Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

[[:|WT:INCINE]]

Click here to add a new section.

Project-wide Agreement on Unreliable Sources

Hello. I've been noticing a bad tendency on several pages under WP:INCINE that cite unreliable sources for cited information. By unreliable I am referring to material that is cribbed from websites of questionable veracity and perhaps questionable content too. It is unfortunate that many of our dedicated members here who claim to fans of their movie idols do not take the time to research material from more reliable (and preferably printed) sources such as Stardust, Cineblitz, Filmfare magazines, etc. Instead, we have material from Tripod sites, AOL Member homepages, and other unreliable sources such as Apunkachoice.Com and MusicIndiaOnline.Com. Trying to remove these references is of little use since edits made to improve the article(s) in these respects will be reverted by enthusiastic editors. Therefore I suggest that we have an open discussion about the veracity and reliability of several online sources, agreement that efforts should be made to gain material from printed sources, and hopefully we can all agree to remove unreliable information/references whenever one comes across them. Thank you. Ekantik ^talk 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No takers? Then I'll assume that I'm right! :-) Ekantik ^talk 06:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I agree. Zora 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Off Those Awards!

I've also noticed a disturbing tendency for several WP:INCINE to resemble crib sheets for each and every "fact" that is come across about that actor on the Net. This is mainly present in the Awards section of every page - why bother listing the awards the star has been nominated for? Isn't it better for an encyclopaedia to list awards that the star has won?

And while I'm on the subject, I think we should all agree to remove references to superficial non-notable awards (such as 'Sexiest Man/Woman of the Year 2006'). Perhaps only references to notable awards should be included, Filmfare Awards, Oscar nominations, and the like. Ekantik ^talk 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No takers? Then I'll assume that I'm right! :-) Ekantik ^talk 06:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. And I'm exhausted. I spent the whole day cooking for my daughter :) Zora 06:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope she appreciated all your hard work. :) Ekantik ^talk 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She won't appreciate it till I'm dead :( Then she'll be sorry. (Cut to scene from melodramatic Bollywood movie.) I've got a suggestion for a guideline re awards:

Only list notable awards. Listing noms is OK, I think, it's a distinction.
An award is notable if it has its own WP article or the organization sponsoring it has a WP article.
References not needed if the award has a website listing winners and noms; that can easily be checked.
If no website, then online or print reference required.

Does that work for everyone? Zora 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that seems OK. I'm just wondering about the notability of such awards; how are they seen in India for example? Are the Filmfare awards the Indian version of the Oscars, in that the stars themselves appear to accept their awards? It may be my personal opinion, but I think that awards ceremonies where the stars themselves accept their awards are prestigious enough to be notable, unlike "Maxim Magazine's Sexiest Woman Ever 2006 Award" and stuff like that.

For example the Zee Cine awards has its own WP page but I'm unsure if the awards themselves are notbale enough to be cited? But yes, I agree with your points in general. Ekantik ^talk 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prods!

Two bollywood actors have been prodded. Zeba Bakhtiar and Sushant Singh. I have not yet deprodded them as both articles are quite badly written and I am a bit out of time this week. Can someone from the project please do a better job? — Lost^(talk) 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections

I'm not a big fan of Trivia sections, especially when uncited, so I'm going to go through a number of articles and put the unsourced tag on them, if they remain unsourced for a fortnight I will delete the trivia. Any objections? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Trivia sections are a blight on many articles. I clear out the unreferenced gossip when I see it, but I can't monitor ALL the Indian cinema articles. Zora 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about unsourced trivia, but sometimes trivia is too obvious to be sourced. For example, I recently added a trivia about Shah Rukh Khan's nude scene in Maya and stripping down to his boxers in Duplicate, which was a rewrite of an older trivia. That sort of thing doesn't need to be sourced IMO because the source is the movie, right?

