User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cyphoidbomb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

The reason I made that edit is because boxoffice grosses are usually in US dollars on the English Wikipedia. People are going to think those billion dollar grosses are in US dollars. By clarifying that its in rupees and adding US dollar conversions will give non-Indian readers a better understanding of the monetary values. Someone at my work was looking at the numbers and said "What. This movie grossed over $6.5 Billion at the boxoffice? That means its bigger than Avatar (2009 film) and Titanic (1997 film)". Umm no. So this makes it clearer for the non-Indian English reader.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Giantdevilfish, your points are noted, but the English Wikipedia is not the US Wikipedia, and converting to US dollars feeds into the system-wide pro-US-bias. The reason why many figures are in US dollars, is because the US film industry dominates the globe and there are major centralised sources like BoxOfficeMojo that tracks these figures in US dollars. An astute reader who is trying to perform legit research on Indian box office figures should be able to see that they're not in US dollars, and can do the currency conversions on their own accord. Sorry that your co-worker didn't spot the ₹, but that's kind of his/her own reading comprehension issue. Anyhow, if you feel strongly about this, you can always revisit the issue by opening a discussion at WT:ICTF, but based on previous discussions[1][2][3] I don't know that you'll get much support. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the ₹, I'm talking about the numbers in brackets next to it. How many non-Indians are going to know that that is a Rupee conversion and not a Dollar conversion? Most people outside of India don't know what a ₹ is (including myself) so that gives it a non Indian monetary reference for people that read the English Wikipedia. That's my point of contention. When people see numbers in Billions and Millions they tend to think of dollars rather than rupees (at least in the English speaking world).Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Giantdevilfish: I'm not sure if I really understand your last point, but if I'm interpreting what you mean correctly, does this edit help to clarify things? I added the {{INR}} symbol in a few parentheticals. I think I'm confused by what you mean when you say a "Rupee conversion", since both figures, ex: ₹650 crore (6.5 billion), mean the same thing, i.e. a quantity of rupees. I'm trying not to be overly didactic, and I'm being a bit presumptuous about your knowledge, but "crore" is an Indian measurement unit that means 10 million. In India, they're not really into "million" and "billion" labels and use "lakh" (1 lakh = 100,000) and "crore" instead. Per MOS:COMMONALITY, the general Wikipedia community prefers Western labels like "million" and "billion", but some Indian editors feel this is a bit confusing to the Indian readership, so they sometimes include an Indian "translation" next to the Western value. So ₹650 crore = 650 x 10,000,000 or 6.5 billion rupees. Does that make sense? Anyhow, I hope I haven't insulted you with the explanation. It took me quite some time to get used to the whole "crore" thing. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit more coherent now (remember being Canadian I'm coming from a Western point of view here). Initially one would believe that that 650 Crore becomes 6.5 Billion US Dollars. That was what made me do the edit in the first place. When a woman at my work brought it to my attention I was confused myself. I had to do research to find that it wasn't converted into US Dollars but another domination of Indian currency. It clears it up now.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Giantdevilfish: Psst! Your talk page doesn't say you're Canadian. I didn't know! One additional clarification: we're not talking about different denominations of currency, we're talking about different ways to represent numbers. Getting away from currency for a second, 10 crore maple trees = 100,000,000 maple trees. It's kinda like how in English we have "score" to mean 20, or "dozen" to mean 12. It's just a different way to represent a batch. Oh, and to make things SUPER exciting, in the Indian numerical system, you want to know how 10 crore is written? Like this: 10,00,00,000 It should be fun to try to wrap your head around that all weekend... Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite few times i had edited some few things (despite so called admin protection) on the page Bajrangi Bhaijaan. Heres the edits [4] and [5]. Adding wrong information of boxoffice and producers seems to be right? and if NO so the page should require pending change protection UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DATA USER SENDS SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH A "VALID" SOURCE. Still it has been targeted by user (suspected as socks likely). SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@D'SuperHero: Sorry, I don't understand what your concern is here or what you're asking me to change. The 626 crore figure was present as far back as September 2015 and was supported by this koimoi article. While I wouldn't consider that a useful reference, Box Office India seemed to place the gross in the 603 crore range. In this September 2016 edit, a user swapped it to the Bollywood Hungama source, presumably to address the need for a better source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir, as per policy We Are Not A Directory. Here there is a category Category:Unreleased Indian films where shelved films are categorized. We can make an exception for the films which are released in film festivals. But the films which are not releasing (in future too) does not need to have its own article else it must be created as draft. So may i keep the category for deletion or what exact action to be taken against this obsolete category? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@D'SuperHero: There appears to be a wider precedent at Category:Unreleased films. I I think there's significant academic value for a student to have access to this category page, as I can envision legitimate academic reasons to want to know why the films were shelved. Was Shoebite shelved because of legal concerns? What other films were shelved for this reason? Midnight Rider was shelved because a crew member was hit by a train and died. What other films were shelved because of deaths? Having a general category to track these films seems totally reasonable to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cyphoidbomb whatever you have undone my update on saaho page is not correct. Please check the reference 1 which is mentioned in the page. The cast mentioned over there is for the film baahubali, not for saaho. That is what I removed in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sridhar84 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

