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

Lucifer or 2018: First Malayalam movie to gross 200 crores

According to https://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/mohanlal-s-lucifer-storms-into-rs-200-crore-club-first-for-malayalam-cinema/story-vTm7JXaAdz0FWFTllE4n2I.html, Lucifer (2019 Indian film) is the first Malayalam film to gross 200 crore including all business. The article also says like that. But as per https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/malayalam/tovino-thomas-starrer-2018-becomes-first-malayalam-film-to-reach-rs-200-crore-milestone-8652435/lite/?utm_campaign=fullarticle&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=inshorts, 2018 (film) is the first Malayalam movie to gross 200 crores. Can somebody please correct everything. List of highest-grossing Malayalam films is also wrong. Please correct. Pinging Archer1234, Kailash29792, DaxServer, DareshMohan and Monhiroe. 116.68.101.209 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote can be added addressing this discrepancy. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"According to a report in Manorama, the film has collected ₹175 crore from theatres and fetched ₹13 crore from its digital streaming rights. Its satellite rights were sold for ₹6 crore and it made another ₹10 crore from TV rights in other languages." Lucifer never hit 200 crore. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:3D54:3EF9:BA79:5A29 (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Exceptions to WP:INDICSCRIPTS RFC

There is a new RFC on carving out some exceptions to WP:INDICSCRIPTS that is likely to be of special interest to this task-force since all Indian film articles will be affected. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinkvilla is unreliable for box office figures

The website pinkvilla deletes content from articles already published by them.

Take this article for example: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/highest-grossing-kollywood-movies-all-time-vikram-nears-400-crores-worldwide-1148728

There was a list of top ten highest grossing movies worldwide from Kollywood but now they have deleted it so it's not visible. This is not professional, I don't know any other website which deletes its previously published content. Cinephilekrr (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I believed Pinkvilla is generally unreliable as it is a tabloid site like Daily Mail (see WP:DAILYMAIL). Should we add it to WP:Perennial sources? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean add to sources which are not reliable? If yes then sure. Cinephilekrr (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinkvilla also changes its previously published content. Take this article for example: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/vikram-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-highest-grossing-tamil-film-all-time-1183986

They first reported a worldwide gross 432.5 crore, domestic gross 307.6 crore, overseas gross 124.9 crore. Then after a few days, they changed these figures same article. Now it shows worldwide gross 430 crore, domestic gross 306.5 crore, overseas gross 123.5 crore.

No professional website changes or deletes content from their already published articles. So, pinkvilla is not professional and not a reliable source for box office figures. Cinephilekrr (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier this year, before this edit on 26 February, which moved Pinkvilla from unreliable to reliable. It would need a new consensus to revert that move - Arjayay (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I consider pinkvilla unreliable, and user Kailash29792 said he also believes it is unreliable because it is a tabloid site. Take for example, publications like Hindustan Times or Times of India or Indian Express or India Today or News18 or Business Standard or any other reliable source listed in this page, they never delete or change their originally published content. Pinkvilla is the only site which deletes content in its already published content and changes content after a few months in the same original articles, which makes it highly unreliable. It will be better if other users tell their opinions too so we can reach a consensus to move pinkvilla to the list of unreliable sources. Thanks. Cinephilekrr (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, per that discussion it can be used for general info like interviews. But like Cinephilekrr I too say avoid using it for box office info. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed the issue mentioned above by Cinephilekrr in Pinkvilla articles written by Jatinder Singh. However, other authors at Pinkvilla such as Himesh Mankad and Rishil Jogani are generally reliable for box office. Do not support making Pinkvilla unreliable altogether.

(BangaloreNorth (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC))

Here's another article from pinkvilla where they have deleted originally published content: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/highest-grossing-films-year-2022-india-kgf-2-rrr-heavy-lifts-year-few-big-hits-many-misses-1166473

They had given a list of highest-grossing films at the Indian box office for 2022, but now they have deleted it so it's not visible. Cinephilekrr (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Some more articles of pinkvilla where they have deleted content already published by them:

https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/all-time-top-ten-highest-grossing-movies-india-kgf-chapter-2-second-1082046

https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/box-office-all-time-top-grossing-indian-movies-worldwide-rrr-rises-third-topping-rs-900-crores-1061675

