Abecedare mentioned this on my talk page, citing this interesting article. Short story for anyone interested: Named after a legendary Indian filmmaker, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is a sub-award of the Indian government's National Film Awards. It's basically a lifetime achievement award. Other organisations have used Dadasaheb Phalke's name for their awards, which erroneously makes it sound like some actors have won one of India's most prestigious awards, when that is rarely the case. Some news organisations don't make this distinction, like here where Times of India says that 34-year-old Ranvir Singh is winning the award, when what he was presented with was the Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award. Something totally different. This is a problem, because there are many mom-and-pop organisations who use the Dadasaheb name to make a quick buck. We should probably figure out how we should handle this. Here are my thoughts:
Non-notable versions of this award should be removed. Like with any award mill, if we can't figure out who is behind it, then it should go. That also means that if there is no Wikipedia article about the organisation, it is presumably non-notable and should be removed. For example: At List of accolades received by Padmaavat, Ranvir Singh is listed as a Dadasaheb Phalke Award winner. Clearly incorrect, and I think the entire award should go.
If notable organisations, ex: major news sites have named one of their awards after Dadasaheb Phalke, then we can consider keeping the award, but obviously we should not be linking to the National Film Award one.
Sorry for being overly educational in the text above. I thought I'd give the whole run-down for any non-Indians who might be interested in commenting. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Having researched this issue further over the past day, I have to agree with Cyphoidbomb that none of these awards are worthy of wikipedia article, and it's at best doubtful whether they are even worth mentioning in articles about the winning films/actors etc. I won't go into details at the moment but will note that the awarding organizations are iffy/unknown; the award categories, when available, are an indiscriminate hodge-podge; press coverage is essentially reprints of press releases (more often, in the form of photo galleries) related to the awards functions; consolidated data of the winners is often unavailable even from the organizers' websites (which is reminiscent of award-mills like ABI etc). Also confusion between these awards and the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is far from rare in mainstream media; in addition to the ToI article listed by Cyph, see this FirstPost piece or HT article. For this last reason, I think we should mention this controversy/confusion somewhere in mainspace, perhaps at Dadasaheb Phalke Award but that is a secondary issue.
I have listed a few such clone awards below. Feel free to add to the list and/or specify if you think if any of them are notable enough to (1) have wikipedia articles, or (2) mention in the winners' wikipedia articles. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I found this TimesNowNews.com slideshow, which says "The Dadasaheb Phalke Award is India's highest honour in the entertainment sector and is presented annually at the National Film Awards. Check out all the photos from the award ceremony below." The photos are just red-carpet snaps from the DP International Film Festival Awards. Horrendous. I agree that mentioning the confusion about copycat awards at the real award article might be worth considering. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I think if the clone/copy-cat award is not notable enough to have article on wikipedia, then we shouldn't mention the award in articles. It will just confuse the readers. Many people still dont know that there is only one awardee for the Phalke Award, with no category. It is based on the awardee's contribution, let be singing, acting, directing or anything else related to films. Other awards awarded by the govt/body are called as "national film awards". So there are high chances that the readers might get confused "Dadasaheb Phalke Excellence Award" as the main, original prestegious award, or as some subcategory of the original award. It is better to remove the copycats completely. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I have added a short section to the Dadasaheb Phalke Awards page about the naming issue. Arguably, the content doesn't merit a dedicated section but the lede was already too long to include it there and, if needed, the section can be a target for redirects from the redlinks listed below. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
AndhraBoxOffice as a reliable source for Telugu box officeEdit