stop reverting constructive, and cited references of intellectual editors, and stop tagging them as block evasion which is not the case. They are contributing to wikipedia without disrupting its policies. Provide feedback to wikipedia on this unique behavior of padmalkshmisx which is actually helping wikipedia India related articles. Tell the arbitration committee about the failed Sockpuppet policy, which is neither helping wikipedia nor is a threat to editors. The sockpuppet system has failed.Paidiiijayraj (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What an idiotic post. The failure in the sockpuppet policy is the arrogant editor who, despite being asked to leave for editing non-constructively by violating community policies, obsessively keeps returning to waste the time of other editors. I have no sympathy or respect for a person who keeps having trouble over and over again and can't figure out that he is the root cause of his own troubles. It's like getting banned from a shopping mall because you were caught stealing, then coming back every day because you think you have a right to go to the food court. The security guards come to drag you away and you harp about how their policies are flawed. "Mm, no sweetie, the problem is: stay the hell out of the mall." I told you in early January that the only option for you was the standard offer. It's been 3 months. You would be half-way through the "stay away for 6 months" requirement, but for some reason you were incapable of this, and now the clock has reset, as I warned you it would. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The basic rule of only country name may not apply completely for Countries like India where it had more than four big movie Industries. I am not saying about just languages. Although these movie industries are based on Language they are still different from each other from where they are produced. All other movies which are made in single language are said by their industry name in South India except this movie. This would be biased and against Wikipedia policy I beileve. It would be better to add Industry base(Tollywood/Bollywood) independent of Language for India alone. The fact being here is the movie being telugu (even if its made in other language in parallel) is being supressed even if i am adding cited sources and again i beleivve its against neutral point of view as otehr movie pages in South india clearly mentions their industry name. agasthyathepirate(talk) 13:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Agasthyathepirate If this is something you feel strongly about, you might consider bringing it up in some wider forum like WT:ICTF, because your proposition would impact many articles. I'm not a stranger to Indian film articles, and I know very well that Baahubali is an irritant to people with ethnic pride issues (I'm not talking about you) who want the Telugu cinema industry to get "its due credit". This was discussed in depth at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films years ago, because some Telugu readers couldn't stomach seeing the word Tamil in the language column. I don't particularly care if the community decides some acknowledgement of ethnic industry belongs somewhere in the lead section, but cramming it into the first sentence, which is always jam packed with information, is not wise. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Agasthyathepirate: As an alternative, since we have to mention the studio anyway, perhaps constructing a clever, short sentence about Arka Media Works that makes the industry clear might work. A la: "The film was produced by the Tollywood studio Arka Media Works." Or "The film was produced by Arka Media Works in Hyderabad, the center of the Telugu film industry." At least then it's not crammed into the opening sentence and has sufficient connective tissue. But again, you should consider opening this up to a wider discussion at WT:ICTF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sir, please turn your kind attention to the above page. A user Rashqeqamar is repeatedly vandalizing the page and other related pages with his own POV. I have reverted this user for now but he is likely to vandalize the page again. Also this user threatens those users who happen to undo his edits. I don't know how to handle such users. Please help in maintaining the page as it is and protecting it from vandalism. You can warn this user far more efficiently. Vibhss (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Can you be more specific about what sort of vandalism they're creating? Providing diffs like this and then explaining what's wrong with it would be helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this user is segregating the box office figures for different language versions of films including dubbed ones, e.g. separate figures for Baahubali 2's Hindi version, Tamil version and Telugu version. This film is bilingual (made simultaneously into Telugu and Tamil) and it was already highlighted in the tables (by dark shaded columns) with a bilingual label. Isn't a film represented by its original language(s) ? Hollywood films are released in so many languages worldwide. Will the worldwide gross of such film be segregated into different languages ? Hindi and Malayalam versions of BB 2 are only dubbed version. Its original languages are Telugu and Tamil. Moreover, this user is also manipulating box office figures of films PK and Dangal when the figures are already supported with sources considered "reliable" as per WP:ICTF. I know different sources have different verdicts on box office figures. But same applies for Baahubali 2. Another user undid his revision with a suitable explanation and this user reverted him and later on "warned" him on his talk page not to break Wikipedia's "norms". That's all. Vibhss (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: I did notice some clear cases of vandalism after your note and have warned him about them. If he does any more of the numerical changes that aren't consistent with the source, I will block him indefinitely. I also told him he needs to seek consensus to limit the Hindi films to not include dubs. That's just a really controversial and non-intuitive decision to make without discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I would like to add that Hindi films like PK, Bajirao Mastani and many others also have been dubbed in South Indian languages and same applies vice-versa. If we mention segregated box office figures for all versions of BB 2, it would become