They had given a list of highest-grossing films at the Indian box office, and a list for overseas, but now they have deleted, so both lists are not visible in these articles. Cinephilekrr (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who the author is, the website pinkvilla deletes content already published by it. So it is highly unreliable, and they might delete articles published by other authors like Himesh Mankad and Rishil Jogani too. Also, we are not talking about the reliability of individual authors, we are discussing the reliability of the site pinkvilla, and since it deletes content already published by it, it is highly unreliable. No other website deletes already published content. Cinephilekrr (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Authors give their articles to various sites. It is the site which publishes them. The author cannot publish or delete. It is the editorial board of the site that has the power to publish or delete. So from the above articles, it is very clear that the website pinkvilla deletes content originally given by the authors and published by it, which makes pinkvilla highly unreliable. No other reliable or professional website deletes content originally published by it. Cinephilekrr (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see these removals of content as a reason to designate Pinkvilla as unreliable. Publishing false information without due diligence or without editorial oversight to correct mistakes would be reasons to designate it as unreliable, but I am not seeing that here.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would they delete their content then? Must have been false information without due diligence as you say. Name any other website which deletes its original content like pinkvilla. I have found out 4 articles in which they have deleted at least 10 box office figures each, which totals 40 figures. And these figures must have been referenced in many Wikipedia pages too. Now if a user goes to any of these pages and clicks the link of pinkvilla, they will not find any of these figures because they have been deleted. Deleting previously published content is ridiculous and not done by any other publication. There must be more articles by them wherein content must have been deleted by them like these 4 articles I have mentioned in this discussion. How can you trust a website wherein you see content one day and you don't see it the next day? There cannot be any better reason to find a source highly unreliable. So I suggest pinkvilla be moved to unreliable sources as soon as possible. Cinephilekrr (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

As seen in this discussion, users such as Ab207 and Tayi Arajakate supported making Pinkvilla reliable. Even Kailash29792 did not object to it then. In this discussion, myself and Archer1234 are against making Pinkvilla unreliable. Unless there are more users to support Cinephilekrr's argument, Pinkvilla will continue to be reliable. I also request Cinephilekrr to stop edit warring on pages while a discussion is in progress.

(BangaloreNorth (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC))

Users Ab207 and Tayi Arajakate have not participated in this discussion, and user Kailash29792 has already said he believes pinkvilla is not reliable because it is a tabloid site. I have said it is not reliable too. We both are saying it is not reliable for box office figures. Even you yourself said you see this issue in pinkvilla articles by Jatinder Singh and didn't say pinkvilla is reliable for these articles. So majority are against these pinkvilla articles which show deleted content and box office figures. So pinkvilla can be considered unreliable for box office figures now as per this discussion. And user Archer1234 hasn't replied yet to my previous message. Don't try to bring users who haven't participated in this discussion to decide. Pinkvilla continues to be unreliable as per this discussion now. Cinephilekrr (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I request all users to comment on how anyone can trust any website wherein you see content one day and you don't see it a few days later, and on how you can trust pinkvilla when they have deleted 40 box office figures published by them in 4 articles previously. Cinephilekrr (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I gave the link to the original discussion conducted in March 2022 about the reliability of Pinkvilla above. If you missed it, here it is:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 7#Reliability_of_Pinkvilla

Users Ab207, Tayi Arajakate and Kailash29792 were in favour of making Pinkvilla reliable then.

And I stated that I have noticed the issue you mentioned. Nothing else.

Other than desperately fighting against Pinkvilla as if the site has done you some harm, you have not provided any concrete reason yet as to why Pinkvilla should be unreliable.

Being a tabloid does not automatically guarantee that it is unreliable. For many tabloids like Daily Mirror (WP:DAILYMIRROR), Daily NK (WP:DAILYNK),

Morning Star and Evening Standard, there is still no consensus on whether they are reliable or not.

(BangaloreNorth (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC))

I have given more than concrete reasons, have you even read my messages here? I didn't say pinkvilla is tabloid, user Kailash said it is. And he said he believes it is not reliable. Why are you bringing previous discussion here? Those users haven't even commented here. Don't try to support a website which deletes its own content, which makes it highly unreliable, and read my reasons again here. Cinephilekrr (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is not yet consensus to change Pinkvilla from its current designation as generally reliable. Perhaps that could change, but absent that, it is premature and disruptive to remove citations to Pinkvilla using this discussion as the reason. No one of us has the sole authority to declare a new consensus has been reached, especially when there is clear disagreement.

Perhaps an RFC will be needed ultimately to resolve the discussion, but it is important to note that RFCs and polling are not votes. An uninvolved editor would need to assess the various arguments and close the RFC with their judgement.

From: WP:NOTVOTE

It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important.