On the other hand, trivia which is interesting may be retained for a laugh, but I agree that trivia that is based on gossip should be removed.Ekantik ^talk 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis length

Upset by an 1800 word synopsis in one film article (not one of ours) I went to visit the main film project. Turns out that they have a guideline for synopses, as follows:

The plot section is made self-contained (and is a totally separate section designated by Plot), so plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section are repeated here. Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot.

For those of you who are wondering if the film articles with the loooooong synopses are the ones to imitate: they aren't.

I don't think there's any word count tool inside WP (though I could be wrong) but I've been copying and pasting synopses into Word or OpenOffice and using the word count tools there.

I tend to like even shorter synopses, but if the long-winded writers are willing to aim downwards, towards 400-700, I'm willing to aim upwards, towards at least the minimum bound.

The folks at the main cinema project made another suggestion, which I don't think is being tried anywhere but might work -- if someone insists on a 2000 word synopsis, set up a sub-article for the synopsis and put a shorter version on the main article. It might be interesting to check readership for those long synopses, if we had the tools to measure clickthru. I have a feeling that the long synopses exist more for the egos of the writers than for the convenience of the readers, but I could be wrong.

Happy Gregorian Calendar New Year, everyone! Zora 00:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unwise film categories to be deleted

Some film categories that were unwisely created and are about to be deleted contained some Indian films categories by decades and years. A whole similar series on American films was also deleted recently. If there are any objections, please comment in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization#New (Jan.01) undiscussed creations. Hoverfish Talk 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started compiling the entire list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Indian Films feel free to help out. Other missing lists can be created by industry in India.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable roles

Hello, the use of notable roles is back again. I feel that the notable roles should not be added, because what can we class as "notable". User:Ekantik thinks they are needed (see Shilpa Shetty discussion page) but I really need some opinions on this. Can people please comment on this. -- Pa7 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is important for Wikipedia to maintain consistency (there is precedent for this) and, following discussions held at other film project boards, "notable roles" contains information for infoboxes. Given that it is part of the actor infobox template, there is no real reason why it should not be filled in. Not that there is any real difference but if the infoboxes of certain "Western" actors are filled in (Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, Al Pacino to mention a few examples) then again there is no real reason why that cannot be so for INCINE actors.

Then the good question arises of how to determine which roles are notable, as a number of editors have opined that "personal opinion" is involved when deeming some roles notable. While I agree that this setup is open to abuse (someone may like a particular role of the actor's and include it as "notable") I do not agree that notable roles should be removed just because of that. IMO it is a weak excuse and such a nomination can be easily removed by any watchful editor. However, the question still remains and there can be a number of solutions for this:

A recent article on the actor may reference their popular movies. This can be taken as a public indicator of what roles they are best known for.
My personal rationale is that if the actor has received an award for their role in a particular movie, that role can be deemed "notable".
I do not think this is any indicator of popularity or notability, but maybe box-office figures can be taken into account.

There is also another problem. The removal of notable roles (and other information from the infobox) makes the infobox look pretty small and stupid. Especially in cases where no picture is present, there really is no need for an infobox at all. So removing notable roles reduces the size of an infobox so as to make it redundant especially when there is a large table of contents next to it. Besides that, I have noticed a trend that whenever someone removes notable roles, someone else will come along and re-insert that information again and this takes place as a repeated cycle. So, in my view, there is no real reason why notable roles should be removed as long as there is some justification for why that role is notable, and not just because "it is personal opinion".

Again in my opinion, efforts should be made to hold discussions at the BLP noticeboard or in conjunction with them since they are the "experts" on biographies. We should remember that actor articles are primarily BLP articles with secondary INCINE authority, so such articles are meant to follow WP:BLP guidelines primarily (and also WP:MOS to some extent. But frankly, I must say that I'm very surprised that this issue should be the subject of much discussion when a negligible level of attention was paid to the discussion about the use of reliable sources, which still hasn't gaind consensus. And that issue is far more important than the inclusion (or not) of notable roles. I think this is an adequate summary of my views on the matter. Thoughts? Ekantik ^talk 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, some people like some films and some like others. Chosing a list of "notable roles" means chosing a list that YOU like. Others may make a different choice. Lists of movies for which the actor has won awards are found in the article, and in many cases are too long to put in an infobox. Critics have different ideas about what's good and bad, so you can't go by "critical reception."

