing the article mostly and getting rid of any fancruft but soon this might end up like another edit war. How do we get through to him? Anyone PLEASE discuss Pa7 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If we knew how to change people, we could sell it and make a fortune. I hate to go into another Arbcom case, but I don't know of any other way to get him to stop trying to turn the Rani article into a shrine to his idol. I hate Arbcom cases. Isn't there another way? Zora 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went through several of Preity Zinta's movies and noticed that there have been problems, too, most recently in Kya Kehna and Dil Hai Tumhaara. Honestly, I don't understand - I thought everybody seemed to be happy the way things were, and now this. As for ArbCom cases - I now basically what they are, but I don't know the protocol. However, if it will help to stop this madness, I'm in. --Plumcouch 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess he's got a personal vendetta against Zinta, she is probably Mukerji's closest competitor. We have all got better things to do, i mean i saw Plumcouch's target list which was really cool. I want to really reduce the indian film stubs and get rid of any reds and Zora seems very busy these days. Anything just to get this sorted. Pa7 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was recently dragged through an Arbcom case. I testified as a witness and then had to endure MONTHS of abuse. It's not just the subject of the Arbcom who suffers -- it's everyone involved. I don't wish that on you guys. Zora 00:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ... I'll try and talk to him again, but frankly, I don't think it'll work as it didn't work the last times I tried. As for Zinta being Mukerji's closest competition: if that's really the reason behind everything, I hope the same thing won't happen to Kajol, since she did that Fanaa flick and seems to be back in the arena. --Plumcouch 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about Fanaa and Kajol's comeback. I do hope that if you talk to him then maybe he'll back down. I'll try and talk to him as well but like you said i don't think it will work. Pa7 01:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You can file WP:RFC not on Shez15 personally, but on the Rani Mukerji article to see what other people think of the bias. Arbcom I don't think is appropriate for this type of article - I have only seen arbcom for Articles such as 9/11 attacks, religion disputes, ethnic disputes, etc. I can't see the point of having an arbcom over a dispute about a moviestar. If you get an article RfC with strong consensus, there will be more people watching the Rani page and reverting Shez if a strong consensus is reached.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lame... You don't need to talk behind my back! I only need your help improving the page. I just state facts, if you think it's fancruft, fine delete it. I personally disagree with you though. Anyway, I'm not following your Indian writing format or whatever you write on Indian actresses. I think there is less information and it's quite simple and boring. I'm trying to make Rani Mukerji's page more like Lindsay Lohan's. I think she is too good for your summary format. I am trying to put as many possible references on the page. But Zora reverts them. By the way, I noticed you guys copied my version of things on other actors' pages. For example, I had initially put a box of filmography for Rani and now, it's on every other page. I also put a television appearances section which is now on Preity Zinta's page too. Pa_7 obsessively likes Zinta too. It's not just me. This makes me to think if you guys are not so perfect afterall. Very biased of pa_7 to do such things. That's why I was frustrated. However, let's just work on Rani's page and make it better. I have a lot of information. Do you think Rani's page will appear like the current version forever. Cmon guys, wikipedia is about updating and adding as much as possible. Either you're gonna help me this last time or you want another edit war?-- User:shez_15|shez_15]] 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second, Shez i liked your idea of putting tv appearances that is why i put it on Zinta's page. I like Zinta, though i do prefer Madhuri Dixit performance wise. Anyways that is not the point. Firstly don't accuse of me of being biased. I may prefer Zinta to Mukerji but i have not filled her page with fancruft. Also secondly one minute you seem to be asking for help yet your calling me biased. I don't want to get banned or anything like that because i love editing on wikipedia, and also i love indian cinema. I have never had any problems with any other editors. I mean User:Zora and User:Plumcouch have had no problems with me, i generally trust there judgements. I like to work with people and if they do not agree with me then i will try and co-operate. I do not want to argue with you anymore. Pa7 00:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shez, making the page bigger and bigger is not necessarily an improvement. I could make an article about myself and post my daily schedule; that would be information, and it would make the page bigger all the time, but it's WORTHLESS information. The Rani article should not be a junkheap for every scrap of fact or speculation about Rani.

We can add her new movies. If she gets married and has a child, we can add that. If she gets drunk and drives a Land Cruiser over twenty people sleeping on sidewalks, we can add that. But the material you keep trying to add is either pointless or personal opinion.

If you want to add something interesting that ISN'T there, tell us where she lives. Get a photo of her house. Does she live by herself? With her family? Is she close to her family? Is she notable for what she eats? For not drinking alcohol? Does she work out daily? Does she have a dance teacher? An acting coach? A guru? All you've given us is press-releases about public appearances, and film-magazine rumors about who she's dating, or not dating, with whom she has quarrelled, etc, none of which are appropriate for an encylopedia (we don't want to keep track of dates and tiffs). So if we don't know anything about her beyond what is public, how does she protect herself from scrutiny? Is she known for keeping the press at arm's length? Zora 23:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion cats

There are cases in which people have been adding relgion cats to actors/actresses, eg Farida Jalal. What do people think about doing this kinds of stuff, as it generally does not affect their public lives. I see in many topics, that these cats are removed, unless the person engages in public religious acitivity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are millions on people in the various religions, and thousands of biographical articles in WP -- if we start tagging everyone by religion, we're going to end up with ridiculous lists. Myself, I'd go with adding cats to people who are KNOWN for their religion.

However, I dunno if we can make this work. Some people like to tag people who belong to the same religion or country or whatever as the tagger, as if it makes him/her bigger or better to be in the same group as someone famous. So we may not be able to stop it, even if we agree that it's pernicious (particularly in a cinema context, where religion isn't usually the point). Zora 08:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, the Buddhist cats seem to only be filled with celebrities, rather than anything much to do with Buddhism. Personally, I don't think it should be done unless it is important to their public behaviour. Else, a mention of their religious upbringing (a sentence not in the lead), but no more IMHO.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The religion cats are useless IMO. It adds no additional value to the article, and there could be a conflict if a person does not categorise himself as a true believer, but his name suggests that he belongs to a particular religion. It's too blurry to add. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The cats should go for anyone who is not notable for their religion. Only people who a Wikipedia article because of their religion should have such a cat. As for Indian actors, unless the religion they follow is significant for some reason (eg. controversy etc.) it probably just needs a mention with no further details. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Old cat - flagging

In case ppl. did not know, there is a cat named Category:Actor-politicians. It contains 51 articles, with a good mix from round the world but I believe there wd probly be several more articles on Indian actors that wd fit in that cat. Pppl may want to add this cat to relevant articles after reading the description on the cat page. --Gurubrahma 10:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys might enjoy this

Sepia Mutiny had a piece on a photographer who has been photographing the Indian film industry -- shots of films being made, posters being painted, projection rooms, ticket booths, touring cinemas, etc. [1] Fascinating! Zora 22:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability

An edit by someone with interesting initials. Does he look notable enough ? Tintin (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now written an article about himself. Tintin (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

INCOTW - Cinema of India

Cinema of India is this week's Indian Colloboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Ganeshk (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lot of articles for improvement

I have added the Indian cinema template to many articles. Most of them are in quite pitiful shape and need attention from the wikiproject team. Would request people to improve them.

