Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

The scope of this task force is to improve the quality and quantity of information on Wikipedia about Indian cinema, and raising the quality of already-existing articles.

Indian cinema may include domestic films, films made by Indian filmmakers abroad, films produced or co-produced by Indian companies, and foreign films shooting in India. However per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Scope, this task force should not include articles about actors, directors and filmmakers. Those articles are covered by adding parameters for the Actors and Filmmakers and Screenwriters projects accordingly.

A category tree can be found here.

Any article related to this task force should be marked by adding both parameters to the project banners at the top of its talk page:

• |Indian-task-force=yes (or "Indian=yes") to {{WikiProject Film}}.
• |cinema=yesto{{WikiProject India}}.

This will automatically place it into Category:Indian cinema task force articles.

• Clean up unreleased future film articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Future films
• Tag articles.
• Recruit interested editors.
• Collect categories, resource links, and templates.
• Expand the open task listing above.
• Merge the information in the task force notebook into the Announcements template above.
• Add things here!

• For main project templates, see the sidebar.
• Userbox: {{User Indian cinema task force}}
• Stub tag: {{India-film-stub}}; {{Assamese-film-stub}}; {{Bengali-film-stub}}; {{Bhojpuri-film-stub}}; {{Hindi-film-stub}}; {{Kannada-film-stub}}; {{Malayalam-film-stub}}; {{Marathi-film-stub}}; {{Tamil-film-stub}}; {{Telugu-film-stub}}; further see Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Stub templates#Film stubs
• Footers: {{Cinema of West Bengal}} ((Tollywood(Bangla)); {{Bollywood films}}; {{Tamil cinema}}; {{Tollywood films}}; {{Cinema of Karnataka}}; {{Malayalam films}}; {{Marathi films}}

Place this template {{CinemaofIndia}}, at the bottom of core articles or categories about the Indian film industry. Please, do not transclude this template in Indian film and actor articles as it can be too generic, but only those articles/categories appearing in the template itself. Employ this template judiciously and not indiscriminately; if an article is stub-class with little content or if another template is already included, consider whether the addition of {{CinemaofIndia}} will improve and enhance the article. It will produce:

The Bollywood Star is awarded to Wikipedians with great contribution to articles related to Bollywood. To award this barnstar to an editor, paste the following code on their talk-page and include a general message about their contributions to any article or area of Indian cinema:

{{subst:Indian Cinema Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

The South Indian Cinema Award is awarded to Wikipedians who tirelessly foster or contribute to the improvement of articles relating to Indian cinema, particularly South Indian cinema and its music. To award this barnstar to an editor, paste the following code on their talk-page and include a general message about their contributions to any article or area of Wikipedia that deals with South Indian cinema:

{{subst:South Indian Cinema Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

Both awards are listed on WP:WPPA under WikiProject Awards.

Indian film articles often lack conciseness. This is due sometimes to the over-enthusiasm of editors for the subject matter. It should be understood that such articles are intended to convey straightforward information about films to readers. The plot synopsis should observe a limit of 400-700 words, and it should include a full overview of the plot including the ending. The basic structure of a film article should follow the Manual of Style for films. Articles on films should include a lead paragraph, infobox, and synopsis. See Lage Raho Munna Bhai for an example of a featured Indian film article.

Please do not add hyperbole or subjective phrasing to describe films. Describing films as "super hit", "failure", "flop", or "declared as all-time blockbuster status" should be avoided at all costs. We are not here to gush over films or to mock them, we're here to present a neutral, academic overview. See WP:PEACOCK and our policy on neutral point of view.

Mundane marketing techniques like television and public appearances, the release of first look posters, teasers and trailers are not noteworthy. See WP:TRAILER for guidance.