The only thing that is truly objective is receipts. If you want to put in the work to find out the box office (and other) receipts for all the movies in which a certain star has appeared in a leading role, and then list "five most popular movies," that would be objective. Actually, we could use revenue data, whenever obtainable, in as many film articles as possible. Saying that "it did well at the box office" is better than "it was a mega-hit" (which is not encyclopedic language) but neither is as good as saying, "Main Hoon Na earned Rs. 37,98,00,000, according to BoxOfficeIndia." Not clear if that includes revenue other than box-office. Zora 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, I've already addressed your concerns as well as providing three different ways in which we can seek a rationale for determining which roles are notable. It does not necessarily have to be someone's personal opinion because if that was so, there would be disputes all over Wikipedia on articles about every single actor. There isn't, because the involved editors of those articles are sensible enough to agree on which roles are notable. A child may think Gene Hackman's role in Superman was notable. Maybe so, but no one can deny that his role in French Connection is more notable given that he won an Oscar for it. I still think "Awards won" is more of a determinant about notable roles and I also agree with your point about repetition in the article. In that case I'd say that the whole point of the infobox (and the lead come to that) was to present immediately pertinent information to the reader.

Your box-office idea is interesting and I suggested that too, but on second thoughts I don't think this is enough because a box-office hit may be for different reasons than that of a particular performer. For example, Hrithik Roshan's role in Krrish may be notable because it was a massive hit but the same does not hold true for Priyanka Chopra or Rekha, as kids/viewers will find Hrithik/Krrish more exciting to watch than them. (But if Priyanka and Rekha win an award for their performance in Krrish then that becomes 'notable' I guess.) I agree with your points about revenues though, they will make nice additions to articles. Ekantik ^talk 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, if it's SOOOO easy for everyone to agree on notable roles, you tell me which are Aamir Khan's notable roles. Then we'll argue. Zora 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings me neatly to my next point: For very popular stars we can keep it down to a maximum of 4 or 5. This is especially true in Amitabh Bachchan's case whose career has spanned decades and has hundreds of hits, we can add about 4 or 5 but we'd have to include his role in Sholay for example.

To be honest I really don't get why there is such a problem with this, if other actor pages can agree on notable roles then why can't we? I remember reading somewhere that Wikipedia's ultimate goal is to be the ultimate resource of all information, so the proper way to go about things is to put information in rather than taking it out. That's what talk-pages are for, discussion. But again I'd advise holding this discussion at Village Pump or in conjunction with other film-oriented Wikiprojects to get an idea of community consensus, although I personally think it is a non-issue. Ekantik ^talk 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Aamir Khan, I'll admit that I'm not up-to-date on his latest works, but I'd say that 'Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak' and 'Raja Hindustani' would/should be among any notable roles list for him. :) I think that it is much easier to decide once an actor's career is over. For example, now that Kirk Douglas is no longer working, everyone can agree that Spartacus was one of his notable roles. Ditto for Yul Brynner and his roles in The King And I, The Ten Commandments, etc (the last one is a notable role for Charlton Heston also), so I understand the problems with current actors. When Shah Rukh Khan throws in the towel, people may look back on DDLJ, KKHH, K3G as some of his greatest hits, but are they necessarily notable roles. Hmmm,...Ekantik ^talk 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, I notice that you couldn't answer my question. Any five of Aamir's films that I like, someone else might dislike.