Here's a list (will keep updating):

Anamika, Mela (film), Chashme Buddoor, Chori Chori, C.I.D., Jaaneman, Devdas (1935 film), Parichay, Shaukeen, Devdas (1955 film), Devdas (2002 film), Devdas, Pyaasa, Saawariya, Ram Teri Ganga Maili,

Nikhat Khan, Faisal Khan, Johnny Walker (actor), Shankar Jaikishan, Bappi Lahiri, Yogeeta Bali, Geeta Bali, Nimmi, Premnath, Bhagwan Dada, Om Prakash, Aan, Achut Kanya, Shirish Kunder, A.K. Hangal, V. Shantaram, Jeetendra, Helen (Bollywood actress), Vijay Anand, Mehmood, Majrooh Sultanpuri, O. P. Nayyar, Kumar Gaurav, Rajendra Kumar, Shivani Kapoor, Ranbir Kapoor, Simple Kapadia, Bobby Deol, Twinkle Khanna, Rinke Khanna, Dimple Kapadia, Mandakini, Randhir Kapoor, Sohrab Modi, Prithviraj Kapoor, Tanuja, Shobhna Samarth, Mother India, Boman Irani, Johnny Lever

Also, do we need to further divide the project into sub projects. The entries on the category page number almost 1000. Lost 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article on Mandakini. Also written/rewritten Rakhi Sawant, Mamta Kulkarni, Tulip Joshi, Deepika Padukone, Amrita Rao, Riya Sen and Carol Gracias. I'd appreciate help with pictures (especially for Mamta Kulkarni and Rakhi Sawant) and references (especially for Mandakini - some of the info I've used is iffy). Gamesmaster G-9 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox movie certificates

anyone want to add india?--D-Boy 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Added. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New cat

Just created the cat Category:Indian film choreographers. People may want to populate this cat. Also, Raghavendra Lawrence doesn't seem to have an article. btw, just as we list the project templates on the project page, it may be a good idea to list all the relevant cats and subcats as well on the project page or a sub-page. Any takers?? --Gurubrahma 11:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Alka Yagnik

I kind of cleaned up the article and have expanded it. Can anyone please have a look? Pa7 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cinema of India page

I have been editing the Cinema of India page since the last month (albeit sporadically). I started (coincidentally) when it was the Indian Collaboration of The Week. If you'd like, please see my edits.

My problem is that I have been having trouble with the regional cinema section, especially the Telugu cinema portion. Can someone please help at least with that part. I posted this message here because there seem to be few people watching that page regularly, and I want to do this fast. Please also see the talk page for that article for my other question. I apologize if this violates any wiki ettiquette, or anything. --Sshankar 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I cant help you on the Telugu piece, but rest assured. No wiki etiquette being violated here. Infact this is the right forum to raise this -- Lost 08:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Whew thanks! :) But i feel this topic is really neglected; it really needs work. I tried over the last month, but i'm getting a little overwhelmed now :( --Sshankar 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting pissed off now; Why are there so few people working on this? I think it is a very important article? ::fume:: --Sshankar 12:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiling Plots

Could we refrain from this? Could we instead just have a short synopsis?

There can be spoilers. Just they should have the {{spoiler}} tag around them. There should be a short synopsis given that doesn't contain any spoilers. Sorry if something was spoiled for you :O gren グレン 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Satyajit Ray peer review

Satyajit Ray is currently in Peer Review. Please have a look and comment as necessary. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User comment in main article namespace

The following text was removed from the article WikiProject Indian cinema:

"Hi

We have a database of the popular musical countdown program Binaca geetmala that we are trying to put on wikipedia ( interested people can visit it by going to Binaca Geetmala on the search page) - is it possible to find a home for it on the project Indian cinema page? --Ghoshi 21:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

--Khatru2 19:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi folks,

Can you please try to keep in mind WP:NCP with regard to bio articles on actors and actresses? In particular, please use proper names as titles of the articles, with a redirect from screen names if desired. "Using exclusively a last name, for which the first name is known, as title of a page on a single person is discouraged, even if that name would be unambiguous, and even if that name consists of more than one word." Thanks. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this, Stifle. Th is is like moving Cary Grant to Archibald Alexander Leach or Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Blythe III. Tintin (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm only abiding by the Wikipedia policy at WP:NC. If you think the policy is wrong, then feel free to campaign to get it changed or, indeed, propose an amendment to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indian actors). Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see here. If people published under one or more pen names and/or their own name, the best known of these names is chosen. -- Lost 09:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What Lost said above. Using popular/stage name is the convention here.

What do you say about the examples of Cary Grant or Marilyn Monroe. Tintin (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are wrong Stifle. What about Massiel, Ruslana, Dana International, Marie N for a European perspective - all are stage names used by winners of the Eurovision Song Contest, not their real names. Also, football players like Kaka - that's a nick.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that there is a completely different actor by the name Venkat Prabhu. See http://www.chennaionline.com/Moviereviews/tammov295.asp or http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/tamil/article/23864.html

Can someone move the Venkat Prabhu back to Dhanush (actor, please. Tintin (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is urdu on aritcles such as Yuva?--D-Boy 23:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Baazigar

I took a long wikibreak, because I was losing my balance and getting too angry. I think it's safe to come back and edit Indian cinema articles :) I rewrote the plot summary for Baazigar, after watching the movie. What a morally confused and bloody movie! Zora 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well it was a kind of trendsetter in India. Shahrukh Khan, an established hero became a villain for the first time and followed it up with further negative roles:) -- Lost^(talk) 18:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Baazigar is Supposed to be "inspired" by A Kiss before dying. [2]I have not seen the English film so cannot comment on the accuracy of the claim the plot seems similiar. Haphar 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Hindi films

I think we do not need the above mentioned article because half of the Hindi films don't even have articles on them. We have the category Hindi-language films and that has all the films that have articles on them. Even if we do expand the list, the majority will be filled with reds! I talked to the user who created it but I need some opinions. Thanx. Pa7 19:17, 5 August 2006

No, we don't need a list of Hindi films. It would be many thousands of films long and to what end? What's the point of having a name if there's no information? Let's just keep on, film by film, and in another ten or fifteen years we may have something like the list the new editor envisions -- but a useful list. Zora 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindi films and plagiarism needs a complete rewrite

This article has been proposed for deletion by Zoe. Frankly, I agree with the deletion, as the list has become unmaintainable. It reached the cruft event horizon when there's so many unjustified entries that no-one bothers reverting more a long time ago. The idea was that the justification for each entry would be contained in the articles, but that just hasn't happened. Many of the articles on the list are stubs, some don't even mention the alleged plagiarism and those that do rarely verify it. Until an anon removed it today, one entry was "Krrish - Paycheck and Spiderman or Superman or The Matrix or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" - whuh? Why not Citizen Kane and Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari while we're at it?