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User BangaloreNorth is not commenting on the current issue of deletion of content by pinkvilla. Instead he is bringing past discussion which has no relevance here. He is saying things I didn't say in this discussion and always talks about the previous discussion and its participants, who haven't even commented on this current issue in this discussion here. He is trying to distract other users from the current issue. He isn't giving his opinion and saying irrelevant things. So I request all other users to comment on the current issue of pinkvilla deleting its previously published content thereby making it highly unreliable. Cinephilekrr (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In this discussion, 5 users have commented till now. Myself and user Kailash29792 consider pinkvilla generally unreliable and agree to avoid using it for box office information. User BangaloreNorth does not support making it unreliable altogether. User Archer1234 doesn't see removals of content as a reason to designate it as unreliable. User Arjayay hasn't commented on the issue. So to reach a consensus, comments of more users are needed. Cinephilekrr (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice it. I will have a look at it. Arj D Arjun (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

yes..Pinkvilla is indeed unreliable as it shows collections from different websites that might not be authentic. Harshit Kumar (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would post some examples of this.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Harharshit. Just a bump to see if you can provide examples where Pinkvilla shows collections from different websites that might not be authentic.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not completely against Pinkvilla's usage now. Let it be used for general info, not sensitive ones, box office figures or exceptional claims. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Technical Fact Finding

I spent a good deal of my day trying to resolve this in a quick and efficient manner. However, it wasn't as successful as I hoped. To encapsulate a detailed review below, I recommend that Pinkvilla remains a reliable source but that it is recognized as volatile with special actions needed.

• I reviewed the editorial policy and found it satisfactory to meeting a reliability standard. This statement reflects what we might possibly be seeing with the continual updates and removals:

  We understand that it’s important for our content to evolve just the way our world and trends do. Hence, the editorial team and Pinkvilla ensures that we update our content on a regular basis to avoid having outdated information reaching our readers. We also make sure that our content is accurate and devoid of any kind of errors.