AndhraBoxOffice.com is a trade website for box office collections and pre-release business figures of Telugu films. It is being quoted by film journalists at publications like The Hindu, Livemint, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, IB Times etc. They have box office numbers for all major Telugu films of the past 10 years. Think it can be used as a source for Tollywood films. Please share your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kekamohan (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Standard questions: Who runs it? Who is the editor? What are the contributors' credentials? If the answer to most of these questions is "I don't know", then no, we shouldn't use them, no matter how desperate the mainstream sources are for clickbait financial figures. For any of the ICTF regulars who care, this query stems from edits at Bharat Ane Nenu, where the above editor twice decided of their own volition to ignore what IBT estimated the film's gross to be, instead replacing it with figures that better matched their worldview.. Because I guess faceless websites are better than websites run by known people? And in a world where there is no accuracy in Indian film financials, I want to know how Kekamohan is somehow able to vet the authenticity of the Andhra figures as being more reliable than anybody else's guesses, which is what they were doing in those two problematic edits. Hence the unfounded declaration "it is more reliable for Telugu box office than IB Times which is known for inflated boxoffice figures". So go ahead, Kekamohan prove that it is more reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
AndhraBoxOffice is definitely not reliable because of its blog-like nature. If a reliable third-party source quotes it, then it is still not RS. Per WP:Fruit of the poisonous tree, "If information gained from a reliable source (the "fruit") traces back to an unreliable source (the "tree") then that information is unreliable as well." --Kailash29792(talk) 15:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Never heard of this trade source. Their website looks blog-like and doesn't strike as a reliable source. Also, what is meant by "pre-release business figures" on AndhraBoxOffice? Are they including this in the final figure? DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Pre-release business is typically rights sales like music rights and satellite broadcast rights. These should never be factored into box office figures, since across the world, box office = money made selling tickets at the box office, just like budget = cost of making the film, not of advertising. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Panda619: I've never heard of it. I'd be skeptical of any professional source that uses a Gmail address. And I'm talking about one's personal life too. It's a three-year-old site, so it hasn't yet established itself as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, IMO. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, we don't know who's behind it or what their qualifications are or if there is any editorial oversight, the usual WP:RS stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Following up on this, it seems the site could be trying to ride on Rentrak's coattails, as this is a reputable calculation presence who might actually be trying to do some good across this giant globe. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Are actor salaries typically factored in budget? Turns out Indian film trades don't factor salaries in production budget (atleast, thats my assumption from Mission Mangal's budget (link is non-RS)reports), so wanted to know if this is the international norm or not. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan: I feel badly that nobody has responded with any info on this. I think you should ask at WT:FILM. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
and about BOI, many of their budget figures have been inconsistent with other sources and inflated, as said in their website, they seem to even include marketing costs. so not sure about reliability of BOI, when it comes to budget. Panda619 (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, that was not the point I meant to get across. The non-RS link says "100 Crore is the estimated budget of Mission Mangal, Production Cost: 32 Crore, Salary Cost: 50 Crore, Prints & Advertising Cost: 18 Crore". BOI's film profile pages include P&A, but after the release of every film they write daily reports on its box office, which often includes the budget without P&A. Their budget+P&A and budget without P&A figures match up with the non-RS link's breakdown, so it seems like our options for budget are production cost without salary, and production cost with salary and P&A. But again, some actors opt for profit sharing, so the line isn't exactly clear. DeluxeVegan (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I do believe "300 crore club" is arbitrary. The media did create a lot of noise over the "100 crore club" back in the day (2006? 2007?) and continues to do so even now. Only two films, Dangal and Baahubali 2, have crossed 1000 crore worldwide, so it's less of a club and more of a "will more films cross 1000 crore?". The inflation section in the 1000 crore club article seems to step into OR territory. DeluxeVegan (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