Whether it ends up deleted or not, I suggest replacing the whole thing (well, the list anyway) with something that looks more like Films considered the worst ever. That list has inline citations for every entry, so the justification for their presence is watertight in every case. I've started a list at User:Samuel Blanning/Hindi films and plagiarism which contains the two films I know of that can be verified by reliable sources, plus a suitable commented out notice at the top of the list. Please help expand it, and once it reaches a decent length we can move it into articlespace. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I started the original article, just to have a place to shovel the constant assertions of plagiarism, and I'll be the first to admit that it hasn't worked. Separating the listing and the justification means that it's hard to verify that both exist, and people constantly omit the justification. I like your version and urge an immediate replacement. Zora 19:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should contain at least four or five films before being moved into articlespace. Unfortunately the two films I started the list with are the only two where I'm fully aware where and how they were plagiarised. I've heard Hum Tum was based off When Harry Met Sally as well, but haven't seen WHMS so can't really write an informed synopsis. Plus it would be nice if the list went further back than 2004. So I'd really like others to add to it even though it's in userspace at the moment. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Satyajit Ray FAC

Satyajit Ray is up as a FAC--ppm 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What to do about Nirojansakthivel?

This new editor dislikes the term Bollywood, apparently, AND he seems to think that we need a LIST of all Bollywood films ever made. He is renaming articles without any discussion. He has renamed List of popular Bollywood films to List of popular Hindi films unilaterally, without any discussion. He keeps starting lists and linking to them; when they're deleted, he recreates the lists and the links. He doesn't discuss; he just proceeds to do what he wants to do, regardless of pleas on his talk page.

What can we do? I'm trying to cut down my time on WP and I don't have the energy to clean up after him over and over again. Zora 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just talk to him, the change from Bollywood -> Hindi isn't really bad. I don't particularly like the term 'Bollywood' myself. But make sure he discusses before changing things. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Bollywood is a LOT more common than "Hindi movies" -- and the Bollywood industry turns out movies in several languages, by dubbing in several soundtracks. They do Hindi/Urdu, Marathi, and English. And Niro just doesn't discuss, or stop. Zora 09:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved back the articles that Niro had moved. I actually did the research; "Bollywood films" gets twice as many google hits as "Hindi films." Bollywood is the term most used outside India. Foreigners often use it inaccurately, to describe all of Indian cinema, but that doesn't mean that we should insist on "Hindi films" just to put them on the same level as Tamil films or Telugu films. It's enough, I think, that the opening paras of the Bollywood article make it clear that this is only part of the Indian film industry.

It's almost 3 AM here and I'm fading fast. I'm not sure that I've caught all the double redirects and such, but I'll try to work on it tomorrow. Zora 12:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

This is really bad and someone who knows more about him needs to take a look at Rajesh Khanna. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First FA of this project

Hi! Satyajit Ray became the first article of this project to become a Featured Article when it was identified as an FA on 10th August, 2006. Congrats to everyone. This project should churn out more FAs. REgards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! --Bhadani 08:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to say that I have left the project as currently I am in the process of redefining my relationship with English Wikipedia, which may take days, weeks, and even months. However, I shall continue to edit pages relating to Indian cinema. Regards. --Bhadani 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Largest output dispute

There was a recent discussion on Talk:India questioning India's rank as the biggest producer of films in the world. The Cinema of India article was recently edited to accommodate the changes. However, many articles (including Bollywood) continue to mention Indian cinema as the largest producer of movies. In good faith, I do not question the authenticity of the article in the Economist that the user has provided. However, there seem to be news reports quite contradictory to this claim. I would like to hear the thoughts of other wikipedians in this matter. Thanks!-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding restructuring - please discuss

I noticed on the Community Portal that a new wikiproject council had been developed to help provide guidance and suggestions for the running of wikiprojects. Particularly among the first fruits of this labor is a guide which suggests that for certain WikiProjects, it may be more effective and beneficial to restructure as a task force within the central project (in this case, WikiProject Films). I think this may be germane to both the Iranian and Indian cinema projects, because the general goals between the projects are no different - merely their geographic scopes are differently limited. I'd like to also note that this was written by Kirill Lokshin, who is the Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military history (one of Wikipedia's most successful WikiProjects). WikiProject Military history also is one of the most notable projects which features task forces, many of which focus on a particular time period or country within the large topic of military history.

The benefits of being a task force would include higher exposure as an explicit subunit of the central WikiProject Films page, as well as a high degree of autonomy to continue to use specific talk page banner tags, stub templates, and open tasks, and for the members of the task force to define the task force's priorities and structure. Furthermore, a highly productive task force would also likely be well-noted among the WikiProject Films community and thus be able to command considerable respect and weight in the setting of overall film project discussions and guidelines.

I'd like to also note that I'm not a member of the Films project, although I do follow its discussions; my main interest is in filmmaking, which is where I generally work (WikiProject Filmmaking) on Wikipedia. However, I would like to see all the film-related projects succeed, and it seems (from the success of Military history's work) that combining the two projects' editorial teams while maintaining each project's identity would only benefit both parties, and thus make everyone look good.

There is nothing more I'd like to see than a good discussion. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

PS - I've also brought this up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iranian cinema, largely so that no one feels that the discussion is isolated to one project's "turf", given the issues.

Ahana Deol up for deletion...

...here. You may want to comment there. --Gurubrahma 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrishikesh Mukherjee

Article needs improvement and in light of his death yesterday would get a lot of people looking it up. Haphar 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting heroine first?

The Saathiya article puts Rani ahead of Vivek Oberoi in cast listings. I thought that this was just Shez15 doing his usual Rani-deification stuff, but I googled and found that IMDB put Rani first, Rediff put Vivek first, the Amazon DVD-for-sale put Rani first, various other reviews put Vivek first ... Various sites seemed to split down the middle on whom to credit first. As I remember the movie, both actors got equal screen time. On the one hand, as a woman, I want to say, "Sure, put the woman first!" On the other hand, I don't want WP used to deify Rani. What do you guys think? Follow IMDB, as a general rule? Zora 00:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference who comes first, IMO. However, reading the plot, the story seems to begin with Vivek. So, perhaps he should be listed first. Bah! Who cares?! :P -- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using original names for actors!!