  I do wish that they required a correction statement if a page has been updated.
• I reviewed the page sources of a few box office pages to see if I could get an old copy of the pages. Unfortunately, while I could see the <meta> tag for the original publish date and time, there was no obvious way to retrieve the original copy. There were also no hidden notes on any changes between versions.
  • This brings me to a special actions needed of using archive urls in the citations to capture the pages in question. There are two possible semi-automated methods using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to capture the live status: using a specially crafted bookmark or by using a python script based on the user's comfort level. One could also do it manually by using the WayBack Machine's form page. By adding the resulting save to the archive-url parameter, the archive url can be made active with adding url-status=deviated to the citation, reflecting that the original live page changed.
• My last item of note is that it would be extremely helpful if the motion picture industry in India made these box office reports public. This is about where half my time went into today, trying to locate these reports through the guilds or trade organizations. I would say, that it might be more useful to come up with a priority list of media websites that seem to have a better presentation than Pinkvilla. I was pretty impressed by Indian Paper Ink's presentation of Adipurush's box office results. Inomyabcs (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This statement from their editorial policy states that they will update outdated content. But they're deleting content without any explanation. Updating and deleting are completely different things. They say they'll make sure their content is accurate, but my point is there is no content at all. See those 4 articles I've mentioned in my previous comments in this discussion and you'll find the main content completely deleted. So this is acting against their own editorial policy. How can pinkvilla be a reliable source if they don't even follow their own editorial policy and delete content without any explanation? Cinephilekrr (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User Archer1234 says he doesn't find removal of content as reason to designate pinkvilla unreliable, and views of user Inomyabcs are such that unexplained content removal is also a kind of update. These views are dangerous to general editorial practices. It would mean anyone can delete anything from previously published content without giving any explanation. Do we consider unexplained content removal as update in Wikipedia? We don't. We revert unexplained removal of content on a daily basis here in Wikipedia. Every edit removing content must be explained even in Wikipedia. Unexplained content removal is never accepted anywhere according to general editorial practices, and pinkvilla is no exception. That is why no other publication deletes content like pinkvilla deletes. So I request these users to review your opinions. I also request other users to comment on the unexplained content removal of pinkvilla in many of its previously published articles as discussed here making it highly unreliable. Cinephilekrr (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it optimal? No. With the amount of coverage regarding Indian box office figures, there are enough sources to confirm any statement Pinkvilla makes. So even if the original material disappears, there are enough secondary sources to confirm the original material. Like I described above, there are immediate steps that can be taken to preserve Pinkvilla's material. I don't think this rises to the level of needing to blacklist the site from the topic of box office numbers. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The original material doesn't disappear by itself. They delete the content. You yourself said you couldn't find any original figures of the contents deleted by them in the above mentioned 4 articles. How will anyone be able to preserve them now? And it is not editors of Wikipedia that need to preserve, it is pinkvilla who must preserve their original content. And how many users do you think would take these immediate steps? Most just see the box office numbers and give the link. What happens to those references made in Wikipedia pages now which link to those 4 pinkvilla articles where they have deleted those 40 box office numbers? Are you going to give secondary sources to those figures? And what sources can confirm "any statement" pinkvilla makes? Give examples here. And even if there are enough sources as you claim, then why trust pinkvilla which deletes its content which no other sources do? It is much better to give the links of those other sources and their box office numbers because they don't delete their content like pinkvilla does. We can always go back to the links of those sources and find the original content there as it was published. Pinkvilla is the most untrustworthy source because they are the only site who delete their content. Cinephile4ever 11:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This argument by Inomyabcs is invalid, because we are discussing the reliability of pinkvilla and not other sources. It's like saying, when we are discussing the reliability of Times of India, there are same figures given by other sites like Hindustan Times. Simply because another site has the same figures doesn't make the the site in question reliable. So the solution offered by Inomyabcs is not at all optimal. Wikipedia users can't be asked to preserve content deleted by the content providers themselves. It is common sense that if a content provider deletes their own content without any explanation and without following their own editorial policy, it makes them automatically highly unreliable, especially when no other publication deletes like this. It doesn't require much discussion. So the solution to make pinkvilla unreliable for box office figures, and use other reliable sources which don't delete their content is much more optimal and better and easier for all Wikipedia users, as agreed by 3 users of this discussion so far, including myself, user Kailash29792 and user Harshit Kumar. Cinephile4ever 12:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Invalid, huh? You know if you are going to email and canvas for responses, you better understand that others may not agree with your view point. There are thousands of dead links all across Wikipedia, it is the nature of the Internet. It doesn't mean the information wasn't reliable at one point, especially if it can be verified by others. You just illustrated the Times of India and Hindustan Times. I'll give you another example, the film RRR on the list of highest-grossing Indian films is supported by 31 citations. Three of those are from Pinkvilla and of those the first one is now dead, but the later two are still live and can verify the numbers better than the first dead one. Again, for me, in this topic, there is no pressing need to term Pinkvilla unreliable. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't email or canvas, I just requested for comments from various users who are most involved in editing Indian film related content here. Dead links are not the same as removing content originally published without any explanation. Again you are digressing. Give any example of any other publication deleting content without explanation like pinkvilla, instead of giving examples of dead links, which are not relevant to this discussion. Cinephile4ever 14:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I can see where you might think I am off-topic. Let's try this. My definition of unreliable is different than yours. In the context of how I read WP:RS, Pinkvilla's information is verifiable and while their editorial oversight could be strengthened, I could make the argument that the editors and authors do fact-check. If I interpret your stance correctly, it is that because the information is not available to you at a later date, you can't depend on it (yes, a synonym for reliability to be sure but not explicitly outlined in WP:RS). I propose the following: keep Pinkvilla as generally reliable, but with a note stating that other sources are preferable. Inomyabcs (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. 3 users in this discussion including myself, user Kailash29792 and user Harshit Kumar consider pinkvilla generally unreliable, especially for box office figures. 2 users Archer1234 and BangaloreNorth don't consider pinkvilla unreliable altogether. 1 user Inomyabcs considers pinkvilla generally reliable but other sources are preferable. Based on this discussion, the consensus can be updated that for box office figures, other sources should be preferred since pinkvilla deletes box office figures earlier reported by them. Cinephile4ever 04:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have updated to avoid pinkvilla's box office figures as per this discussion.

And one last thing to add. Here's another recent article by pinkvilla: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/2018-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-biggest-malayalam-film-of-all-time-1226013

Look at how ridiculous they are in reporting two box office figures (176 crore and 177 crore) for the same film "2018" in the same article. And when I checked the Wikipedia page for that film, some Wikipedia user had given the figure of 176 crore. Then I corrected by giving a reliable source. This is how most Wikipedia users edit content here. They don't even read the article fully. They just give the figure that is visible at the top of the article. And user Inomyabcs talked about asking Wikipedia users to preserve pinkvilla's deleted content.