mandatory to do the same for BB 1 and other films with various language versions. But I request you to keep track of this page as an administrator. This page is being heavily edited nowadays and many edits constitute vandalism. Vibhss (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Oh, it's been on my list for quite some time. And yes, you are correct, the suggestion to exclude dubs is idiotic. When Marvel releases a new Avengers film in China, they no doubt dub it into various languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, etc.) I'm not aware of any situation where we exclude money made from these dubs. I consider the user's change highly questionable and while I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't look like a good-faith change to me, particularly when he's clearly screwing around with sourced figures. If he does this again and I don't happen to be around, feel free to report him at WP:AIV and point to this comment: Note to Admins: The user referenced above (Rashkeqamar) has been engaged in good-hand/bad-hand editing including unambiguous vandalism. They've also made bizarre POV edits like unilaterally deciding to exclude dubbed films from worldwide gross figures. Given the shape of the user's edits, and the ubiquity of paid/unpaid sockpuppets who exist solely to fuck with Indian film financials, my instinct is to indef, since this sort of editing style tends to be persist even after blocks, wasting editor time. Of course, whatever you decide is fine by me. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, are you giving this note on your behalf ? I didn't understand this wholly. Vibhss (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What happen with the Great Father boxoffice collection? It was in the wikipedia website last week. Now, I dont see it. Someone changed it. please fix that. It got 50 cr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuliMurugan (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@PuliMurugan: I don't know what article you're referring to. Please be more specific. Also, check the edit history to see if it was removed with an explanation. From what I remember, the collection figures of Great Father are coming from the producer, and one editor in particular, Jupitus Smart, proposed that we wait a bit for the figures to settle, since we don't use primary sources for controversial data like box office figures, since a producer/director/actor/distributor would have every reason to exaggerate. Since there's this silly competition between Mohanlal and Mammootty, there is a persistent desire of the primary sources to declare new records being broken. None of that is Wikipedia's problem, as have no deadline and we are not a breaking news source. So you should probably open a discussion on the talk page of whatever article you're referring to. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the pieces of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMQFT (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you are biased about Dangal collections. Dangal collected 72.68 crores in 3 days in China according to trade analyst Taran Adarsh. Dangal which was released in Taiwan in April 2017 collected 35 crores gross. Why is this biasness I don't understand. Why are you not adding the collections and showing less than actual. Saisiddharth4u (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you are biased about Dangal collections. Dangal collected 72.68 crores in 3 days in China according to trade analyst Taran Adarsh. Dangal which was released in Taiwan in April 2017 collected 35 crores gross. Why is this biasness I don't understand. Why are you not adding the collections and showing less than actual. Saisiddharth4u (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Saisiddharth4u: What article are you referring to? Dangal (film)? Where are the references for the Taiwan figures? Here you raised it to 817, but did you add a reference? No, you did not. So it's absurd to call someone "biased" when you don't perform the most basic action required in editing: providing sources. Also, per this comment you left on your talk page, where you say "Check out Aamir Khan's video message about Taiwan collections", even if you had included a link, we do not use primary sources for controversial content like film finances. A producer/director/actor/distributor has every reason to inflate these figures. Per WP:RS, we care what reliable secondary sources with established reputations for fact-checking estimate the finances to be. And lastly, please remember that the entirety of Indian film finances is based on estimates balanced against inflated claims and corruption. All of the data should be taken with a grain of salt, not placed on a golden pedestal and treated like indisputable fact. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Then on what basis you put Dangal collections. I think you don't even know that the film was released in Taiwan. It was released in Taiwan, at least it would have collected 1$ for example I m saying, you completely ignored that. Saisiddharth4u (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Saisiddharth4u: 1) Please don't create new section headings when you respond to comments. Just click "(edit)" in the appropriate section, indent with colons, and respond. 2) I don't understand your question "On what basis you put Dangal collections." The 802.68 crore value came from this source, which indicates 730 crore was grossed before the China release and this source, which indicates the 72.68 crore gross from China. 730+72.68=802.68. I don't know anything about the Taiwan release, because I haven't seen any references. Yes, if it was released in Taiwan, it presumably made $1, but where are the references? You also need to keep in mind that Wikipedia has no deadline'. We're not in any insane bloodthirsty rush to post a film's financials minute-by-minute. When there are quality references, we can update accordingly, in a perfectly relaxed fashion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As you can see List of most expensive Indian films movie has also a column which converts the budget to approx current budget. It's easy for any Wiki User to see and compare things between years. That's why that functionality has added to current conversion by year, it's not easy for a person to calculate by his own. I don't know how to use talk page and reply to the user so I modified here. Sanjan Kumar Patel 05:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjanind (talk • contribs)