This project seems to be in a mess as I see that WP requires people's articles to be named after their popular names where as we seem to take a different tack. Why do we want to be divisive? Why should Vijay be at Joseph Vijay? Would you move Julia Roberts to Julie Fiona Roberts? Charlie Chaplin to Charles Spencer Chaplin Jr.? and Dilip Kumar to Yusuf Khan? I believe this issue was unresolved the last time we were discussing it, but some one has changed many actor pages to original names. This is unfortunate; Under what name would some one search the WP? Many wouldn't even know original names. When WP:Mos is clear that popular names are what are reqd., I guess we need to stick to it or get it changed at WP:MoS, not have our own flights of fancy. Remember, we are a part of en wikipedia and our project should look at things that are not already covered rather than going about reinventing rules that may satisfy a few egos but are of no productive use. I guess this is my angriest post on WP but I believe it is warranted because we are unnecessarily getting mired into unproductive work. --Gurubrahma 14:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that all interested editors would understand the "nitty-gritty" of Gurubrahma's comments. We should conform to the convention of the English Wikipedia, and should not set our own personal rules of editing. --Bhadani 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I fully second that. One guys page was shifted to Venkat Prabhu. By the way, if you know who this is before clicking the link, you have a lot of knowledge regarding Indian cinema. Any way WP:NC(CN) is very clear regarding this. I don't know why some one has disregarded this and acted oversmart by the spate of renames Doctor BrunoTalk 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

From above it is clear that User:Stifle is in a minority. Also WP:NCP has two major guidelines, the first of which clearly says that the general name needs to be used. I am sorry to say this, but User:Stifle is wikilawyering in the above discussion; he moved several pages to different locations on July 7th. WP:NC(CN) leaves no doubts what so ever in my mind about how the articles need to be named. Could someone please set-up a sub-page for the project listing all such moves and redirects. I'll undo them after a fortnight (enough notice I guess), and after posting a note on WP:RM. As I am not very active these days, could someone ping me on my talkpage after the sub-page is set and populated? TIA, --Gurubrahma 13:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that more moves have taken place, but as I had stated in the discussion mentioned by Gurubrahma, the article should be named after the person's popular name. So yes, I second the statement by Gurubrahma. This is very much in line with convention -- Lost^(talk) 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked into this and I realize that my position is more or less a minority of one. I would now say that using stage names as titles is appropriate except in the case of disambiguation, in which case the full name is appropriate. Example: Joseph Vijay not Vijay (actor), with an appropriate dablink from Vijay. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, again "Vijay (actor)" would be a better choice because very few wd know his actual name; WP readers may still search for Vijay and land at the dab page; WP editors would search for "Vijay (actor)" not "Joseph Vijay." See Michael Douglas. It is not named "Michael Kirk Douglas" or "Michael Douglas (actor)" despite their being other Michael Douglases and a disambig page being provided for them. This is because he is the most populsr Michael Douglas. I understand and appreciate that popularity is subjective, hence okay with naming as "Vijay (actor)" rather than just "Vijay." Pl. help in following the consensus. Also feel that bringing their religious names when they have not publicly self-identified with any religion is divisive. --Gurubrahma 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing actors by religion

Bakasuprman is toiling away adding categories to Bollywood actor articles. Actors are being categorized as Hindu or Muslim. I think this is just plain wrong and pernicious. Religious devotion is not the defining characteristic of most actors. This is the sort of communal thinking that leads to bombing and massacre. In fact, I'm so angry and upset that I want to communicate with other project editors before I do anything. I'd like to get the categories erased and Bakasuprman told to stop. I'm not quite sure what the right procedure would be, but I'm sure there must be some administrative action that can be taken. Zora 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree. There is no rationale for categorization of Bollywood actors as Hindu or Muslim. Comments and views of other editors are most welcome. --Bhadani 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

They have categorizations from Category:Muslim travel writers and Category:Hindu athletes. Only a sick mind would say that writing an actor's religion would lead to massacre. Zora should also lay off on persecuting "anti-Muslim fantasist" and "kooks" and learn not to call users names[3].Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Look who's talking of personal insults [4]. For someon looking down on bollywood [5] He sure is active on Bollwywood. Aso Gauri Khan, though Hindu- is not an actor-[6].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haphar (talk • contribs)

Active? I've made (10>x) edits to the article. Insults? You called me a sock, not a nice thing to say, especially when it was proven false real fast.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zora and Bhadani. It might not lead to a massacre, but the categorising of athletes, actors, scientists and mathematicians on the basis of their religion is totally unnecessary. If need be, they can be listed in the appropriate list or category. Moreover, most of these new categories can be easily looked up using the category intersection functions.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 06:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Zora - why is there a Category:Actors by religion if all this is "unnecessary?" Rama's arrow 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Christian_actors says This category is for Christian actors; male and female. It is primarily for those who have done Christian or Christian oriented movies, but also includes those who are notable for being outspoken in their Christianity. So if the similar categories for Hindus and Muslims are justified, they should contain only those actors who have done religious work.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 15:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the sake of record and good order: I am amenable to change.. Sorry, Deepujoseph and Zora. I am watching the developments with interest. --Bhadani 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub categories

Greetings! I admire the enthusiasm with which Indian film articles are created here. I have one plea: when creating a stub article for an Indian film, please tag it with {{India-film-stub}} rather than just {{film-stub}}. It'll save stub-sorters a lot of work. Thanks! ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Billing issues

We continue to have problems with Shez15, who wants Rani Mukerji to have top billing in many film articles. We're having real problems with the Veer-Zaara article, where Shez wants to put Rani over Preity Zinta, even though Preity is the "actress" and Rani is the "supporting actress." He keeps reverting to his Rani-centric version.

The problem is exacerbated by film industry practices re billing, in which various idiosyncratic billing arrangements are negotiated to keep actors happy. So actors may be listed alphabetically, or they may negotiate to have their names in larger type in the advertising, or insist that their names go on top if their pictures don't appear on the film poster, etcetera. I've already brought up this problem in connection with Saathiya. Some online sources put Vivek Oberoi first, others put Rani Mukerji first.

My suggestion is that we agree to use the IMDB listing as the basis for our actor lists. I'm willing to follow their lead here because they have a much larger specialized database than we do. They're more of an authority, and one that's accessible to everyone online. The only reason to duplicate their work here on WP is that we can link to articles explaining MORE about a movie or an actor than mere cinematic information. For instance, it would help to read the article on tawaif to understand the film Umrao Jaan.

Can we get a consensus on following the IMDB's list order, in order to prevent recurring arguments? Zora 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IMDB is fine by me. Haphar 09:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought we put the credits according to who has the main roles. IMDB is probably the best format to use but I have noticed that they have put there credits alphabetically on most pages [7], [8], [9]. After seeing these examples, im a bit concerned about using IMDB as the main model. Personally I feel the credits should go according to the main actors for example Veer-Zaara - Khan, Zinta and Mukerji. However if everybody is agreeing to IMDB then I will be ok with it -- Pa7 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The films with alphabetical lists are the ones under development. I checked a few random finished films and found the actors roughly in order of importance/screen time. The IMDB entry for Veer-Zaara was Khan, Zinta, Mukerji, frex. Zora 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IMDB is also a community driven initiative like WP. I'd trust its breadth and may be depth but consistency never was a hallmark of IMDB. I'd not be too comfortable elevating IMDB to the level of a credible/reliable source but no other alternative seems to be in sight. One way to resolve the billing issues is that if someone is nominated for a supporting role award, they cannot obviously get top billing - I'd guess that Rani wd have got nominated for some supporting award for Veer-Zaara. --Gurubrahma 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rani was nominated as supporting actress for the Filmfare awards. Shez will not accept this. He must have reverted the article to the Rani-centric version dozens of times.

Perhaps it's a mistake to adopt a policy in order to deal with ONE editor who's being difficult. Or perhaps we could just say that in cases where editors cannot reach a consensus, we'll accept the IMDB order. Sort of like flipping a coin to solve a dispute.

