Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

Main page

Discussion

Participants

Alerts

Announcements

Main article

To-do list

Assessment

Notable articles

Hindi cinema recognised content

Malayalam cinema recognised content

Tamil cinema recognised content

Telugu cinema recognised content

Reliability of sources listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES

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

I agree. Most of the sources are biased and paid. A certain concrete guideline must be set and preferably an RfC must be done to single out the actual tracker websites.

Also, I should add that in down South, such tracker websites do not exist. Sites such as Pinkvilla only track the movies only if the movie makes headlines. Hence, that should also be kept in mind. The discrepancies between the actual collections and the publicized collections by the producers have caused multiple edit wars in many pages, especially in Malayalam movie pages. So, if we can get a consensus on that, it would be great. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Sites like Pinkvilla, where the editors often fail to reveal their source of information should be scrutinized more Rahu619 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is old discussion and I remembered we had discussion before on it. RangersRus (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

@DreamRimmer:, shall we revisit this RfC this weekend? Summer box office need a good guideline and pointers. What I was thinking is, let's just pick apart the ones under reliable section and scrutinize every single one and try to reach a consensus. A level 3 heading for each, which will help future editors to link faster and search faster. Savvy? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have started an essay for better source analysis, which when completed, can incorporate this RfC results and can be transcluded into the page, or can even be made as an opinion/guideline essay. I am thinking of a table like WP:RS/P in alphabetical order for faster and easier navigation. Anyone can drop by and help out with suggestions or edits. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Herald, this is EXCELLENT. I think once complete, it will be easier to update in the same manner WP:RS/P is based on any future WP:RSN thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I have created a shortcut WP:ICTFSA (Yes, a pun on essay and Source Analysis as well). More sources can be added onto it from ICTFFAQ or after consensus from here or RSN. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Note: Please do not edit the verdict line when there is no clear consensus in RS/P, or on RS/N or any talk pages. Only the clear consensus discussions are deemed automatically reliable.

123Telugu

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

I see this being added to pages on the same day the articles come out. Gives me the impression of possible COI. Regardless, there seems to be discussion that it is not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

About us shows that the site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy. This itself makes it unreliable I think. RangersRus (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't have a specific time period in my mind. But the ones who's reliability or unreliability is established, we can close the subsection and add it to the list. Ideally, an uninvolved editor should close, so maybe we can ping some admin or someone who's active here for that. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

I have posted on WP:RSN to get verdict on these sources moviecrow.com, 123telugu.com, Indiaglitz.com, cinejosh.com, behindwoods.com, thesouthfirst.com, latestly.com. Still what you think of these sources? @CNMall41: @The Herald: RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I too have doubt about cinejosh.com but also for moviecrow.com (does not have any information on this site about the company. Maybe a blog or personal site). 123telugu.com has been considered unreliable for boxoffice numbers and as a whole site unreliable but had no final stance to completely put it on the unreliable list. Indiaglitz also has nothing on the company information and the contact us link takes you to homepage. This too seems a personal site or a blog. Others too I have doubts. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

123Telugu can be used for general film-related updates and independent interviews. This site have many articles that are related to smaller Telugu films doesn't have in the mainline media. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Question is reliability. The site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy and this puts the reliability of this source in question adding onto what is said here by an administrator Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_8#Reliability_of_123Telugu.com_-_123telugu. RangersRus (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Bollywood Hungama by Hungama Digital Media Entertainment

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

BOL Network

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Specifically BOLNEWS which is used 400+ times as a reference on Wikipedia. Cannot find editorial standards so unsure if reliable or not. Although the network is out of Pakistan, it has many references for Indian and other non-Pakistani cinema.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a recent RSN discussion which indicates it's generally unreliable. It was also added to WP:NPPSG as unreliable based the discussion. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.com)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

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

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

— WP:ICTFFAQ table

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

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

Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.co.in)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Business Standard

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Paid articles are published by Business Standard here. Articles which's URL contain "content/specials/" are sponsored. Grabup (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

All articles in the Content/specials/ doesn't contain disclaimers, some contains, same like India Today. Here are some examples:

1. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/pioneering-thoughts-with-dipen-bhuva-a-fusion-of-healthcare-cybersecurity-and-ai-124040900630_1.html
2. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/hutech-solutions-announces-sanjeev-kulkarni-as-new-chief-product-officer-cpo-124040900662_1.html