@Sanjanind: I explained the reasons why this was problematic on your talk page. The editors from the Indian film task force at Wikipedia don't particularly care for arbitrary conversions to US currency. Adding more of the thing the community doesn't seem to like would require a new consensus to be established. This means you need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page and get wide support. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will append a signature and time stamp to your posts, so that editors know who wrote the comment and when. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Look why are you so concerned about the volume of information, if your knowledge is less we can't help on this. And it's necessary to compare all year collection at present value, I know it's not 100% correct, that's why est. is written there. We don't need a brainless editor like you who not able to decide what is correct and what is wrong u just follow what you want. So don't revert the necessary change. Wiki is a website of knowledge it's not your personal page that you want to keeps what you want. Not even adding Dangal collection which is from a genuine source. I think you hate India so plz. Sanjan Kumar Patel 19:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sanjanind: 1) Personal attacks won't be tolerated. If you're not able to engage in discussion without resorting to name-calling, you should find another hobby. 2) I've explained that the issue is one of community preference. You're free to read the discussions here and here. If you disagree with community consensus, your remedy is to open a discussion on the article's talk page or at WT:ICTF and seek community feedback. Who knows, maybe someone will suddenly think that converting to US dollars is a great idea. Calling me names isn't going to sway the community to see things your way. I did happen to come up with possible way to include the inflation information without stepping on community consensus, but you'd have to apologise for calling me brainless in order to hear it. 3) Please sign your posts with four tildes. Your signature needs to have at least one link to your user space, and using tildes ~~~~ is the easiest way to achieve this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cyphoidbomb: I think the page's protection level should be temporarily increased to Extended confirmed protection or Pending changes protection. As Baahubali 2 is in theaters, page is subject to disruption by mostly new users who constantly remove/ change the languages of the Baahubali 1 and 2 or inset gross figures with un-reliable sources. As the editor and protecting admin of the page, what is your opinion on this? regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC).