I don't know if I'll have the time and energy to do this, but perhaps an RfC for Shez would be in order. Zora 20:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, totally disagree with the IMDB format since it puts actors in a random order for some movies. For example, in the case of Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, Zinta is listed fourth, after Lara Dutta, who is the supporting and junior actress to her. In Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega, if you see, SRK is listed before Salman and then it's Rani and then Zinta even though SRK has a two minute special appearance in the movie. Again, some pages are ok. As in the movie and on IMDB, Rani is before Vivek in Saathiya and before Preity in HDJPK. She is only after Zinta on the Veer-Zaara page. Now, only for that page, you want to put IMDB order for every article. It seems Zora is doing this for personal reasons since she doesn't like the way I work. But at least, I'm not a coward and I can address my problems openly whereas Zora would revert my edits and not even tell me why when I told her to discuss with me first. On top of that, she never told me about this issue being debated here. But I'm smart, Zora. And don't you forget that. I'm a majorly against IMDB use since it puts some actors in random. Like in the case of Mahabharata, SRK is not even listed fifth or on top. Zinta is at the bottom. An unknown actor is at the top. If you want to use this format, then do so. But don't do it because Zora strongly wants to put Zinta over Mukerji on Veer-Zaara. You'll be working extra only because of her personal reasons. Plus, you'll create chaos. I don't want exceptions if you use IMDB which you'll have to make because I know for a fact that you won't put Zinta after all these people: Abhishek Bachchan, Bobby Deol, Lara Dutta, Robert Galas and Hubertus Geller. The only format where we won't need exceptions is if we follow by the rules of the film maker where he expresses his desire how to credit his cast. Plus, it's simple. There will be obviously no person who makes a special appearance listed at the very top before the main actors. Again, Rani was listed before Zinta on the official website, on the poster and in the film. Plus, her role was a much more substantial role. We can list movies by IMDB format for new ones but once the movie releases, I can change them for you or someone else can if need be. I watch a lot of new Bollywood movies weekly. So, I know the cast order. And if someone thinks it's wrong, you can go check at the market. Case solved and I hope I've convinced you all from using IMDB format. I know Zora is your friend but think about it logically. Do you want Ash over AB Junior when he is the lead character. As in the movie's preview and poster. It's Hrithik first then AB J and then ASH. IMDB puts the two main actor and actresses on top when the information is not even official, then it starts putting other actors randomly. But what if there is another main actor in the film and his/her name is confirmed later. It just puts them at the bottom. It's a stupid system. The only thing it's good at is to make links for an actor's filmography. Would it really be just to put Anil Kapoor before Salman Khan in Biwi No.1 even though he has a short role and Khan is the lead player. The movie puts Khan first. There are tons of other examples but these are good enough for now. Think about it and leave your comments on my page.

-- shez 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Shez, you seem to think that this is some popularity contest between Rani and Preity Zinta. I don't CARE about Preity Zinta. She's certainly not my favorite actress -- who would perhaps be Nargis or Madhubala. You have this idea in your head that Rani is "senior" and that she must be named first in any billing. Senior has no meaning to anyone but you, Shez. Billing is usually done in the order of the importance of the roles. Hero and heroine come first, then the supporting actors. Rani got her Filmfare nomination for Veer-Zaara as a supporting actress. She was NOT the heroine. She doesn't deserve top billing for that movie. Please stop this embarrassing campaign of fan worship. Zora 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject India

The following discussion is copied from WT:INB. Please respond there to keep the discussion centralised.

I think we should retire templates for the various Indian wikiprojects such as {{Wikiproject Indian districts}}, {{Wikiproject Indian cinema}}, {{Wikiproject History of India}} etc. and replace them all with {{WP India}}. It has various advantages over the others.

• We can rate the articles - the rating counts appear on the WP:IND page as we do so.
• Each of the above child projects can get exposure as the template can incorporate their names as well.
• This will guide new people and other interested readers to a centralised project page and help us recruit better for the projects.
• It will help rejuvenate the WP:IND. It has the lowest no. of members of all these projects.

These are just some thoughts. If there is agreement on this, we can start by replacing the templates on the project pages with the {{WP India}} template. -- Lost^(talk) 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Amrita Rao External links

Hi, I am running a fansite for Amrita Rao at [amritaworld dot com]. Whenever Ive put my link on the External links section, it gets removed whereas the other fansite's link is always there. May I know why this happens? Just for information purpose, my site gets about 100 visits each day. Would appreciate a nice discussion about this issue. Thanks. Astro ubz 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Ubz

Hey Astro. I checked out the history of the article, and the contribution history of both you and the person who has been removing the link. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, fansites may be included if they provide additional useful information, which I believe yours does. So I am restoring your edit and starting a discussion on Talk:Amrita Rao, to which I am also inviting the dissenting editor. Hopefully we can learn what his objections are, and whether they are valid. Personally, though, looking at his edit history, he seems to be doing only one thing - pushing certain fansites - so its likely that we won't hear from him.

I also see that you're a recent entrant. So, let me wish you luck. Also, please feel free to add to the Amrita Rao page - a lot of the information there was added by me, but its clearly not enough. For example, you might be able to throw light on the whole twin siser issue.Gamesmaster G-9 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gamesmaster, the other editors here are against adding any fansites to any article. Otherwise we run into just such squabbles (why is HIS fansite here and not mine?) and the fansite proliferate. A lot of the supposed fansites are just commercial operations that use the name of the star to attract eyeballs to ads. It's just easier to remove them all. Please don't tell people that fansites are OK. Zora 08:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's a big discussion going on regarding fansites (and other external links) at the talk page of WP:EL. You guys may want to weigh in there as well. The current EL guidelines seem to be disputed. -- Lost^(talk) 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I still maintain that some fansites are OK, and I have checked WP policy, as well as a number of past discussions on this topic before arriving at this conclusion. Even the discussion on this board did not conclude that all fan sites are bad. Finally, have checked and seen that a large number of pages on Hollywood personalities have links to at least one fansite. So, all in all, I see no reason why fansites should be disallowed. I agree that removing them all is easier than picking some, but that really isn't a good enough reason to undertake such an action. I also agree that some fansites are clearly unacceptable (like the ones that are purely commercial operations, for example), but I trust WP editors to employ common sense in such cases. As for the Amrita Rao page, which seems to be at the eye of the storm right now - I actually checked the fansite in question before letting it stay, and you will find that it is actually what it claims to be.Gamesmaster G-9 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, let me say that I agree with User:Lostintherush that the matter needs to be discussed. If, as you say, the editors are against fanpages (for whatever reason), I would at least like to present my arguments against such a policy. If the final consensus remains the same, then I am willing to accept that. I'm not here to pick a fight.Gamesmaster G-9

List of popular Bollywood films

Various people have been adding older movies to the list, not all of which I've watched. I recognize some of the names as films generally agreed to be good, or major hits of their time, but the list is also filling up with movies that I don't recognize at all. Quite a few of them seem to star Rajesh Khanna. Do we have a Khanna fan adding all his favorites? I'd appreciate it if any old-movie buffs here could look over the list and prune any movies that really don't belong in the list of significant movies. Zora 08:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The additions to the 1930's to 1970's list that i worked on for over a month ( and 3 months ago) was based on the criteria that was discussed on the talk page of the article and was based on agreed to website links. Zora you were party to the discussion and for you to wake up now and see "Too much Khanna" is a bit exasparating. The additions were made some months ago and it is frustrating that it was not discussed then and there and the bogey is raised now just because you have not seen the movies.

