Talk:Aranmanai 4

"Baak (Telugu film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Baak (Telugu film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1 § Baak film redirects until a consensus is reached. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"Baakghost" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Baakghost has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1 § Baak film redirects until a consensus is reached. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Telugu soundtrack

Do we really need to list the Telugu soundtrack here? Dubbed soundtracks aren't usually listed in film articles. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Ping: @Anoopspeaks, @Kailash29792, @Espenthordsen 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the lack of a soundtrack article, I don't see why there shouldn't be a Telugu track listing here. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The film was also released in Hindi, but no Hindi soundtrack; Aranmanai 1, 2, 3 were also released in Hindi and Telugu, but they only have the original soundtrack; then why? This article is about the Tamil film after all. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio You can remove it; I just added it on the fly, and I wasn't sure if it's bilingual or dubbed. 😊 Anoop Bhatia (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a partially reshot version with only a few actor changes, similar to Ajith replacing Amitabh for English Vinglish's Tamil version. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Aranmanai 4 bilingual or not (Edit warring in live pagespace)

This morning I see two contributors have been editwarring with about 8 reverts from each editor. As an uninvolved administrator, I have warned both editors I might block. I could have (and still might need to ) block both editors unless they demonstrate adult behaviors. The edit war is over. Please discuss the topic here to a reasonable conclusion. I am not taking sides; each side is wrong to pursue this warring. BusterD (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As a precaution, I have fully protected the page. Now nobody can edit, and you two are at fault. BusterD (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks The dubbed version will have a description in the bracket that the film is dubbed from so and so language version. If it is original version then, no such description will be there. As said before, Telugu version certificates of the film' s first three parts clearly mentioned dubbed from Tamil verison, whereas here in this cbfc certificate it is nowhere mentioned. The certificate clearly validates it as a Original Telugu version. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

CBFC certifies Dubbed versions also; That's not enough to add it to Wikipedia. You need a valid source from WP:ICTFSOURCES to add it here. Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging. When the two of you (User:Anoopspeaks and User:Jayanthkumar123) are done discussing--and whomever else wants to chime in the discussion is quite welcome), please notify me and I'll unprotect the page. Decide how best to describe this disagreement in pagespace. Let's bring sources, please. If you need assistance, I can point you towards helpful dispute resolution processes. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio You definitely don't have any idea about CBFC certificates. The certificate clearly mention in the description if it is a dubbed version, whereas if it is original no such description will be there. Certificates for Hollywood dub versions (Hindi, Tamil and Telugu) clearly mentions it. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jayanthkumar123 That's not enough of a claim to add it here, You need a source from WP:ICTFSOURCES as also said below by @Anoopspeaks. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jayanthkumar123 For the sake of your argument about English dubs, here is the Kung Fu Panda 4 Hindi dub certificate. However, show me where in the description it mentions "dubbed"? I see it nowhere, which is why the CBFC is not considered a reliable source according to the Wikipedia Indian Cinema Taskforce. This is true for all certificates issued by the CBFC in recent times or earlier. Therefore, to validate your claim, you need to provide a reliable source per ictfsources so nobody can question your claim. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD I am really sorry for the trouble I caused you, and also sorry for the delay in my reply. Regarding @Jayanthkumar123's argument, he mentioned that the dubbed version includes a description in the title. In that case, the previous film in the series, which was released in Telugu with a different name titled Anatapuram, should be considered. I am providing links to both the Aranmanai 3 [1] and Anthahpuram [2] CBFC certificates. As you can see, there is no mention anywhere that it is a dub. If his claim is correct, then Aranmanai 4 is not just a bilingual film; it is a multilingual film because it received additional certificates in Hindi and Urdu languages too. However, as pointed out by the @Vestrian24Bio, all these sources are not considered reliable as per wp:ictfsources. Additionally, it should be noted that despite the significant promotion by the makers, they never mentioned that it is bilingual or simultaneously shot.