News18 is listed as a reliable source at WP:ICTFFAQ. At Talk:Bollywood, however, User:Gotitbro is disputing this, claiming that News18 is not a reliable source, specifically claiming that the "Buzz" section of the site is unreliable. For some reason, the user believes that the "Buzz" section is actually a "blog" and therefore unreliable, despite the site's "Buzz" section making no mention of the word "blog" anywhere. I explained to the user that News18 already has a separate Blogs section, and that the "Buzz" section is not a "blog" in any way, and that the word "buzz" is simply a reference to showbiz. But the user persistently insists that s/he feels the "Buzz" section of News18 is an "unreliable" source. It would be helpful if a third-party could comment on the reliability of News18, specifically its "Buzz" section. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Please do not make any claims on my behalf, you are free to present your own viewpoint but do not misrepresent my claims here. My contention was with this specific article (not News18) and validity of the section where it was posted, which would clearly indicate that this was posted in the section which lists things that are buzzing/trending on the internet, i.e. blog, not showbiz (you would know if you actually visited it, not to mention that there is a different showbiz/entertainment section on the website). I have already explained in length why that specific article [among others that were claiming plagiarism] does not even meet the threshold of a reliable article in length already at Talk:Bollywood#Plagiarism section, so I would advice anyone to go through that discussion beforehand. Gotitbro (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
A casual question just to see how people generally feel before proceeding elsewhere or not: At List of highest-grossing Indian films we have films listed by language. The Baahubali films were ostensibly shot by a Telugu studio. But the same figures we have in the Telugu list appear in the Tamil list because the films were also shot in Tamil. Surely the Telugu versions performed differently than the Tamil versions, no? But they each carry the same weight in two different lists. Saaho, an ostensible Telugu-industry film, is shot in 3 languages, so as of right now it would have to be listed in three different sections. As this trend of films being shot in different languages increases, are we OK with these films, which presumably originate from specific ethnic industries, bleeding into other language lists?
For example, in the Telugu list, Baahubali: The Beginning made ₹650 crore. This probably represents what the film made across all languages and dubs, worldwide. In the Tamil list, Baahubali: The Beginning made the same amount. Is that how we should be presenting this information? Does it erroneously suggest that the Tamil version of the film made tons of money when we don't know that to be the case? If a studio decides to shoot in multiple languages, that creates a sprawl across multiple data tables that could be construed as undue emphasis on that one company's filming decisions. Saaho, having made 350 crore, would be about to kick Enthiran down a notch on the Tamil list, and is poised to boot Vishwaroopam off the top 10 completely. (Not that I place any value on Wikipedia's film ranking...)
Since everything's an estimate, I am not sure if we have access to language-wise breakdown for all these films (Apparently only 5% screens have Rentrak installed, so emergence of legitimate bo figures is a long wait). It does make sense to stick to ethnic industries in most cases; many old films from Bollywood are actually Urdu, and the line between Hindi and Urdu sometimes gets blurry. A list of highest-grossing Hindi-language films adjusted for inflation apparently cannot include Sholay, since the language spoken is Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu, not plain Hindi, according to Wikipedia. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, though we haven't heard from him in a while, Rob Cain is apparently not a Forbes contributor (i.e. blogger) anymore. See here, where it says "Former Contributor". Also, his Twitter account was suspended for some reason. His numbers always seemed inflated to me, especially the Kabali stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan: Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I think we need to exclude these Forbes contributors. I have no idea what credentials they carry, but Cain was a highly questionable voice who seemed to produce numbers that were not consistent with the regulars. I'd be interested in feedback from some of the regulars, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the above 2 AfDs, we seem to have a disagreement related to WP:CHART and applicability of WP:NSONG #1. Can someone guide me what charts are suitable for gauging the NSONGS for India. The last discussion was 7 years ago.
Music plus is one such chart that has a decent criteria and publishes detailed info on individual sites rank, Would like to know if this is good and if more such exist.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Radio Mirchi also publishes its chart of top 20 songs. here that appears to me as useful in checking the song notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
None of these are official charts, hence I wouldn’t suggest using either to gauge the notability of songs. The best thing you could use would be YouTube views.—NØ 05:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
User:MaranoFan Thanks for sharing your opinion. Can you elaborate more on what you meant by official ? The Radio Mirchi site is the official site, They are one (perhaps most popular) of Indian FM radios. The reason for starting this discussion was to agree to some sort of guidelines in accordance with WP:CHART, since Indian songs dont have one. As you can see in the AfD myself and DA are in loggerheads over the chart rankings of the songs. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)