Another thing I noticed is user Archer1234 had also contributed to that film's Wikipedia page, and it seems even he didn't notice this. And it was him who talked about how publishing information without editorial oversight to correct mistakes would be reason to designate pinkvilla as unreliable. And now he has got his reason. Pinkvilla publishes information without even correcting mistakes as seen in this article which makes it unreliable as per the argument of user Archer1234. Cinephile4ever 06:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's another recent pinkvilla article of the same kind: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/ponniyin-selvan-part-2-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-earns-nearly-rs-350-crores-globally-1225415

They are giving 3 figures for the same film "Ponniyin Selvan 2" in the same article: nearly 350 crore, 345 crore, 345.50 crore. And 2 figures for domestic gross: 215 crore and 215.50 crore. Cinephile4ever 09:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

How is that consensus? Based on what you just said, 3 users support making Pinkvilla unreliable and 3 do not. Why are you so desperate in declaring Pinkvilla unreliable Cinephile4ever ? Is it because you have a sockpuppet investigation going on against you and because you know that you will likely be blocked in two or three days ?

(BangaloreNorth (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

I am not a sockpuppet, I won't be blocked and you know it too. Actually 4 people say other sources are better than pinkvilla for box office and I'm sure another user will agree too after seeing the above articles. Also why don't you say anything about a user named Ab207 who declared india.com unreliable within lesser than 12 hours and not even allowed other users to give their opinions? How is that consensus? You kept on bringing that user and the previous discussion which are irrelevant here. Why don't you comment on the current issue in a relevant manner? If anybody is a sockpuppet, it should be you. You must apologise to me for knowingly making false accusations after they find out I'm not a sockpuppet. Cinephile4ever 09:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please name those 4 users. Inomyabcs was of the opinion that Pinkvilla be kept reliable. Why are you twisting the words of other people to suit your agenda? Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect? Of course you have. If not, why would you be begging other users for support on their talk pages Cinephile4ever ? Or should I say Arjun19990012 or MovieBuffIndia. Whatever. (BangaloreNorth (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

1. User Harshit Kumar considers pinkvilla generally unreliable.

2. I consider it unreliable especially for box office figures because they delete them after publishing.

3. User Kailash29792 said pinkvilla should be avoided for box office info.

4. User Inomyabcs said that other sources are preferable for box office figures than pinkvilla.

These are the 4 users.

And I'm sure user Archer1234 will agree to avoid pinkvilla for box office figures too, because they give different figures in the same article for the same film, and their editorial board does not correct mistakes as per the evidence above, which makes pinkvilla unreliable as per the user's own argument.

That leaves only you now.

I'm not twisting anybody's words. Read their comments again here. I have said exactly that they have said.

I don't have any agenda. Even if any other site had done the same things as pinkvilla, I would still be saying the same.

And you are attacking me personally, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. So stop doing it. Cinephile4ever 10:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You know what. You are not even worth my time and energy. Or anyone's for that matter. WP:SPI will deal with you now. BangaloreNorth (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have complained about your personal attack and false accusations against me to administrators who will deal with you now. Cinephile4ever 10:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ooh score BangaloreNorth (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you had to deal with that. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It is premature to declare a consensus unilaterally when there is obvious disagreement. It appears we are in WP:DE territory here, including WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT and WP:POINTY. Tread carefully lest you find these behaviors reported to administrators. — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah well how can one expect consensus in a "territory" of no common sense and just personal attacks. I should have known better. Sigh. Cinephile4ever 12:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Inomyabcs has made a good point and an interesting proposal. I'd like to see the exact language to be used to characterize PV with respect to BO. Absent other information being presented with respect to PV's reliability, I think the language should be clear that it not be used as the basis for wholesale removal of citations of PV for BO, especially for instances where PV is the only source. That doesn't preclude removing citations for other reasons (e.g., more up-to-date information has been reported, excessive citations (REFBOMB), etc.), just that the guidance is not to remove on this basis alone. As I said, though, I'd like to see some proposed language for the consensus before lending full support.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

How about we ask the editorial board of pinkvilla for an "interesting" language for this "interesting" proposal? Cinephile4ever 14:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't updating the consensus to avoid box office figures from pinkvilla mean that other sources must be preferred for box office figures which is the interesting proposal of user Inomyabcs? I can't think of a better language. If someone can, glad. Also I can't think of an instance where pinkvilla would be the only source for box office figures of any film. Cinephile4ever 00:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. What I have been trying to get across though, is that if we declare Pinkvilla as unreliable all links have to be removed even live ones that can be verified with other sources. By asking for no new links, we can keep existing references and hopefully we can get them archived in something like the wayback machine before those are dead as well. Inomyabcs (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the existing consensus now: "Pinkvilla.com - Generally reliable for film-related content (Discussed here; avoid celebrity gossip)"

I updated the consensus by just adding the words "and box office figures" after the word gossip. I meant to keep pinkvilla generally reliable for other film related content like interviews, etc, and just to avoid it for box office figures. I felt that would mean other sources be preferred for box office figures, which is not just the proposal of user Inomyabcs, but also myself, user Kailash29792, and user Harshit Kumar. And if user Archer1234 agrees (I'm sure he will), his too.