I've been online since 1988, on GEnie, Usenet, blogs, and WP, and I've witnessed hundreds of arguments re the "best" books, films, actors, foods, whatever. One person puts up a list and says, "These are the ten best science fiction novels of all time," and then the arguments start. They never finish. They are never resolved. They just dwindle and die as people get tired of the squabbling. There is NO WAY you are going to get everyone to agree on what are the notable roles and what aren't. Twenty years experience says that's true. What have you got? An assertion that it's easy, plus an inability to answer a test question. Zora 06:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, I already told you that I'm not familiar with the recent work of Aamir Khan, although I answered to the best of my ability based on what I have seen: His role in QSQT may not necessarily be "notable" although it is stated everywhere in published sources that it was his first movie. Raja Hindustani was certainly a notable role. And now that I think about it, his role in 'Rangeela' could be notable and his role in Lagaan is definitely notable. Beyond that, I don't think you are being very fair "testing" me about an actor whose career I'm not all that familiar with, not to mention being satisfied with what I did say in response. You still haven't got the point; it is not about personal opinions, it is about sensibly determining a notability of a particular role. Do you really have any other points to make about their non-inclusions other than "personal opinion"? That sounds like a very weak case to me.

I personally do not care if you have been online since the history of the world, since I notice that you continually bring up your internet history as a way to intimidate other editors with your alleged expertise. Wikipedia is different: It is your responsibility as an editor (as are all Wikipedians) to edit Wikipedia to be the resource of information that it is supposed to be, and also by way of its overriding WP:NPOV principle. Therefore if any "arguments" start (despite your inability to give any examples of such arguments) it is your responsibility to stop the "squabble" by referring to neutral (NPOV) information/sources. I have noticed that arguments related to articles on WP:INCINE are usually because they are poorly referenced; if proper references were obtained then there would hardly be any problem. Besides that, if you continue to disagree over the notability of actor roles, then we may as well do away with the infoboxes altogether. There is no use in having an infobox when you are not going to put any information in them.

And while I'm on the subject, I don't think that I care very much for your aggressive and challenging tone. You may like to read WP:CIVIL in this regard. After twenty years on the Internet andthree years as a Wikipedian (your claims), you really should know better. Ekantik ^talk 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of renaming this section to "notable roles" since it is not to do with Shilpa Shetty but relevant for all BLP articles also under INCINE. Hope nobody minds. Ekantik ^talk 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song clips for Ilaiyaraaja

I've made an 'Audio samples' section for this article. Feel free to test-drive and to perhaps comment (I hope you have Winamp or BS.Player to run the files!). I used Audacity 1.2.6 to create the clips. Having only built-in speakers on my laptop I am unable to adequately evaluate the quality of these sound clips, so some external feedback is kindly requested. AppleJuggler 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried uploading them to Commons? Ekantik ^talk 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the clips onto Wikipedia but not at the Commons. I'm a bit slack about going to the Commons as I find that (i) I need to register my ID (again, separately) at the Commons while I feel strongly that with a Wikipedia ID one should be given the option to automatically have an account at the Commons, (ii) it is absurd that files uploaded onto Wikipedia are not automatically pooled at the Commons, thereby eliminating the inefficiency of having to upload items twice (once at Wikipedia and once again at the Commons), and (iii) the requirement that the Commons accepts only 'freely licensed materials' is off-putting; I created these 30-second sound clips but I feel these clips are considered fair use and not free use (a single, authoritative document/one-stop centre for all media licensing matters in Wikipedia is not easily findable, is woefully wordy and unclear that is discourages its reading and encumbers efforts to easily understand licensing matters). But I will consider putting these clips up at the Commons at some stage, when the issues raised above are addressed. Thank you for bringing this up, Ekantik. AppleJuggler 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I was just wondering, :) but fair enough I agree about your issues with Commons. I was under the impression that having an account at WP automatically registered you with Commons and other sister-projects, as I don't remember separately registering at Commons. Why not login to Commons with your WP ID and find out? It might work.