Grabup (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Business Today

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

CNN-IBN's IBN Live

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Daily News and Analysis

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Deccan Chronicle

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

One thing to watch for (and maybe we just need a disclaimer if the overall source is found to be reliable) is anything marked as written by "DC Correspondent." These are contributor posts and often have a disclaimer that they have not been vetted by editorial staff. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Deccan Herald

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Dina Thanthi

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Dinakaran by Sun Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

EastMojo

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

I brought this up at RSN a while back but only had one comment. It is being used a few hundred times as a reference but do not see it as being reliable. Bringing it here since it seems to have a lot of film references and we are addressing many of them now. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Filmfare

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

It is used over 2000 times as a reference on Wikipedia. Here is their about page. I do not see editorial oversight and sounds more like TMZ in my opinion. Just at first glance I think it could be used maybe to verify basic information such as film roles but nothing for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Film Companion

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Film Information

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

run by Komal Nahta; see here, for example

Verdict

Firstpost

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Forbes India

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1 ("Branded Content" discussion), 2

Comments

Used 800+ times in Wikipedia. Note that it is NOT overseen by Forbes editorial staff. It is (what I believe) branded as Forbes (likely from licensing agreement). It is actually owned by Network 18. It is used as a reference in many film and actor pages.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Hindustan Times

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

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

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

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

Verdict

India Today by Living Media

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

India Today has published paid articles within its "Impact Feature" section, with 50 articles currently cited. It's important to note that sponsored content should not be used as a citation. I encourage anyone to help remove them; I'm actively working on it as well. Grabup (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

They haven't included disclaimers in all of their Impact Feature articles, but there are some instances where disclaimers have been added to articles. "Disclaimer: The contents herein are for informational purposes only. If you have any queries, you should directly reach out to the advertiser. India Today Group does not guarantee, vouch for, endorse any of its contents and hereby disclaims all warranties, express or implied, relating to the same."

Examples:

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/piramal-finance-offers-home-loans-with-seamless-process-and-competitive-terms-2510232-2024-03-04

2. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/could-2024-be-the-year-gold-has-been-waiting-for-a-long-time-2503014-2024-02-16

3. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/breaking-barriers-celebrating-women-achievers-across-industries-2490394-2024-01-18

Grabup (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly the case; also note that the people in the byline at the bottom of the page will typically come back with marketing positions in the company. I've updated my entry here and will be happy to help remove these. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Verdict

Indiatimes by The Times Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Indiantelevision.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

There are currently 1000+ uses of Indiantelevision.com, the same owner as TellyChakkar.com. And this raises concerns on its reliability. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Unreliable per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 9#Indiantelevision.com

Magna Publications

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mid Day

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mint (newspaper) by HT Media

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mumbai Mirror by The Times Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

NDTV

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

News18 India

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Outlook

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

There are currently 17 uses of Outlook India "business spotlight." I believe the publication would be reliable OUTSIDE of that but these are paid-for articles. I would support reliability but maybe a note in the box that says those marked as "business spotlight" or sponsored should not be used as a reference (in the process of removing the 17 I linked to above once I get the time). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The paid-for shall not be considered as reliable at all. Reliable outside the paid-for articles. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Pinkvilla.com

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

Website editorial guidelines for reference.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

With an editorial team and a published editorial policy, as well as an affiliate disclosure, Pinkvilla.com can be deemed reliable due to their reportings to be very close to the actual BO figures and other film related news. But, I'll still stay clear of the gossip section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

What I do is go through the established RS. Most of the time, all of them stick to a particular figure (lets say X). Sometimes, they have discrepancies, and I use the figures as a range (est. ₹ X - Y crores). Pinkvilla almost always give the same figures as other RS and it is always less than the promotional figures tweeted by filmmakers and other primary sources. Hence, I use them as RS. (As they say, if it looks like a RS and posts like a RS, it is most probably is a RS , lol.) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think pinkvilla is a reliable source. They underreport south india movies collections a lot. I think for better reporting. Need to rethink about pinkvilla as reliable source for south indian movies. NithishSagi (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)— NithishSagi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Verdict

Rediff.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Reviewit.pk

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

I brought this up at RSN a few months back. Looks like auto generated content from Twitter and also possibly paid. I would suggest adding this as an unreliable source.