@DRAGON BOOSTER: I think it's probably not a bad idea. I think there have been a few accounts that have come out of extended retirement to make changes to The Great Father. Like this guy. Or throw-away accounts used to inflate Dangal.[6][7]. Or this guy monkeying with the languages of Baahubali. Or this guy who has come out of a 2015 retirement to delete Tamil from Baahubali. Or this guy who has only been active on Wikipedia since 29 April but whose first edit contained properly formatted citations. Definitely curious. I don't think that super-long-term ECP is warranted, but for a period of 3–4 weeks it might be beneficial to prevent damage, after which the normal long-term (1 year, I think) semi-protection should be restored. If you think that's reasonable, feel free to request it at WP:RFPP. I'd prefer to abstain from administrating on this issue. You're welcome to quote me if you wish. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for your reply. I thought before requesting at the concerned page, I should run it by the protecting admin. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC).

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your post yesterday, and also invite you to continue contributing to the discussion if you'd like. There have been several editors now whom have continued readding the "new" title, despite that they have no source to back it up. I think what may be happening here is that people are simply presuming that because the article citing the release date change refers to the movie as "Scooby" (which is logical, as it's the name of the franchise), that the title has suddenly changed despite the article not mentioning any change in the title. I'm attempting to invite any editor who continues adding this unsourced content to discuss on the talk page, but it would be nice to have you as a second voice :) Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind providing insight on this one more time, if it's not a burden? Some new information has been presented and it would be great to have another voice, rather than just my opinion against Jstar's. Thank you again! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You have said that the great father collection Source is fake.But in the Section of Mohanlal movies that Sources are used alSo all know that actor,producer and director has confirmed the news regarding SOcr. I will provide the Sources that are reliable

1.Onlookers Media - http://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/great-father-enters-50-crore-club/

2.Manorama News - http://www.manoramanews.com/news/entertainment/2017/04/23/mammootty-move-to-50-crore-club.html

3.Mollywood Times - http://mollywoodtimes.com/2017/04/22/the-great-father-touches-the-50-crore-mark/

4.1ndian Movie Planet - http://indianmovieplanet.com/great father 50 crore club/

5.South Live - http://ml.southlive.in/movie/film-debate/baahubali-2-kerala-boxoffice

6.FilmFaktory - http://filmfaktoryoin/official great father touches 50 crore mark/

7.Muyals - http://muyalS.com/ml/201'7/04/22/9reat father 50 core club 2/

8.Review Rating - http://www.reviewrating.org/tag/the-great-father-movie/

9.FilmiBeat - http://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/news/2017/the-great-father-50-crore-club-dulquer-salmaan-s-telugu-debut-other-mollywood-news-of-the-week-259453.html

10.Kerala BO Updates - http://www.kboupdates.com/2017/04/its-official-now-the-great-father-touches-50-crore-mark-from-world-wide-boxoffice/

11.Pycker - https://pycker.com/movies/my-dad-david/news

Sir these are the sources i provided more sources are available fron Asianet news , Kairali tv etc