I agree with the problems about licensing, it seems terribly difficult to determine what's allowed and what's not, and makes me feel very lethargic when I think about trying to upload something. :( Ekantik ^talk 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No — your registered username in Wikipedia is not automatically registered with Wikimedia Commons; separate registration is required. I find this inefficiency on the part of the Wiki organisation somewhat puzzling, unless they are trying to conserve hard drive space on their servers by not allowing simultaneous automatic registration for the Commons (because someone registered with Wikipedia may not use the Commons at all and so you'd have an unused Commons account lying around). And I can very well identify with the licensing-induced lethargy you speak about! AppleJuggler 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weird, I thought it was automatic, although signing up for an account is not that hard. About images - ugh! Can you believe that some pages advise contacting "official sources" like fan clubs, official websites and the like to obtain permission to use their pictures? Getting images this way really strikes me as trying to touch your nose by winding your arm around the back of your head instead of touching it directly, haha. I remember reading something from Jimbo about how it is a near-hopeless cause to get official sources to release images under a free license, so sometimes I wonder, why bother?

I should talk, I've just sent off an email to Shilpa Shetty's publicity agent requesting him to release some quality promotional images *roll eyes*, for some reason I don't think I'll get very far lol, but worth a try. Ekantik ^talk 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. I have gone through the very same in trying to obtain permission from 'official sources' for using some old photographs of Ilaiyaraaja. Often, 'official sources' or official representatives are difficult to get in touch with, and then again one must be careful to be sure that the person who eventually does sanction usage is vested with the sufficient responsibility to give permission. At other times, I've not received any response at all from these 'official sources' with regard to image usage. So it certainly does get a little frustrating. Nevertheless, to empathise with the Wikipedia Organisation, I can see that they are truly trying to keep things free for the public in the broadest ways possible. So sometimes I take the trouble just for this sake. p.s. it seems like you and the rest are doing an impressive job with the Shilpa article. AppleJuggler 06:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) I took a look at the Ilaiyaraja article and I think you are doing a great job too. I'll try to help if I can but I hope it gets FA-status. :)Ekantik ^talk 02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Khanna article

An editor named Jatinram is an extreme Rajesh Khanna fan and periodically visits the article to fill it with badly-written fan worship. We revert him, he goes away for a while, then returns. Lately he's been editing from anonIPs, but it's clearly the same guy, inserting the same fractured prose. I used up my three reverts against him yesterday -- he did four, and now the article is left in fan-gush mode. I would appreciate it if someone else could revert the article to the less-worshipful version.

I think that if the actor were asked, he'd prefer a dignified article to Jatinram's version, but I suspect that this is more about Jatinram's ego than it is about memorializing Khanna.

I did the work to document the 3RR violation, then warned Jatinram at the anonIP he was using. I'm not sure that I could get him blocked without a further violation, which I can't do without exposing myself to penalty. Zora 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zora,

I'll help you with that - reverted it back and maybe, I find some references to get rid of the "^{[citation needed]}"s. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Zora 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Films Infobox Backlog

If you're interested in helping add infoboxes to film articles, you can visit here or adopt a letter here. We currently have about 900 articles (with some of these of these being Indian films) that don't have infoboxes and we have so far completed about 200 in the last few weeks. We would appreciate any assistance in eradicating the requests. There are instructions and an example on the template's page and if you need any help or have any questions ask one of the members who are currently working on the infoboxes or at the project's talk page. Thanks, and keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists lacking sources of reference -- List of India's official entries to the Oscars and National Film Awards

Nice lists, but their usefulness is compromised as sources of reference (be it books, newspaper articles, or reliable websites (i.e., not a blog)) are lacking. I've made mention of this on the project page, and I hope this can be addressed. AppleJuggler 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove struck-out to-do items on the project page?

Entries for issues that have been dealt with could be erased perhaps? The project page is getting long and cluttered. AppleJuggler 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Wait a day and if no one objects, do it! Zora 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AppleJuggler 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu_Niigaam?