Please be circumspect when writing about film financials, as all Indian film financial details are based on trade estimates and should not be taken as gospel. There is significant corruption surrounding these financial details and figures are often inflated and deflated by producers and competitors for various reasons of self-interest. Times of India briefly discontinued their box office coverage for this reason. Keep in mind that an estimate that is a few hours more recent isn't necessarily more accurate, higher numbers aren't necessarily more accurate, and when in doubt, presenting a range is always an option. (Ex: "gross = ₹30–40 million") Related, please stay focused on the big picture--we aren't here to track every aspect of a film's finances, only the most important broad strokes, which typically means budget and gross box office figures. Presenting information about nett gross, nett, and distributor share tend to clutter articles and make film finances difficult to compare to other films. Information about satellite and music rights sales, as well as tangential revenue streams, are not typically noteworthy. See this discussion.

Monetary conversion templates such as INRConvert should not generally be used in list type articles or infoboxes per this consensus and this discussion. The prevailing attitude was: 1) Converting to US dollars is arbitrary. 2) Default conversion templates create problems with inflation, Ex: where the gross from a 2008 film is converted to the present year's US$ rate.3) The inflation adjustment option in the template results in infobox clutter.

Articles on Indian actors and directors should be understood to fall primarily under the control of WikiProject Biography guidelines. More specific guidance can be found at the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup. Articles about living people must strictly adhere to the BLP policy. Biography articles fall into a standard pattern of a lead paragraph, followed by sections dedicated to background, career, personal life, awards, filmography, external links, and references. See Satyajit Ray for an example of a featured article about an Indian film director.

Articles on Indian musicians generally consist of the following sections: lead paragraph, background, career, awards, partial discography, external links and references.

Note also that biographies of living people must be impeccably sourced. Any contentious or potentially contentious information needs to be attributed to a reliable mainstream published source with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And with identity theft a major modern concern, personal information like birth names and birth dates need to be reliably sourced as well, as publishing this information based on personal knowledge, public records, etc., could potentially violate the subject's privacy. See WP:BLPPRIVACY.

If applicable, a comprehensive filmography, discography, or awards listing can be split off to a new article. These pages are expected to link into one another upon creation.

It should be noted that Wikipedia's rules on Image uploads are extremely strict, and all uploads must be accompanied by a comprehensive fair-use rationale. Help:Image is a good guideline that explains the process of uploading images and what needs to be completed.

Copyrighted images of actors, actresses and directors from websites all over the Internet are disallowed and will be deleted. An easy rule-of-thumb to remember is: "If you don't know where it comes from, don't upload it."

Several editors have worked hard to make sure that all pictures used are acceptable for Wikipedia. One such strategy is to search for images of living people on an image-sharing site such as Flickr, where only images released under a Creative Commons 2.0 license are acceptable. In other words, the image must be released under a license that allows sharing and remixing of the work.

External links should follow the Wikipedia guideline on external links. Official websites of films or film actors are preferred over non-official websites. Fansites are often of low quality and feature commercial links. There are many sites for popular actors and linking to one makes it fair to link to all. Therefore a consensus is emerging that only links to the actor's official site and IMDB article are allowable, as well as content on reputable sites (BBC news interviews, etc.).

A list of feature films released in a particular year is separately maintained for each language. Do not add dubbed versions in these pages as the list is intended for original productions only. Mentioning notable deaths and award ceremonies should be avoided which instead may be added in the [YYYY] in film article. Web series / television series debuts are also excluded in the list of films article. A separate article for series meeting the WP:NLIST criteria may be created for this purpose. See this discussion.

• IMDb has a search function for Indian films but it's considered a questionable source by the greater Film WikiProject. See WP:Citing IMDb.
• Per this discussion, all box office gross values such as |gross= should use the {{Estimation}} template.
• This user essay is an excellent summary of the problems with paid/sponsored articles that is far too common on India-related sites.
• Per this discussion, worldwide gross box office collection reported by Bollywood Hungama and Box Office India should be used in infoboxes and list type articles. If unavailable, any of the other generally reliable sources listed below can be used.
• The sources termed as unreliable or blacklisted should not be considered reliable sources. If an otherwise reliable source attributes information to an unreliable source then that information is likewise unreliable, per WP:FRUIT. Any "blog" of "blog"-type websites are also inherently considered as unreliable per WP:BLOGS.
• Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Examples of such sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on The Indian Express, etc. Caution must be exercised while adding such contents and consult the reliable sources noticeboard when in doubt.