There are a total of 7 Khanna films in the list- Anand, Daag, Suchaa Jhuta, Kati Patang, Aradhna, Do Raaste and Khamoshi. You will find them in the website list agreed to here :-[mentioned.http://www.bollywhat.com/top100.html] and a boxoffice website [10]. In fact films like Haathi Mere Saathi, Dushman, Prem Nagar, Mere Jeevan Saathi, Safar and Aap Ki Kasam and Namak Haraam. ( some of them having a mention in the links above)are not on the wiki list. Of these films 2 were not huge commercial hits (Commercially Anand and Khamoshi would have been bettered by Haathi Mere Saathi and Dushman) but the two were also critically acclaimed. Rajesh Khanna was the top dog from about 1969 to 1975, of some 30 films of that period listed here we have 7 from the then top star. Which i feel is represntative of the times. If someone differs and has data to back up their claims we can discuss. "Incidentally I am not just batting for just Khanna films but 99% of films listed from the 40's to the 70's. These are genuine hits, more should be there but these are very representative. And are in the lists given. Haphar 10:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks Haphar -- as long as there's a reason. That's why I brought it up here instead of just removing films I didn't know. I clearly need to watch more movies! Zora 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Casting rumors

A great many film articles feature unsourced trivia. I've been letting it slide but really, even trivia should be referenced. I have started removing unreferenced casting rumors. Many films have trivia stating that "X was approached to star, but he was busy, so they went to Y, but he said he couldn't work with director Z, so they finally asked actor A and he agreed." Well, how do we know any of that? None of it took place in public. This is gossip column stuff, and it's unreliable. It's also ultimately meaningless. No one is going to care in ten years, unless it's a very famous movie.

It's different, I think, when one actor starts filming and there's a problem, so that someone different has be hired. That happens in public and hundreds of people know about it. If it's a notable movie, mid-movie replacements could be notable.

There are casting rumors in the Sholay article which really need to be sourced or removed. Since there are published books about Sholay, this shouldn't be too difficult. I don't have the books. Does anyone here have access to them? Zora 09:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable//Challenging roles

Hello, everyone. Lately, it seems to be fashionable to add "notable/challenging roles" into actor pages. Ajith Kumar, Saravanan Sivakumar, Jayam Ravi, Vishal Krishna, Meera Jasmine and R. Madhavan seem to have them. I don't understand what qualifies as a "notable/challenging role" and think it's purely POV. Also, sometimes the filmography lists Co-Stars and directors. None of the featured actor/actress articles have those and I supect that noting them is for fan-glorification only (Actor ABC has worked with more popular/famous people than actor XYZ, therefore ABC is "greater".) I tried to remove them, but two users, User:Thamizhan and User:King Dracula keep adding them. I'd like to hear your opinions - if you think keeping all that stuff in is useful, I'll go with the majority. Still, I believe that there's lots of messing up with all the Indian regional cinema stars character/fangush/picture-wise. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 20:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, remove all the notable roles, UNLESS we have a quote from a prominent critic saying, "X, Y, and Z are the roles in which A really shines." It's POV to decide which roles are important and which aren't. Adding co-stars to filmography should also be a no-no. It clutters up the page. The information should be there in the article on the film. If there's no article for the film, the fans could at least make a stub. Zora 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to remove them, but they are constantly added back. It's really annoying. *sigh* --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 20:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates for "Films of so-and-so"

There seems to have been a rash of template-creation lately. Any film Aamir Khan is in gets an Aamir Khan template added at the bottom. I noticed that one. Now Shez is trying to create a template so he can stick one on every film in which Rani Mukerji appeared.

This is WRONG. Who gets a template and who doesn't? If every actor in a film gets a template, then the bottom of the article is going to get very crowded very fast. It's enough to link to an actor's page, with his/her filmography. The templates are completely extraneous.

Any thoughts? I'm going to find out what procedures are required for template deletion. Zora 07:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm an Aamir fan, so this isn't directed at him, or Rani; it's the sheer silliness of the templates that bugs me.

It would probably be wise to keep templates for films generally restricted to the director, as that usually is agreed to be the central creative role in filmmaking. For example, {{Satyajit Ray}}. Templates for films in a series probably would be fine too, but otherwise I'd stick by wiki-wide precedent, which generally does not allow for actors to have templates, except in directorial capacity (see {{Clint Eastwood}} and {{George Clooney}}). Girolamo Savonarola 19:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that pratically every Rani Mukerji movie got her template. (Guess who added it?) Anyway, if those templates keep poppin' up, we have some of Zinta, Khan, Khan & Khan, Kumar and so one. Just image the templates at the bottom for KKKG? (Khan, Mukerji, Kajol, Roshan & Kapoor *argh*). I'm with Girolamo & Zora. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 04:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Rani Mukerji templates (I know one certain editor won't be happy about this!), but then I found that a anon had created a template for Preity Zinta. I have removed most of them, I will try to weasel them out asap. Like Plumcouch said imagine K3G with the templates. They just get on my nerves cause they will end up crowding the pages, we don't even need them, that's why we have a filmography. Anything just to get rid of them. Pa7 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I removed the rest of the Rani/Preity/Aamir-templates. Just FYI. I think we should have an eye and their movies in case the temps pop up again. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed at Bollywood article

The Bollywood article is being attacked by an editor who is sure that Urdu and Hindi are different languages, Bollywood films are made in Hindi, therefore it is NOT OK to give the Hindustani word for Bollywood in both Devanagari and Arabic/Persian/Urdu script. He keeps demanding proof that Bollywood films are made in Urdu and ignoring all proofs and reasons given. Please come over to the Bollywood article and see if you can either get this guy to accept facts or at least keep the article accurate. Zora 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now the same editor is attacking the Sholay article in the same way. Zora 09:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Indian collaboration

Ritwik Ghatak, a notable film maker has been selected as this week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarfarosh

Who were the guys who killed Ajay's (Aamir Khan's) older brother and injured his father? Bharatveer insists that it was Pakistani terrorists, but I have some memory that it was either gangsters or dacoits. It's been years since I watched the movie and I really can't remember. Has anyone watched it more recently? Zora 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Karan Johar

Hello, everyone, just a small note: I added free pictures of Karan Johar to his article, meaning: the Fair Use ones won't do anymore. If someone changes the pics there, please change them back. I think the article of Johar is one of the few ones of the Indian Cinema without any Fair Use issues, and I think we should keep it that way. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Task forces

My recent workgroup creation moves has led to this discussion on how taskforces/workgroups be organized. Region-wise or Content-wise. Please comment. If any reading this, feels I am vote-canvassing, it was not my intent. This message will be posted at WT:INWNB and WT:IND. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A note from the List of films (by year -at least)