Verdict

Screen (magazine)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Sify

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

Verdict

The Economic Times

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Express Tribune

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Financial Express

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Similar to the note on Outlook India above, First Post has sponsored content marked as "brand wagon" (often included in the URL as well). I have no comment on the reliability of the overall publication but will say the branded posts should not be used in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Hindu Business Line

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Subsidiary of The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU)

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Hindu

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:THEHINDU

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Indian Express

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:INDIANEXP

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The News Minute

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Statesman

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Telegraph

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Tribune

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Similar to Outlook, The Tribune has paid articles "Impact Feature". Grabup (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Wire

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:RS/P

Verdict

Y Reliable source

Zee News

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

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

DNA is already added in the RfC above. I'd say while we are at it, let's review all the sources. India.com is deemed unreliable per this discussion. So, that's out. I don't know other publications under them. If there are any that are used frequently, by all means add them to the miscellaneous category below. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

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

Koimoi

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

OTTPlay.com

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

N

Comments

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

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

DareshMohan and RangersRus, your opinion please? DareshMohan removes articles credited to individuals who have worked for other sources before. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say reviews are notable but OTT release information isn't since it is compiled from many sources. @Kailash29792: Sorry, if you are mad at me for removing the reviews. Once this reaches a consensus, you can re-add them. @Manick22: Thoughts? DareshMohan (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

DareshMohan, I'm not mad at you for removing the reviews. Just confused because I thought it was previously agreed upon as RS due to HT Media owning it. But I agree that OTT release information can be obtained from better sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Times of India

Included in RS/P?

WP:TOI

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

• Per RS/P The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. That puts TOI in either unreliable or no consensus region. It is generally unreliable for box office figures since I have seen them using Sacnilk.com and promotional figures a lot. They may be reliable for news articles, but IMO it all should be taken with a pinch of salt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

I found another subsection with containing Lifesyle/Spotlight on The Times of India, this subsection is cited 185 times without drafts and 193 times with drafts. I found a article on the same subsection which contain a disclaimer “ The article has been produced on behalf of Globsyn Business” but other articles majorly does not contain any disclaimer.

*193 cited list

Article containing disclaimer Grabup (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The New Indian Express

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

IndiaGlitz

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

cinejosh.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

behindwoods.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

thesouthfirst.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

latestly.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

TrendingTopicc.com

Included in RS/P?

No.

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

No.

Comments

Trendingtopicc.com is not a reliable source for citing budget or box office collection figures. The website lacks transparency regarding its ownership, editorial processes, or methodology for calculating box office data. Without a clear framework or evidence of how its numbers are obtained and verified, the site cannot be trusted as a credible source of financial information. Additionally, Trendingtopicc.com does not provide details about its contributors or their qualifications, further raising doubts about the authenticity and accuracy of the information it publishes. Unlike industry-recognized trackers, such as Box Office India, or reputed publications, this site has no established credibility in the field of film journalism. Using its data may lead to the dissemination of unverified or exaggerated claims, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolly ka Badshah (talk • contribs) 08:22, December 18, 2024 (UTC)

I think this site is unreliable for anything. It appears to just be a slideshow of tweets. I'm confused, though; are you the creator of this site? --Geniac (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Lol, would the creator trash talk about his own website? Kailash29792 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Standardizing Box Office Ranking Methodology

In many cases, box office figures are reported as a range (e.g., x–y). However, there appears to be inconsistency across Wikipedia articles regarding which value from the range is used for ranking purposes.

For example:

In the article List of highest-grossing Indian films, the rankings were previously based on the lower end (x) of the reported range. Recently, the list has been updated to reflect rankings based on the higher end (y).

Meanwhile, in List of Indian films of 2025, the rankings continue to be based on the lower end (x).

I have not been able to find any clear guideline or consensus on Wikipedia regarding which figure (lower, higher, or an average) should be used when ranking box office collections. Should we consider establishing a consistent standard for this? It would help ensure uniformity across related articles and avoid confusion for readers and editors alike. Looking forward to thoughts and input from other editors. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Benison, @Krimuk2.0, @Kailash29792 your thoughts on this? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

We are following the larger WikiProject Film and the related MOS. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no clear guidance in the Manual of Style or WikiProject Film pages about whether to use the lower, upper, or average value when ranking box office figures reported as ranges. Please mention here if you find any relevant guideline. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Tonyy Starkk, Oh, okay. I remember seeing somewhere to go with the lower limit. Lemme have a look around. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried searching for it, but I could find any on the ranking methodology on the range. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure why this source is still considered reliable. I frequently see how vocal the editors here are about the unreliability of Sacnilk. Yet they defend this source Pinkvilla with their life. Even this discussion may end in favour of the Pinkvilla faithful; however, I would like to write why the usage of this source is ridiculous.