I thought that was a consensus, and I still think it is. But I'm not going to update it again only to get it reverted again. So let user Archer1234 reply, and whenever someone feels like a consensus is reached, they can update it with a better language or the same language I used. Cinephile4ever 01:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh and btw did our beloved user BangaloreNorth decide not to spend their time and energy contributing with personal attacks and "highly relevant" comments, I just miss the laughs. (Note: this comment is just my mind voice) My mind wanders. Cinephile4ever 04:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this but have some things to deal with "in real life". It will also help me to step away and reflect on the points made when not in the heat of the debate. I intend to post something later today. Keep in mind that this is not an urgent matter and that there is no deadline, so, patience will be helpful. In the meantime, I do encourage editors to continue the discussion with any new points that have not already been made. I think the discussion would also benefit from participation by more editors who have not already commented.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Before you comment, check this article again: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/vikram-worldwide-closing-box-office-collections-highest-grossing-tamil-film-all-time-1183986

There are 2 worldwide gross figures (432.5 crore and 430 crore) and 3 Indian gross figures (307.6 crore, 307 crore and 306.5 crore) for the same film in the same article.

Does this make pinkvilla unreliable as per your own argument that "publishing information without due diligence or without editorial oversight to correct mistakes would be reasons to designate it as unreliable" in your own words user Archer1234? Cinephile4ever 03:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I will check the article and let you know what I think.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok Cinephile4ever 16:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I also request users Inomyabcs and Kailash29792 to comment on the mistakes without editorial oversight in the aforementioned article. Cinephile4ever 02:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be a bit more helpful if we have some more examples related to editorial oversight (and also ones other than box office figures since Pinkvilla might be unreliable for other topics). 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 04:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinkvilla could be termed as a reliable source with respect to box office figures. But, it is generally reliable only for Telugu and Hindi films. I agree that the website updates/changes few figures, but this is done mostly for the Tamil and other major industry films, where the box office tracking system is not much organized. Yeah, even for Telugu and Hindi films, figures are altered, but when compared with Tamil films this is very low. I find Tamil box office tracking system problematic, even most of the Tier-2 (medium and low budget) Telugu films have good tracking system (atleast for Andhra-Nizam and North America markets). Altering the figures for Tamil films is done on regular basis (and for Tier-2 films, there is no proper tracking system at all). Not just pinkvilla, many sites actually reports new figures every time, for better understanding go through Tamil film box-office related pages, you see there is a vast difference between the range of the figures. This is all because of no proper box office tracking system. Pinkvilla doesn't exclusively have Chennai or Hyderabad-based team to look into the box office system, exclusively. Thus, I feel they rely mostly on the 3rd party figures, which in case of Hindi/Telugu films are almost reliable but not with the case of other language films. The entire scenario is also same with the Malayalam films. They too don't have proper tracking system, which led to several vandalism edits on the related pages. Only few big-star/budgeted films getting good tracking in Tamil, Malayalam or other industries. As Cinephile4ever mostly edits Tamil film content related pages, he found the website problematic. There is nothing wrong with his point of view, but try to understand the updating/changing figures to suit reliability is nothing wrong. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So Jayanthkumar123, you're saying that pinkvilla is generally unreliable for box office figures of Tamil films, is that right? Cinephile4ever 05:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not my opinion. I have said that due to no proper tracking system, such incidents happen where the figures that are reported earlier could be updated/changed, to be reliable. Most of the websites have same issue with respect to Tamil films. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

But you said, it is generally reliable only for Telugu and Hindi films. So I thought it means it is generally unreliable for Tamil films. Also, I don't see any other website like pinkvilla deleting or changing box office figures, so give examples. And did you see the 4 articles I have mentioned in the start of the discussion. They have deleted 40 box office figures of various Hindi, Telugu and Tamil films too. So I feel they are not reliable for those films also. Cinephile4ever 05:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is they're not updating/changing to be reliable. They're deleting without any explanation to be unreliable. No other website does this, because they know they should not delete without any explanation. And they also publish with a lot of mistakes like in the article I mentioned above relating to the box office of Vikram movie. So as per the argument of user Archer1234, pinkvilla is unreliable for publishing with mistakes without editorial oversight. Read that article too, they have given 2 worldwide box office figures and 3 Indian box office figures for the same film in the same article which is laughable. It makes them highly unreliable because no other website publishes such laughable content with so many mistakes. Cinephile4ever 05:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's all be clear about this discussion. Updating/changing box office figures is done by all publications as per the latest information. That is not the issue here.