My respects to this project's members. I am working in the List of films (by year) and have noticed in 1982 and 1983 two films entered as external links. In particular in 1982 Arth, directed by Mahesh Bhatt and 1983 Ardh Satya, directed by Govind Nihalani. I have moved the external links to the corresponding directors' Talk pages, not wanting to just delete them, and have retained in the list all information with internal links. Since I may come across more such entries in subsequent years, I post this here, not to fill other Talk pages with my repeated notice. Please, enter always a title as a Wikipedia article. If there is no article, members can see it easily and classify the entry to the appropriate listing for articles to be (we are working on this currently). Also please, avoid external links in the lists, since it makes it hard to process the list. Thank you for your attention. Hoverfish 13:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Workgroup-level quality statistics

Please read. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures and Fair Use

It seems that the policy followed for pictures of actors is in violation of WP:FU. This means that a number of pages including Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Rani Mukerji and Preity Zinta are using inappropriate images that need to be removed. This point came up with regards to the picture used on the page Riya Sen - Please see Talk:Riya Sen. What do we now do for pictures?Gamesmaster G-9 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Salman Khan

A new user, LuckyS, has taken ownership of the Salman Khan article and reverts any changes to it, charging vandalism and defamation. Both Plumcouch and I have tried to reason with him. Plumcouch discussed the matter at the Administrator's Notice Board and enlisted a third opinion, which did not favor Lucky and which he ignored. If anyone else is still reading this discussion page, Plumcouch and I would appreciate it if you could come on over to the Salman Khan article and see what you can do to resolve this mess. Zora 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable Roles

Hey. Zora, pa_7, plumcouch, I think we ought to define notable roles: first , i put them on Rani's page, but now, it's everywhere and it's spreading. I think we should have a maximum of seven or eight notable roles because it takes lots of space. Plus, you can talk about notable roles in career section. I saw Brad Pitt's page and it has three notable roles when he has done much more than that. But since it's Bollywood and actors usually do thrice as many movies as actors in Hollywood, we should make nine the maximum but it's too much, eight or seven is maximum. We can decide later but that's what I think. And if another notable role comes up, we should remove the least notable from the list if the list already has a maximum. I would define a notable role as if it's a really big film and the actor played an important role in it. Another thing could be critical appreciation and box office results, though not applicable in the case for critical success only. Mostly, we should think of notable roles as powerful roles that leave an impact. The actor or actress must be really important in the movie. Like Bipasha Basu in Corporate or Sushmita Sen in Main Aisa Hi Hoon. Strong career women. Good thing! Ummhhh.. The list should have a variety. Like a prostitute profession in one film, in the other one, he or she should be a businessman or businesswoman, a housewife, a lawyer, a doctor. In Rani's case, for example, Saathiya and Chalte Chalte, they are similar films but she is a designer in one and a doctor in the other. But we should not put one of them on the list because the films are similar and then it's not notable cause the actor made a trademark and rather than others following him/her, she/he repeated herself and himself. Zora, you define. It's hard. A cameo should never be notable even though it can play an important part in a film like Kareena in Don. Lastly, I feel there should be a maximum of two notable role per year. But it's better when there is only one per year. Thanks for your time, you guys, now let's work. ---User:shez_15

We need to completely REMOVE notable roles, because it's personal opinion. Who choses what's notable and what's not? Suppose I hate Aamir Khan in Lagaan and think that Mann was his best movie? Can I make a list of all my fav Aamir movies and call those his notable roles? Sorry, this was a bad idea and I'm sorry that it's being imitated. I suppose you could make a list of the actor's top-grossing movies, but that wouldn't include the ones that were critical but not box-office successes. The best option is simply to cover it in the text -- mention that such and such movie was the top-grossing movie for the year, or was picked by some film critic as the best movie, or some such thing. That can be documented. Zora 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Notable roles is personal opinion. However, it would be possible to be OBJECTIVE if we had box office figures for all films in filmographies, and could then give a list of an actor/actress's top-grossing films. Top film? Top five? Award-winning films are covered in awards. Critical appreciation could be assessed, somewhat roughly, by having a section on critical reactions, and QUOTING reputable critics on performances in various films. That would be a lot more work, but it would not be personal opinion or subjective impression. Zora 07:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Model info boxes

Various editors have been adding model info boxes to various actress pages. We're given completely unreferenced physical statistics. IMHO, that's offensive (treating women as MEAT) and inaccurate. Measurements and weight vary constantly. For everyone. Variations may be small or large, but they're there.

That is not encyclopedic material. Zora 02:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're overreacting again. Some actresses have been successful models before crossing over, and therefore, the model infobox is appropriate. If you dispute the stats, put a {{fact}} tag. And seriously, vital stats of a model are public knowledge. In fact, I find your stance on this to be highly judgemental and offensive. MEAT? Please! Gamesmaster G-9 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who developed the model infobox, but it's inappropriate to use it for ANY woman. You think I'm being judgemental and offensive? I find it highly judgemental and offensive to use an encyclopedia article to rate a woman as if she were a prize cow entered in a farm fair. Udder size? Milk production? Weight? As if she could be reduced to a body, without intelligence or soul.

I'm trying to lose weight; I weigh myself every day and graph it! I know that my weight can fluctuate several pounds from one day to the next. Measurements can also change quickly, depending on weight loss and exercise. So who's responsible for these misleadingly exact statistics? Who's verifying them? I suspect that they come from the woman in question, or her publicist, making unverifiable claims intended to enhance her saleability as a model or an actress. This is NOT the sort of thing that should be enshrined in an encyclopedia. It's fluff and puffery. Hair, eye, and skin color can be changed (artificially and temporarily, but still changed), so about the only visible physical characteristics that would remain constant are height (though people slump and get slightly shorter as they age) and bone structure.

I have no objection to putting original hair, eye, and skin color in trivia, if there are references. Putting them in the infobox, as if they were the most important things about this person, is a misuse of the encyclopedia. Zora 08:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense. I'm sorry about your weight loss problems, but people's measurements do not vary on a day-to-day basis, especially for models, whose careers live and die by their measurement. And please stop this offensive Talibanic rant about assuming women are meat because they declare their physical measurements. They are models, for heaven's sake. They have made a clear informed choice to earn their bread based on how they look, and they have every right to do it. By insinuating that they are demeaning woman by this act - which you are, by extension - you are the one who is being offensive. As for where the measurements come from - I can tell you, because I have put some of them up myself - the Femina Miss India pages list the vitalstats of all contestants, past and present. Some may be outdated, in which case a mention of the year in parentheses would help. And finally, I've had it up to here with your claims on what counts as encyclopedic and what doesn't. Seriously, who died and made you God? You should listen to yourself sometimes. Gamesmaster G-9 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gamesmaster, what possible reason is there to think that the Miss India stats, as given by the contestants, were accurate at the time, and even more important, that they're still accurate years later? I'm female, I'm 59, I've been dieting off and on for years (like millions of other women), going through periods of exercise and no exercise -- my body has varied a great deal. This is true of all the other women I know! It's the sort of thing that women discuss among themselves. "I've gained five pounds ... I lost two pounds ... I've started swimming daily and lost two inches on my hips ..." Models and actresses, who live by their body, are even more likely to focus on such fluctuations, which no human can completely control. They're also more likely to have plastic surgery, as in, breast implants or liposuction, which are certainly going to change their measurements. Weight and physical measurements are ephemeral. Pictures tell the story, not stats. Do you watch your own weight? Do you exercise? If so, you should know all this stuff.