First thing first, here is the disclaimer they give out at the end of each article, as pointed out by another editor in a previous discussion:

The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data

That should say enough but here's more:

In this tweet, the admin of Pinkvilla Box Office confirm that they started the website Cinetrak and moved to Pinkvilla from Cinetrak. Now Cinetrak, like Sacnilk, is considered unreliable. Although they say they have not been involved with it since moving to Pinkvilla, they continue to endorse Cinetrak and call it the "best box office tracking site in South India", even in this recent tweet.

In case you need proof whether this is actually his Twitter account, given below is a tweet by Himesh Mankad, the Entertainment Editor at Pinkvilla, welcoming this person and his associate to Pinkvilla in December 2021:

https://x.com/HimeshMankad/status/1469235093612875776?t=8b-mXlRNYb9FfH02fnK-5w&s=19

In this, they say that the source Cinetrak is the best source for box office in South India. Now It definitely can't be a coincidence that the box office figures given by Cinetrak and Pinkvilla are exactly the same for every film.

Pinkvilla was considered unreliable at ICTF before and was moved to the list of reliable sources in February 2022 without proper discussion, as seen here.

Now, it's not as if there aren't other sources apart from Sacnilk and Pinkvilla. Many sources including newspapers like The Hindu, The Indian Express etc. publish box office figures. And they do this without citing Sacnilk, or Pinkvilla, or Cinetrak, or any of these other dubious sources. If a movie has indeed earned a specific amount of money, then other sources will publish about it.

Tagging some of the Pinkvilla faithful so they can show their love for Pinkvilla once again.

@Benison @Ab207 @Krimuk2.0

(194.135.119.108 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC))

194.135.119.108, funny that you call us Pinkvilla faithful. As I stated multiple times (which might not be aware of since you love to cherrypick the arguments in your favour), I really don't care about Pinkvilla as long as it's reliability is established. Wikipedia works on consensus and as long as consensus says it's not unreliable, I will take it as RS and use it. Prove that is not reliable and establish that with consensus, I'll be more than happy to switch to any other source. Pinkvilla doesn't pay me and I couldn't care less about them as long as they make my work easy for box office figures. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I could try to prove that with an RfC, but people like you would still come back and support this source. Why even bother

And your work ? Nobody cares about your "work" on Wikipedia. At least I don't spend hours on this platform like some loser.

Cheers.

(194.135.119.191 (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on the reliability of Rediff.com

There is a RFC on the reliability bog Rediff.com on RSN. Any interested editor should see WP:RSN#RfC: Rediff.com -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Times Now

Is Times Now considered as reliable? Also, it is used in over 4500 articles. So can't it be reliable? Epicion (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

They are owned by The Times Group, who also own TOI. So I'd say let's go with the same rationale we use for TOI (WP:TIMESOFINDIA). — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Contradiction between WP:ICTFSOURCES and WP:ICTFFAQ on reliable sources

I’ve noticed a contradiction between the WP:ICTFSOURCES and the WP:ICTFFAQ pages regarding the reliability of some sources used in India-related topics.

For instance, The Times of India, Catch and a few more are considered reliable under the WP:ICTFFAQ, but they are not listed (or are treated differently) in the WP:ICTFSOURCES list. There are several such sources that appear in one but not the other, or are rated differently. This can cause confusion for editors trying to determine whether a particular source is appropriate for use in India-related articles.

Could we clarify which page takes precedence in cases like this? Should WP:ICTFSOURCES be updated to reflect what is currently in the ICTF FAQ, or vice versa? Input from other editors, especially those active in the India-related topic area, would be appreciated.