Is it me or should the name of the article be changed to Sonu Nigam, which is a more commonly used spelling? Gizza^Chat ^© 09:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the artiste's official website (if available), or refer to spelling in recent official press releases made by the artiste. AppleJuggler 04:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable news sources galore!

As a continuation of what I wrote above here, I failed to realise what a great source Google News can be! You'll notice that it is the Entertainment (India) section, which can be used to highly benefit Wikipedia with reliable sources, SantaBanta and GlamSham excepting, of course. Ekantik ^talk 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tale of two importance ratings

The administering of ratings (such as 'importance' ratings) involves some degree of subjectivity, yet a subject's absolute importance is often roughly assessable (e.g., a Gandhi or an Asoka would be accorded topmost rating for their importance to India). Clearer still would be the issue of relative importance (within a single WikiProject, for instance; say, the importance of a Salman Khan relative to an Amitabh Bachchan in WikiProject Indian Cinema). Given this, I thought I'd share something amusing that I noticed. Aamir Khan and Aishwarya Rai hold the highest rank by the criterion of importance ('top importance') (here the question of the subjects' absolute importance arises). By relative importance, on the other hand, poor old Satyajit (who put Indian cinema on the global map) doesn't seem to be sharing that very tall, very selective (yet presently slightly crowded) pedestal of 'top importance' in WikiProject Indian Cinema (did he slip off?). One can't help but be amused that film personality's level of glamour and popularity influences importance rating in WikiProject Indian Cinema. (For a related discussion, go here). AppleJuggler 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy! :) And Satyajit Ray is FA-status too. Ekantik ^talk 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct order of filmographies

I've just discovered WP:LOW; it basically means that to create a consistent standard throughout Wikipedia works must be mentioned earliest first. In relation to our INCINE articles, this means that filmographies should be re-arranged to display the actor/producer/director's earliest works first with the recent ones at the bottom.

Don't look at me! :) I personally think it's a bad idea and I prefer it to be recent works at the top, but hey... Ekantik ^talk

Hmmmm, I've just discovered that this is one of those issues where there is an eternal dispute: one group of editors arguing in favour of earliest-to-last chronology and another group arguing for latest-to-earliest chronology. Looks like it'll be some time before this gets sorted out, these disputes can be so irritating sometimes. Ekantik ^talk 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filmfare Awards can now be listed in Infoboxes

Just to let everyone know that I've been instrumental in getting a "Filmfare Awards" field added into the actor infobox template, see Template_talk:Infobox_actor#Golden_Globe_Awards. This means that we no longer have to worry about our actors not winning Oscars, Emmys and the like, but if they've won a Filmfare Award then it can now be listed in the infobox! To find out how to properly list them, see Template:Infobox_actor: Use the same format as academyawards. Ekantik ^talk 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed

Ganayogi Panchakshari Gavayi lacks any sources. I followed Girish Karnad's filmography at the IMDb but couln't find anything close. Can someone please take a look at the article? Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use images in danger

Since a lot of BLP and film articles under the INCINE project employ fair-use images, it looks like there has been some sort of a crackdown on FU images. This apparently comes straight from the top → Wikimedia Foundation board meeting. Even then there sems to be a bit of confusion as Jimbo says he will try and sort it out, but the basic premise is that FU images should not be used unless there is a watertight and cast-iron rationale for doing so.

It's bonkers if you ask me. Fair Use is used almost everywhere in all sorts of media except Wikipedia now. I appreciate that Wikipedia suffers a high level of vandalism/irresponsibility but that's no reason to go around willy-nilly deleting images with good FU rationales. I guess the only way to be on the safe side is to do our best to gain copyright permission from whoever owns it. It's not impossible; that thing I mentioned above about Shilpa Shetty and her PETA advertisement image, I managaed to get copyright permission for that and license it under the GFDL. I also got the lead picture at Shilpa Shetty approved by the photographer. so it's not that hard to gain copyright if you make the effort and hopefully you are dealing with nice people. Ekantik ^talk 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]