As I said, if you want to put original hair and eye color (if they can be determined, in these days of hair dye and contacts) in the trivia, that would be fine. Putting that sort of thing, along with inaccurate/ephemeral physical measurements, in an infobox at the top is making a statement about how important they are to you. Other people do not share those views or, if they do, they don't discuss it in mixed company or in formal situations -- both of which apply to WP. Zora 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists of films in different languages

There are three related lists named in a different fashion:

• List of popular Tollywood films
• Popular Bollywood films
• Popular Tamil films

I thought I'd ask here before I start renaming them as I'm not sure which form sounds most natural to you. A 'list of popular films' or just 'popular films'? Kollywood or Tamil? --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 01:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "List of ..." is probably the best form, since that makes it clear to users that they are going to find a list -- which non-desis may want to print out and take to the video store. But before you go renaming, let's see if anyone else has any opinions. Zora 03:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories of actors

Someone raised the question whether there is a need of a separate Category:Malayalam-language film actors alongside Category:Malayalam actors (not in the sense of 'film actors' vs. 'other actors', more like 'actors of ethnicity X' as opposed to 'actors of ethnicity Y performing in language X') What do you think? Is it needful to add Category:Telugu-language actors to Trisha Krishnan, an Tamil actor also performing in Telugu, or is it confusing? --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 01:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, this is getting into sticky territory. I'm not at all sure what makes someone Malayalam, or Bengali, or whatever. Some Indian film editors have started applying those categories ... even to people who were born in Mumbai and possibly grew up speaking English. We'd have to come to some agreement as to what constitutes regional affiliation in India .. which could be difficult. Acting IN a regional film industry is a little more clear-cut. The categories aren't going to match up. You have people like Amrish Puri and Rasul Bose who worked/work in several regional industries. I'd have no qualms about applying the latter. As to the former -- it should probably be discussed at the WikiProject India talk page. It's beyond our scope here. Zora 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you all handle Indian television actors as well?

Just saved Mohammad Iqbal Khan from being speedily deleted yesterday, added some sources and cleaned it up, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to make much more of a contribution. If anyone else can improve the article, would be grateful. Thanks! cab 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Cab.

Thanks for saving Mohammad - his article looks wonderful. I guess we handle the TV actors as well, problem is: all the news sites I know are about the movie stars and I don't live in India, hence I don't get to see Indian TV - only the movies. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A new barnstar award for contributions to South Indian cinema and music articles

... has materialised. Please see here. AppleJuggler 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for A-class and GA-class meters in the right-hand column of this page

We have indicators for the number of Indian cinema articles that fall under FA, B, Start and Stub classes. We dont have these for As and GAs. Could someone look into this please? Thanks. AppleJuggler 10:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That shows that there are no Indian cinema-related articles that are tagged with A or GA. "A" quality is for articles that are close to FA standard. "GA" is tagged when they are listed on the WP:GA page. As soon as any article is tagged GA and A, the links for them will show up. Hope that explains. -- Ganeshk (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If your question is related to Ilaiyaraaja that is GA now, I have changed the class to GA, after the next bot-run tonight, the statistics should show up as GA=1. Please wait a couple of days. -- Ganeshk (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganesh, thank you for your rapid response. The above article is also rated as an A-Class article and so you might like to set up an A-class article indicator/statistic on this Project page as well. You might like to list this article on the WikiProject Tamil Nadu. Cheers. AppleJuggler 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed its class from A to GA. They are both FA-standard quality. GA is nice-stamp of apporval to have from a neutral party. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking the Importance bar in the right-hand column of this page

The indicators for high/low importance articles on the right-hand column of this Project page do not have links to them that take you to listings of these articles. I propose these links be created. AppleJuggler 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs programmatic intervention. I will ask the bot-operator who creates these stats regarding your request. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request to the bot operator. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Ganesh. I noticed that the WikiProject India page could also benefit from the Wikilinking of 'importance' indicators. AppleJuggler 00:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I like how the class and importance ratings are arrayed now, in a single table. Brilliant. This helps us prioritize as its easier now to identify which articles are important and are most in need of work. AppleJuggler 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan

I've performed a full cleanup of the Shah Rukh Khan article. Compare the old version with my last diff. Peer review please? Ekantik 07:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Use_of_vernacular_scripts_in_India_bio_articles

interesting discussion --D-Boy 07:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

South Indian cinema barnstar

is being discussed here. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Free image request

Can someone upload a Free image of Aarti Chhabria (See: Image:Aarti Chhabria.jpg and its talk page)? I've also posted a request in the Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics--Victor 17:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone upload a Free image of Gul Panag and add it to article? Nadesai

Lage Raho Munna Bhai in Portal:India/Selected article candidates

Lage Raho Munna Bhai has been nominated in Portal:India/Selected article candidates. Please provide your inputs there to improve the article and make it a selected article in Portal:India. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Idea and request for editors concerning filmographies in articles

In article Ayesha Takia her Hindi and Telugu films are put nicely in separate sections which I think is a very nice and useful touch. I suggest future articles be structured in this way too and existing articles modified in the same manner. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 14:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. However, if noting the movie's language ... wouldn't that be enough? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That would do the trick as well. I noticed some articles are already set up like this. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a good idea. It's important for readers to know just how many films an actor/actress made in a certain year, no matter what their language. Number of films per year is a good index of career rise and fall. Also, I suspect that the various regional film industries may start merging ... when Dhoom 2 releases in Tamil at the same time as it releases in Hindi/Hindustani, this may be a presage of the future. It may get very tricky defining the "language" of a film if it is released in two or three languages.

Also, having mentioned this on various talk pages -- instead of classifying films as "hits" or "flops", without any supporting evidence, how about adding box office figures to any films for which they are available? This would make it easy to list an actor/actress's "Top ten films, by popularity", without falling into the pit of "personal opinion" evident in the lists of notable films that editors kept trying to add. It would also encourage us not to be so black and white. Actually, if we had any idea of the costs, we could figure out whether or not a film made money ... which could be useful information. The problem, of course, is getting valid info. I have the impression that film accounting, all over the world, is prone to fudging on royalties, tax evasion, or exaggeration for effect. Zora 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Subsection: Indian TV

Hello, everyone, how about we make a subsection on TV in India, especiially since some movie stars had their first break on the small screen (see Shahrukh Khan & Fauji) and, since movies are sometimes promoted on the small screen (Saif Ali Khan in Jassi Jaissi Koi Nahin or most recently, Amrita Rao and Shahid Kapoor on Kaajjal.) What do you think? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be a separate Wikiproject, a subset of WikiProject Television. But that's certainly a great idea! I couldn't contribute, but I'd wish everyone the best of luck. And I'd like to learn more about Indian TV. Zora 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)