Legend

•     Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements.
•     No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
•     Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
•     Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is registered on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.

Named after a legendary Indian filmmaker, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is a sub-award of the Indian government's National Film Awards. It is essentially a lifetime achievement award honouring a person's "outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema".^[1] This is a coveted award for filmmakers, and there is only one award issued each year. To capitalise on the Phalke name, some small organisations have adopted their own Dadasaheb Phalke awards, and when media outlets don't ask questions and just reprint press releases, we often see the "Dadasaheb Phalke" award erroneously attributed to actors/directors/composers and others who might not deserve the national prize. Some news organisations fail to make this distinction. Examples:

• In 2016, Mid-Day reported that Sooraj Pancholi won a best debut award at a Dadasaheb Phalke award organised by 90bids.com.
• In 2018, Times of India reported that 34-year-old Ranvir Singh was going to win the Dadasaheb Phalke award, when what he was presented with was the Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award, an award issued by some other institution.
• In 2019, TimesNowNews, who in this slideshow included a write-up of how the Phalke award is "India's highest honour in the entertainment sector", apparently did not notice that the event was an award handout for a two-year-old film festival named after Phalke, not for the actual national award.
• In 2019, ABPLive.in ran a headline here that a Bigg Boss 12 contestant was being given the award for "Best Entertainer – Reality Show".
• In 2019, International Business Times reported "Ram Charan's wife Upasana Konidela has been honoured with the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for the Philanthropist of the Year ... India's highest award in cinema presented at the National Film Awards ceremony." Clearly this is not the same award. Times of India this time clarifies Charan's award as the "Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award".
• By 2020, ABPLive.in still hadn't figured out what this award is, writing here about the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards, "Presented annually at the 'National Film Awards' ceremony by the Directorate of Film Festivals, the 'Dadasaheb Phalke Award' is our country’s highest civilian award in the field of entertainment."
• In 2021, The Hindu's Businessline reported that Dhanush won "prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award (South)" for Best Actor. Gulf News said "South Indian stars Dhanush, Mohanlal win Dadasaheb Phalke Awards". Free Press Journal wrote "Dadasaheb Phalke Award 2020 ... The award honoured the individuals from the Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada film industries for their outstanding contribution towards the growth and development of cinema." None of these sources mention explicitly that this is related to the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival (DPIFF), which it apparently is, and Free Press Journal really makes it sound like the winners are taking home that government prize, in part because they're using virtually the same phrasing found at India's Directorate of Film Festivals.

So when adding this award to articles, we must be double, even triple-certain that we are talking about the actual National Film Awards' Dadasaheb Phalke Award. Some clues: A film can't win this award; a person wins the award. Winners are typically older, because to make "outstanding contribution[s] to the growth and development of Indian cinema", you have to work hard for many years, not just be young, handsome, or pretty. You don't win the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for Philanthropy or for Most Popular ActororExtraordinary Work to Reform the Society via a Movieor"for the song 'God Your Lady' in the film Vishwadi"orMost Iconic Jodi. You win it plainly, with no classifications. There is only one, and they worked hard to get it.

Some similar-sounding awards that are not the real award:

• Dadasaheb Phalke Academy Awards – see this TOI article
• Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards – see official website
  • Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South – launching in 2019
  • Dadasaheb Phalke Icon Award - Possibly related to the International Film Festival Awards?[2]
• Dada Saheb Phalke Film Festival Awards – see official website
• Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award – see example
• Dadasaheb Phalke Film Foundation Awards – see Facebook page
• Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festial Awards South - see example
• Legends Dadasaheb Phalke Award - see example
• Dadasaheb Phalke icon Awards film - see example

See also this Hindustan Times article describing the confusion about these knock-off awards.

Please use the following format when adding works:

* <!-- bibliographical information -->
** Content:
*** <!-- optional content summary -->
** Reviews: 
*** <!-- commentary on work by historians & other reputable sources -->
** Editor comments: 
*** <!-- personal commentary by editors -->

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.