Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Bollywood
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The portal was promoted by OhanaUnited 00:29, 28 January 2013 [1].
Portal:Bollywood edit
| Participation Guide | |
|---|---|
| Support | |
| Bill william compton - Support as nominator | |
| Crisco 1492 - Support | |
| Dwaipayan - Support | |
| Neutral/No vote | |
| Dharmadhyaksha - No vote | |
| OhanaUnited - No vote | |
| Oppose | |
| Elekhh - Weak oppose | |
I'm nominating this for featured portal because I believe that it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFPo. It has 15 selected biographies, 16 selected articles, 15 selected pictures and 21 DYK hooks. It is quite low maintenance. Thanks and regards. — Bill william comptonTalk 15:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
- Support - I understand well that consensus is a minimum of 20 pieces of selected content, all of GA or FA quality. However, WP:FPO? does not indicate a minimum number (or even that there is a minimum number) and as such I think this portal matches the criteria as they are written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am expecting to see no less than 20 contents in each area (per norm). OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At 1024x768, the selected picture spills out of its space and covers the text to its right. It works properly at higher resolutions. Chris857 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried everything— changed the width of left side and the layout for pictures, but the problem doesn't seem to be on the wane. The code is similar to other featured portals. Do you know how to solve this? — Bill william comptonTalk 12:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Have the respective talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to this topic been notified with a neutral, matter-of-fact notice of this ongoing Featured candidacy discussion? Not mandatory, but suggested and recommended, — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, missed the update in a 10,000+ watchlist! I informed the Indian Cinema Task Force at the starting of this nomination. Should I ask each one to comment here (of course the most prolific ones)? — Bill william comptonTalk 13:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cirt, do you happen to know how to resolve problem raised by Chris857? — Bill william comptonTalk 13:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Query and support. Have you thought about the scope of this portal? Do we have any delineation? Bollywood is strictly speaking the Hindi film industry based in Mumbai. On the other hand, in a broader sense, other language films from India can also be considered as Bollywood films, especially by persons not much aware of the difference. Moreover, there are overlapping personalities/production houses that are involved in both Bollywood and other language industries. Personally I have no objection linking other language film/personality articles to this portal, since portals merely acts as an introductory place. However, in that case, good articles on film/personalities of other Indian languages can be added to the list in this portal.
- IMO, we can make the scope broader. Indeed there are entries in this portal already which indicates such broader scope. For example, Satyajit Ray, who was not a Bollywood person in the strict sense, is listed as a featured article here. I think, we can continue to do so.
- Apart from the nitpicking above, I think the portal meets the Featured Portal criteria. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good pint. If the scope is not changed, some modifications need to be done. Two DYKs also are non-Bollywood type. "...that Gangavataran was the first sound film, and the last film, to be directed by Dadasaheb Phalke?" and "... that Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray (pictured) made his last documentary in 1987 on his father, as a tribute to celebrate the centenary of his birth?" I dont mind on broader scope covering complete Cinema of India. But Bollywood is the popular term all around. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Dwaipayan to some extent. However, the scope of this portal is limited to Hindi cinema and people (or events) who influenced Indian cinema as a whole. It's virtually impossible to draw the line, particularly when there's no physical thing like "Bollywood". Contributions of Ray and Phalke is not limited to any regional film industry. Phalke was like founding father of Indian cinema (if my knowledge serves me correctly) and something equally well can be said for Ray (who also worked in Hindi cinema). — Bill william comptonTalk 15:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good pint. If the scope is not changed, some modifications need to be done. Two DYKs also are non-Bollywood type. "...that Gangavataran was the first sound film, and the last film, to be directed by Dadasaheb Phalke?" and "... that Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray (pictured) made his last documentary in 1987 on his father, as a tribute to celebrate the centenary of his birth?" I dont mind on broader scope covering complete Cinema of India. But Bollywood is the popular term all around. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late to get back to you. The list of recognized content showed an extensive list of GAs. Have all of them been incorporated into portal components? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWeak oppose With a very few exceptions images are remarkably low quality, and none of them is featured quality. The portal being about cinematography I find this a problem. Also, as noted above, there are articles for which is not clear how they are related to the topic. Another such example is Ravi Shankar. --ELEKHHT 07:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though Shankar is not known for his film compositions, he has been composer of Anuradha, Meera, Neecha Nagar and probably more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't dispute that, but if that's nowhere in the portal mentioned than how would the reader understand? The text also does not reflect his recent death. --ELEKHHT 13:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh okay! I thought you are objecting his inclusion itself. I have now made the necessary changes after his death. But as said, his connection with Bollywood is just marginal and hence i don't find it worthy of mentioning these three films in the summary. But technically he fits in the Bollywood set. His Apu Trilogy work is however mentioned. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't dispute that, but if that's nowhere in the portal mentioned than how would the reader understand? The text also does not reflect his recent death. --ELEKHHT 13:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though Shankar is not known for his film compositions, he has been composer of Anuradha, Meera, Neecha Nagar and probably more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unresponsive. I'll try to answer all the questions in one post but it may take a week. I'll be active after the Boxing Day. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to your question, I don't expect images to be featured, but satisfy criteria 1(b) - and be "aesthetically pleasing". Currently almost all illustrations are low quality snapshots from press conferences. The exceptions are SP 1, 2 and 8. The most sub-standard ones are SB 6, 7, 9, DYK 3, 5, 6, SP 6, 7 ... --ELEKHHT 20:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll replace them as soon as possible. Thanks for your cooperation. — Bill william comptonTalk 06:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to your most recent question, there is a guideline with examples on Commons which explains many aspects of what makes an image good or bad. --ELEKHHT 05:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced some images (especially in the SP section). Can you take a look? — Bill william comptonTalk 07:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had. The SP changes are a clear improvement. By the DYK and SB I don't see significant difference. I appreciate your effort, and am aware of the difficulty to get good images, but overall while the portal is good, I don't find it "an example of Wikipedia's finest work", mostly because the wast majority of its illustration is low quality snapshots from press conferences. This gives undue weight to a single aspect of Bollywood, it is not aesthetically pleasing, and looks bit like a fan blog. Personally would find it better to have no images at all where no good images can be provided, for instance in the DYK section. In any case I changed my position to weak oppose, and accept that others might have different opinion. --ELEKHHT 09:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced some images (especially in the SP section). Can you take a look? — Bill william comptonTalk 07:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to your most recent question, there is a guideline with examples on Commons which explains many aspects of what makes an image good or bad. --ELEKHHT 05:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll replace them as soon as possible. Thanks for your cooperation. — Bill william comptonTalk 06:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.