Note: if the links are not accessible for any reason, try CBFCSearch or let me know i will try to archive the links. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The example you provided is not valid, since the description is in the certificate shows whether it is dub or original not in the website. For example look at the CBFC certificate of Tamil film Master (2021): Original Tamil version [3] and Dubbed Telugu version [4]. The dubbed Telugu version certificate says Dubbed version of Tamil version. Unfortunately both Aranmanai 3 and Anthahpuram certificates are not avaiable. But the dubbed version is available on straming platforms. You can watch there, it mentions that the film Anthahpuram is dubbed from Aranmanai 3. This is not the case of this film Aranmanai 4, where the Telugu version (Baak) certificate didn't have any description saying dubbed from any other version. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

These sources you provided: one is from filmibeat (unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES) and another one is from a tweet by some user. They are both definitely unreliable sources. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Come on, I am not the one who gives the CBFC certificates. If you want, please watch both the Tamil and Telugu versions of Master on streaming platforms, where the CBFC certificate is displayed at the beginning. I agree that Filmibeat is unreliable, but the CBFC certificate is given by CBFC not Fimibeat. I didn't said them to be sources, but the certificate provided by CBFC. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jayanthkumar123 The problem is that certificates seen only by you can't be treated as valid evidence. They must be attested by independent news sources flagged as green by the Indian Cinema Task Force. So, if your claim lacks that, it can't be included in an article according to Wikipedia standards. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "only by me". If you want please go and watch both the original and dubbed versions. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but what we see on the films aren't acceptable per Wikipedia:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jayanthkumar123 Nobody is at fault here; it all lies with the makers of the film. They never even tried to mention it's bilingual anywhere during promotions. If they didn't even care to make it a bilingual, is it the Wikipedians' job to make the film bilingual? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jayanthkumar123, @User:Vestrian24Bio Since no objections or opinions were raised regarding the matter posted at ICTF, I am withdrawing my objection and reinstating the updated content. If there are any concerns, please feel free to discuss.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reinstating"? I saw your comment at ICTF as well, there are currently no sources directly mentioning Aranmanai 4 was bilingual, then why change it???

Also, I'm quoting what you said earlier - "They never even tried to mention it's bilingual anywhere during promotions. If they didn't even care to make it a bilingual, is it the Wikipedians' job to make the film bilingual?" Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio So should I be blind towards the source, the original media? At that time, I had no means to verify the source. Also, when I mentioned that the certificates are provided under the same jurisdiction, there was no proper answer. But as you can see, the certificates are issued by respective regional offices and censored by different people. Additionally, the streaming service listed them as independent entries. In a similar case with a difference in name, like Aawara, the original film's name is provided in brackets. These are the facts I found, and even though it discredits my arguments, I can't ignore them. Therefore, I withdraw my objection. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As usual, Anoopspeaks seems to be edit-warring without gaining consensus for changes. This has now extended to the Tamannaah Bhatia filmography page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 You are purposely creating an edit war. Every dubbed film has a CBFC certificate that clearly states the film is a dubbed version of the original. In this case, the film bears independent certificates issued by the corresponding regional offices. This can be verified by watching the source media. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

So? Just that does not qualify as a unique film. MULTIPLE independent sources need to call it a bilingual film for us to consider it as such. None have been provided here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 CBFC is the ultimate authority with respect to Indian films and why is the certificate not valid? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you even understand how WP:RS and WP:NOTABLITY works? This is not Twitter. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 Why is the certificate not reliable? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

LOL. Once again, ONE source does not make a film uniquely reliable. Provide MULTIPLE reliable sources, per WP:NOTABLITY#FILMS. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 I am referring to the source media. If the source media states that it is a Telugu film, will you discredit it because others say it is not or did not point it out, or will you present the facts about how the film attained bilingual status? Also, why didn't you provide your valuable input in the first place when this discussion was happening? Whenever you talk with me, the other pages on my talk list get IP vandalised. Is that a pure coincidence? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please get well soon. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Fylindfotberserk for input, because I have nothing left to say. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting comments from other involved editors @Vestrian24Bio, Kailash29792, Jayanthkumar123, and DareshMohan:

Anoop Bhatia (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, having it supported by multiple WP:Independent WP:SECONDARY sources would be a good idea. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to treat Aranmanai 4 as a proper bilingual, since the Telugu version is only partially reshot. Much like English Vinglish. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires secondary sources when the authenticity of a source is not verifiable to the user. However, this is not the case here because the provided sources bear CBFC certificates and are not user-uploaded, as is the case with YouTube. This video subscription service rents digital prints for users and operates entirely under Indian jurisdiction. According to the CBFC, exhibiting a film in a form other than the one in which it was certified is a violation.1 The service provider has not faced any charges in India for such cases.