@Benison @RangersRus @Morekar @Kailash29792 @Krimuk2.0 Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

FAQ is a summary and an old essay. ICTFSOURCES is the one we use for day to day stuff and as a guideline based on the various discussions happening. Also, FAQ hasn't been updated in a while and consensus has changed with respect to various sources. So, someone can update the FAQ using the ICTFSOURCES as the base. I'd have done it but doesn't have the energy or a PC around right now. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 08:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it ok to remove the ones in FAQ which are not present/not reliable as per ICTFSOURCES. Or should that be put under unreliable. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Contradicting ones are ABP Live, Catch, The New Indian Express, Scroll.in, The Times of India Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Tonyy Starkk, you can update the FAQ instead of removing them altogether. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliability question on Pinkvilla

Page Retro uses boxoffice numbers from Pinkvilla and Pinkvilla copied the report from source called Cinetrak (already considers unreliable, per this discussion).

Retro collection Cinetrak = Pinkvilla

Day	TN gross	Worldwide	TN gross	Worldwide
Day 1	14 crore	31.5 crore	14 crore	31.5 crore
Day 4	34.5 crore	74.5 crore	34.5 crore	74.5 crore
Day 11	45.7 crore	92 crore		92 crore
Day 18	48.5 crore	96.5 crore	48.5 crore	97 crore

On 12 May 2025, Cinetrak posted "Retro in France registered 9,800 entries so far at the end of its second weekend and will aim to hit the 10,000 admits marks through the final run."

"#TouristFamily hits 5,000 admissions in France through '11 days', with second weekend alone registering 2,000 entries."

On 13 May 2025, Pinkvilla published "Tamil superstar Suriya Sivakumar’s Retro, directed by Karthik Subbaraj, has now registered 9,800 ticket sales in France by the end of its second weekend. The stylish period gangster drama is expected to breach the 10,000-admit mark by the end of its theatrical run."

"Tourist Family, which quietly crossed 5,000 ticket sales (admissions) in France in just 11 days, with 2,000 of those entries coming over the second weekend alone."

Hence it is clear that Cinetrak's data was copied and published by Pinkvilla. I think it should be WP:FRUIT. 103.161.55.143 (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Benison, @RangersRus, @Kailash29792 your thoughts on this?

103.161.55.143 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You can remove them per WP:FRUIT if they are using any unreliable source as their source, be it Pinkvilla.com or HT or The Hindu or anyone.
But I'd like to state that FRUIT applies when the source mentions that they are using the unreliable source as their source. You can't make assumptions that they are using it. They could be independently verifying it too. Hence, read the Pinkvilla page carefully. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

For this film, other reliable sources (reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES) mentioned are over 200 crore. Only Cinetrack and it's copy Pinkvilla mentioned 97 crore. The difference is very huge here. 103.42.197.81 (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Also see the quoted sentence below. They clearly copied and mentioned every number and data same way, and statements about the film's theatrical run is also same. 103.42.197.81 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

103.42.197.81, assuming that they are copying it from them (if they haven't mentioned it) might come under WP:SYNTH. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not assuming, many sites have copied box office figures from other unreliable sites like Sacnilk without mentioning unreliable sites names. This is also like this. I can also prove their coping for film called Tourist Family. If I could prove it will you consider Pinkvilla as unreliable? 103.70.199.41 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You can't assume they copied from one another just because they reported same figures. Vestrian24Bio 13:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Same figures for each day on table and read the quoted bold text below. Writing style and date is same to same. Also, Cinetrak and it's copy Pinkvilla posted same figures and end collection 97 crore (though running in theatres now). Other reliable sources which are mentioned at Retro page reports over 200 crore. From this its clear that Pinkvilla is copied from Cinetrak.103.70.199.41 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Also see BookMyShow. Bookings slot for 22 May 2025 in few theatres in Chennai. Here is proof for Retro is still running in theatres. This booking link is for Tommorow and Pinkvilla falsely reported film completed its theatrical run. The news of Retro's final collection is 100% false as the film is still running in theatres. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