The 2 issues in this discussion are:

1. Pinkvilla deletes content without any explanation, as you can see from those 4 aforementioned articles, where they have deleted more than 40 box office figures of Indian films, including Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada films. No website deletes content without explanation like this, because they shouldn't.

2. Pinkvilla publishes information with a lot of mistakes without any editorial oversight, as you can see from the aforementioned article of Vikram movie's box office collection, wherein they have given 2 worldwide gross figures and 3 Indian gross figures for the same film in the same article. This type of ridiculous reporting is also not by any other website.

These are the issues why pinkvilla should be considered unreliable. Cinephile4ever 06:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright I'm leaving this discussion because I can't be saying the same thing 40 times to every new user commenting here. I can only hope common sense will prevail some day. Cinephile4ever 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

filmcompanion.in at Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Hi, a discussin has been started at WP:RSN as to whether filmcompanion.in is a reliable source. It's at the bottom of the page, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• The RSN discussion has been started afresh, and can be accessed here. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of sacnilk.com

sacnilk.com is considered unreliable source as per this Wikipedia page, but many other reliable sources like Hindustan Times and Indian Express use figures from the site sacnilk in their articles.

Here is an example of such a Hindustan Times article published today: https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/adipurush-box-office-day-6-collection-250-crore-india-101687400771000.html

And here is such an Indian Express article published yesterday: https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/adipurush-box-office-collection-day-5-prabhas-kriti-sanon-ramayana-tuesday-drop-8676295/

And I have seen some Wikipedia users give references to these articles along with the box office figures reported therein for the film Adipurush. Is this acceptable or not? If yes, it would mean sacnilk is no longer considered unreliable. I request other users to comment on this, thanks. Cinephile4ever 13:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we consider WP:FRUIT, which is not a policy but essay? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the essay, I agree with it, so I say we can consider it in this case. But, my question is, would it also make the current reliable sources like Hindustan Times, Indian Express and others which use sacnilk figures in their reports unreliable too? Cinephile4ever 16:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of india.com

In this archived discussion, a single user named Ab207 started the discussion at 20:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC), and ended the discussion by saying india.com is unreliable at 08:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC). This is lesser than a day of time. How can this amount to silent consensus? In this article, it says, "Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus." This user has not even waited for a day for other users to comment and reach a consensus. So I suggest this user's edit of considering india.com unreliable by taking liberty himself be reverted. Cinephile4ever 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I think the reversion is disruptive. You don't wait 1 year 3 months and 26 days to object and not seek discussion about something that has been consensus (even a "silent consensus") that long. Seems a bit WP:POINTY to me. Instead, I would have expected substantive reasons to have been provided here on the talk page for objecting (arguing the points that @Ab207: made), seeking a new consensus for its removal.

I assume that you are editing in good faith, but I encourage you to slow down a bit. I think you are moving too fast and making mistakes in collaborating in a constructive manner.

I am going to restore the consensus on india.com that was removed. I look forward to reading here the substantive reasons why it should not continue to be listed as unreliable. I am certainly open to the possibility that the situation and circumstances that existed previously may no longer exist.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I only noticed now, that user took liberty within lesser than a day. If I had noticed that 1 year 3 months and 26 days before, I would have objected it then. Im Cinephile4ever 16:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That so called "silent consensus" was reached in Feb 2022 (I won't accept it as a consensus because it isn't). I became an editing user only in March 2022 when I created this account. If I had seen the time of that user of lesser than 12 hours to reach that so called "consensus" before, I would have done the same for the pinkvilla discussion I started within lesser than 12 hours too, and not be trying to talk some common sense to people here. Sigh. Cinephile4ever 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I think we get that you object. Upon what basis would you have objected back then? Is india.com reliable? Where, in AB207's post, were the points made not correct or are no longer an issue?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Upon the same basis I object now. You can't close a discussion saying you take liberty within lesser than 12 hours, not even allowing other users to comment. Cinephile4ever 16:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cinephile4ever, I think that you are missing the point. We get that you don't like that Ab207 did not wait longer. But if he had waited longer, would you have argued against his view that india.com is unreliable? If so, upon what non-procedural basis?