As per the CBFC FAQ:2

"A dubbed film is certified in the same region where the original film was certified. For instance, after a Malayalam film is certified in the Thiruvananthapuram region, all further dubbed versions in other languages—Tamil, Telugu, etc.—are examined and certified by the Thiruvananthapuram region only unless a written waiver is given by the Chairperson under Rule 23." Note–There was an exception for Hindi dubbed films, which are required to be certified by the Mumbai regional office only.3

This clearly indicates that the films are not dubbed according to the authority. The films in question have individual certificates issued by the corresponding regional office, meaning they were passed through the Examining/Revising Committee of that office.

Additionally, this raises the question of why this requirement is necessary for obtaining regional certification. Even though films may be certified in the same category, the decisions made by the regional office are aligned with the corresponding state's standards. For example, in the last song sequence, some scenes are blurred in the Tamil version but not in the Telugu version. This illustrates that both versions were treated under different sets of censoring terms according to regional requirements.

Therefore, I ask— should we disregard this fact and treat the film as non-bilingual because it was partially shot in a different language, or should we follow the certification authorities' decisions and clearly explain why the second film is treated as an independent entry? The first approach would be a dismissal of facts. Additionally, a decision should be made regarding Indian films on whether to follow the CBFC certification or secondary sources, which may contradict the source material. This would help avoid unnecessary discussions like this one.

Note— Refer to the Indian Cinematograph Act, 1952, and its revisions for the authenticity of the points I stated.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant here? The English Wikipedia has its own policies & guidelines. Even if we don't at all relay on a Secondary source; whatever source we use should be WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE; CBFC isn't and independent source and is not exactly reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES.

Apart from that, these certificates doesn't state it is a bilingual film; just because there are two certificates assuming its bilingual would be just a case of WP:ORIGINAL. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio The CBFC website is regarded as unreliable because it only provides information at the initial stage of censorship and does not include details about the final certificate issued. However, the certificate issued by the statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India is not considered unreliable. The key issue is whether it is feasible to present the original certificate to the user. In this case, it is indeed possible. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The validity of the certificate can be verified by scanning the QR code displayed on the certificate. This will direct you to www.ecinepramaan.gov.in, which also provides details on what was censored.

Aranmanai 4

https://www.ecinepramaan.gov.in/cbfc/?a=Certificate_Detail&i=100030292400000625 archive

Baak

https://www.ecinepramaan.gov.in/cbfc/?a=Certificate_Detail&i=100070292400000338 archive Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I am writing this based on new data found in this thread. Please verify the information in the thread before responding to my arguments. I was dragged into this discussion due to the wp:v issue with the subject and reverted my changes when I discovered that the physical media had an independent certificate. I believed it was common practice to declare a film bilingual if independent certificates were found, as has been done in several other cases. However, based on newly found evidence, it is evident that any producer can obtain a direct CBFC certificate if they have the time and meet the primary criteria set by the CBFC. It seems that one can literally obtain a CBFC certificate if they have the time, influence, or own a production company in the respective CBFC region. This is analogous to purchasing a premium account on X. The CBFC only ensures that their rules are fulfilled and does not enforce any eligibility for a direct certificate based on the submitted work. It is up to the applicant to decide whether they want a dubbed certificate or a direct one. Therefore, this cannot be used as a criterion on Wikipedia to define whether a film is bilingual. My proposed method is to check for visual contradictions, as I explained in the thread. Consequently, I approve the current state of the article. Additionally, I am removing the remark placed on Tamannaah Bhatia filmography, as it would result in preferential treatment for a particular film. Notifying all participants @Vestrian24Bio, Kailash29792, Jayanthkumar123, DareshMohan, Krimuk2.0, and Fylindfotberserk: Anoop Bhatia (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)