103.70.199.41, Once again, I like to point out to you that consensus overrules everything in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia or journal that is bound to publish exact correct information. Wikipedia is a secondary source that uses other sources as the sources. There's no deadline here.
Now, about the sources you mentioned, if a source that is considered as unreliable is publishing X and then next day, another source publishes that same thing, that doesn't make it unreliable per FRUIT. FRUIT applies when that RS says we have used the non RS as our sources. There's something called independent verifiability and the reliable sources are trusted to do that. Otherwise, they mention it. We simply can't assume just because Pinkvilla used the same figure from that Cinetrak, they are unreliable. Many other sources like HT, The Hindu and others have also reported the similar figures in other films from Sacnilk.com and such. But they won't come in FRUIT unless explicitly stated.
Another thing is, Pinkvilla.com has to be established as a non reliable source at WP:RSN, not here. You can take the discussion there if you are hell bent on proving the unreliable nature of Pinkvilla.com, which then ICTF can accept. For now, the general consensus of ICTF and RSN is in favour of Pinkvilla.com as a reliable source. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 13:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Retro is still running in theatres. Pinkvilla falsely stated it completed its theatrical run. See BookMyShow source for proof. Please check it. As I said the difference between the bo numbers mentioned in Retro is very different from Cinetrak copy Pinkvilla source. Can you tell about it. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@103.70.199.41 Regarding the film Retro, I’d like to clarify some discrepancies related to its reported box office collections. The producer, 2D Entertainment, posted a tweet [1] stating that the film grossed ₹235 crore, which includes both theatrical and non-theatrical revenues — such as box office, satellite, digital, and music rights. Given this breakdown, it is highly unlikely that the theatrical (box office) revenue alone exceeds ₹200 crore.

Furthermore, articles currently cited in Retro — such as News18 Tamil and ABP Live — appear to be influenced by the producer’s statement and are likely reporting inflated figures without independent verification.

It's important to note that producers often overstate figures for promotional or financial leverage. In contrast, platforms like Bollywood Hungama and Pinkvilla have consistently provided region-wise box office data based on more rigorous tracking and reporting. Their methodology makes them more reliable sources when citing box office performance. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Ott play (H T Media)

@Benison @RangersRus @Kailash29792 @DreamRimmer @Morekar

OTT play ( HT Media) is not eligible for reliable source WP:ICTFSOURCES, which should be not used for Box office report s, HT media report for Box office from copied source, they just copied from other websites like twitter, instagram and saccnik reports. They are not expertise in source. So many examples you can found it link itself, first see entirely source, they just copied entire twitter, they injustices and jealous for something, if box office figures range high collection, they ask doubt questions and says that fake and any film grossing average they post along with twitter source as true. You can see kannada film articles links, please remove from OTT play (H T Media) from reliable source. 2409:408C:861C:C6CD:0:0:1304:20AD (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

HT media is nothing but just a post from fans discussion in blog or twitter post, if any films High range, they quoted as doubt questions as fabricated, but average film gross they just copied and accepted it, what ironing this, this is very jealous on wiki, please discuss and remove H T Media from reliable source.

For Eg, please see This link ott play say inflated just by quote as says by neitzen and also not own statement 👇

[2] Recent 2 years back kannada film Kaatera gross 200 crores, even upto 6 reliable source mentioned about 200 crores , but this Ott play ask doubt regards by quoting fans discussion in twitter and another last year kannada film Max also release, this is average film, but Ott play accept this fact because figure are low in range, this Max (2024 film) See this film link source 👇 [3] Film shoot only in one night alone, this is action film, Even director and actor accept fact budget even not cross 40 crores, but this Ott play just add wrong budget by just sharing the twitter post from fans discussion in twitter.

There is no eligible for HT Media especially for ott play, Discuss and please remove from reliable source.

@Benison

@RangersRus

@Kailash29792

@DreamRimmer

@Morekar 2409:408C:861C:C6CD:0:0:1304:20AD (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not happening, pal. Ottplay.com is owned by HT Media, whose another subsidiary is none other than the Hindustan Times itself, one of the hightly reputed and established reliable source among Indian media. If they say a figure is fake and is downplaying it, that means there's a really good chance that is true. Exception is WP:FRUIT where it is explicitly stated that it's from a non RS or paid content (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Furthermore, you can take the discussion over to WP:RSN but I don't see it happening where you can take out HT out of the reliable sources table anywhere. — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Times Prime

Can Times Prime be considered as a reliable source for box office reports? This is there About Us page.

In a particular page regarding highest grossing Bengali films, it has mentioned extremely high figures for many films in the "FAQ" section, which don't even exist in the top 20 top Bengali films' box office reported by reliable sources. I think it is not a reliable source, but still, can someone please confirm it.

Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)