Do you think india.com is reliable? If so, explain why the points that Ab207 made were not then or are not now valid?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You tell me how a single user deciding something within lesser than 12 hours and not even allowing other users to comment is consensus in the first place? Cinephile4ever 04:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to completely stop using India.com. Articles regurigating producer figures (which was why the discussion occured) can be simply recognised as such, and is something TOI and Indian Express have also done in the past despite their reliability. India.com has interviews with celebrities too, considering their parent group these should be perfectly fine.2001:8F8:172B:41ED:2D5E:DC11:DD06:64BE (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of pinkvilla

Is pinkvilla a reliable source for box office information? Cinephile4ever 13:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added notices of this at WP:RSN, WP:WikiProject India, and WP:WikiProject Film.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The website pinkvilla deletes a lot of content from many articles already published by them without any explanation.

Take this article for example: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/highest-grossing-kollywood-movies-all-time-vikram-nears-400-crores-worldwide-1148728

There was a list of top 10 highest grossing movies worldwide from Kollywood but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

Here's another article from pinkvilla where they have deleted originally published content: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/highest-grossing-films-year-2022-india-kgf-2-rrr-heavy-lifts-year-few-big-hits-many-misses-1166473

They had given a list of 10 highest-grossing films at the Indian box office for 2022, but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

Another article of pinkvilla where they have deleted content already published by them: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/all-time-top-ten-highest-grossing-movies-india-kgf-chapter-2-second-1082046

They had given a list of top 10 highest-grossing films in India, but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

Another article of pinkvilla where they have deleted content already published by them: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/box-office-all-time-top-grossing-indian-movies-worldwide-rrr-rises-third-topping-rs-900-crores-1061675

They had given a list of top 10 highest-grossing Indian films worldwide, but now they have deleted it so it's not visible.

They have deleted at least 10 box office figures each from these aforementioned 4 articles, which totals 40 figures. And these figures must have been referenced in many Wikipedia pages too. Now if a user goes to any of these pages and clicks the link of any of these pinkvilla articles, they will not find any of these figures because they have been deleted. How can one trust a website wherein you see content one day and you don't see it the next day?

So based on the above evidence, my opinion is that pinkvilla is unreliable for box office information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinephile4ever (talk • contribs) 13:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Modifying an already-published article doesn't necessarily indicate unreliability. Do we have any indication of why they have done so? Can you find the previous version on web.archive.org? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have an indication of why they have done so. I think they must have "modified" their articles by deleting the main content itself to indicate that they aren't "necessarily" unreliable. How about we ask the editors of pinkvilla to find the previous version on that archive site? Cinephile4ever 14:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Updated end of year numbers were published here, https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/top-highest-grossing-films-at-the-indian-box-office-in-2022-kgf-chapter-2-tops-followed-by-rrr-and-avatar-2-1205238 Inomyabcs (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I find this placing wrong, you better give this in your reply Cinephile4ever 15:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was corrected. I wasn't entirely sure and left a conciliatory edit summary. My apologies. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This editor is attempting to relitigate "Pinkvilla is unreliable for box office figures" a few sections above this one. They've already had it explained to them that content disappearing from a website is not grounds to mark it unreliable. I suggest closing this and asking the editor to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No consensus was reached, that's why this RFC. We need more users opinions to reach consensus. So no dropping of stick. Cinephile4ever 15:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright so if content "disappears" from Wikipedia because of some users engaging in unexplained content removal, will Wikipedia continue to be reliable? Cinephile4ever 15:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright RfC withdrawn (this stick dropped). Let's see if we can reach consensus in the previous discussion (that stick not yet dropped). Cinephile4ever 00:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of cinereveal.com

I don't know anything about this site, and it is only used in 6 articles - any opinions? - Arjayay (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks amateur to me. They don't even have an "About us" page. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Their newsletter subscription link is broken. I don't know how they're reaching 20 million users with 0 Facebook followers, 19 Twitter followers, and 12 YouTube subscribers. Just another nameless, faceless website. Geniac (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Haraa (film)

Would some members of ICTF take a look at Draft:Haraa (film) and see if there's anything worth saving? It was actually in the mainspace until quite recently when it was draftified. Generally, it's not considered good practice to draftify articles which are more than 90 days old; so, the article should probably go to WP:AFD if there's really nothing to WP:PRESERVE. The creator of the article has been indefinitely blocked, which means that the draft will end up being deleted per WP:G13 in six months if it remains as is; so, if it's really hopeless, then it probably be discussed and deleted by consensus instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)