muhammed.suhail (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: When did I say the Great Father collection source was fake? I seem to recall saying we don't use primary sources like claims made by producers, directors, actors, distributors. I have also probably said that another editor, Jupitus Smart, has raised questions about the origin of the claims. This user has opened a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films, which is a more intuitive place to discuss this than on my talk page. I've also told numerous editors that they should read WP:UGC so that they understand why blogs and other faceless websites (like Onlookersmedia and kboupdates) are insufficient. And I have also told editors to look at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources to become familiar with what sites are and are not considered reliable. Filmibeat is not. So I really think you should read the pages I've pointed you to, then trim down the above list to just the reliable sources, subtract the sources that seem to be relying on claims made by the producer (Mollywood Times looks like it's reprinted the producer's 50 crore celebration poster) and then continue this discussion with Jupitus Smart at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: then the source used for Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol is Malayala Manorama. The Great Father 50cr also reported by Malayala Manorama. Mohanlal last two movies collection report are officially reported by the crew members of that films. only for Mammooty movies these discrimination is held. Even the producers are reported its collection. Even in the news channels this report is confirmed. muhammed.suhail (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because a normally reliable source prints a detail, that we are required to accept that detail as gospel without question. That's ludicrous. If a reliable source, Manorama in this instance, ascribes the source of the data to the producers, then it's still insufficient for inclusion, because the actual source of the data is the producer, i.e. a primary source. We only care about data that is independently verified. Do you understand the difference? Now in this discussion I asked Jupitus Smart to clarify the phrasing he found in the Manorama article, because Google Translate wasn't very helpful to me and I don't speak/read Malayalam. According to him, the article attributes the producers as the source of the 50 crore claim. If you don't agree with his interpretation, you should discuss this with him on that talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Then the collection report of [[Muthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol] and Puli Murugan collection is provided by the producer and actor of that crew themselves. After there confirmation the news are spreaded. When it comes to Mammootty movies these are happened. The collection of both the Mohanlal movies are firstly posted by him and that movie producers. For Mohanlal movies all are official but in the case of Mammootty movies even producers confirms it the report is fake. muhammed.suhail (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: If you want to discuss the specific financial claims of either of those other movies, you should do so on their respective talk pages, or wherever you find the numbers to be problematic. Be prepared to demonstrate why you think each of the figures reported should not be included, and note that you'll have to be well versed in our reliable sources guidelines in order to do so. I have zero interest in the competition between Mammootty and Mohanlal or the competition between fans of Mammootty and Mohanlal. The subject you brought up is The Great Father, and if you want to argue for the inclusion of the 50 crore figure, you're going to need to do so at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films, not on my talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Disney's_Beauty_and_the_Beast}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Tarzan}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb ..Please clarify how sources like catch news is credible?? Who is actually running that page?? and nobody in Kerala knows about such a page like catch news. What is the criteria for including it in the reference?? One more question in Kerala normally producers reveal the collection and then only media reports the collection of a film as official collection. It is same in the case of recent big hits like Pulimurugan, Munthirivalli thalirkkumbol etc. Then why The Great Father is not included in the list even the most popular media in Kerala manoramanews reported it collected more than 50 crore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathanlal (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vathanlal: Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This is necessary so that editors know who wrote what and when. If you have questions about the reliability of sources used in Indian cinema articles, you can ask for clarification at Wikipedia's the Indian cinema task force. According to the information I have, Catch.com is owned by the Rajasthan Patrika group and was founded by journalist Shoma Chaudhury.[8]. As for your last question, I've explained this numerous times on prominent talk pages: We don't regurgitate financial claims made by producers/actors/directors/distributors, or any primary source. These people, especially while their films are out, would absolutely have a reason to exaggerate their financial figures. Kabali was a prime example of this, with the producers releasing heavily-inflated figures that the media republished without thought. If Mohanlal said that he had the biggest dick in the world, would you take his word for it, or would you want independent verification before putting that fact in an encyclopedia? No difference. If you are familiar with Indian film financials, then you should absolutely already be aware that none of figures released are 100% accurate, since they're all based on guesses and manipulations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: thanks for your information.. For me this link http://www.manoramanews.com/news/entertainment/2017/04/23/mammootty-move-to-50-crore-club.html is really reliable because manorama is the most popular news channel in Kerala. Iam from Kerala and I know for every movies in the highest grossing malayalam movie section all medias reported the collection given out by the producers of the respected films. But in case of Great Father in the report by manorama unfortunately last sentence they mentioned the real fact that collection is revealed by producers which is not in other movie references. Anyway thanks. Vathanlal (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12May 2017 (UTC)

Below one is report from times of india,which is definitely a reliable source where it is mentioned that pazhassi has collected 49 crore and nothing mentioned like confirmed by producer in the article.If you are not able to update this,Please confirm the reason for this as well

http://m.timesofindia.com/others/news-interviews/Hariharan-MT-Vasudevan-prepare-for-Randamoozham/articleshow/9807050.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.kottappuram777 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagar.kottappuram777: I'd prefer you open a request at WT:ICTF on this. You should also be sure to link the article you're talking about. There was a great deal of discussion here about whether or not that 49 crore figure was representative of the true gross, and frankly it's not something I care to get involved in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Cyphoidbomb - I'm wondering if Bank Chor isn't a candidate for G11 - it's obviously promotion of a film that hasn't been produced. I saw where you added a redirect but we're getting heat over the NPR backlog. Your thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme With the exception of the idiotic "most famous stand-up comedian" bit, I don't think I'd consider the article unambiguous advertising. There is a trailer out,[9] so we can assume principal photography has begun, and there has been some press coverage on it.[10][11][12]. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Question - does that justify article creation, or does it have to be an actual film? I wasn't aware in-production work passed GNG. Kindest regards - ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: A film doesn't have to be released in order to warrant an article (Midnight Rider (film) is an example of a film that was never released, but became notable for an accidental death that took place while filming.) There should preferably be some GNG before a film article is created of course, but the most basic criterion is WP:NFF, which requires editors to establish that principal photography has begun, as anything can derail the planned release of a film. And in this case, there was no establishment of that back when I redirected the article, but I think having trailer footage suggests that it's being filmed. Hope that helps, if not, keep askin' stuff! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb ..Please clarify the reason you removed great father from the list?The reasons you mentioned above for muhammed suhail's questions seems to be very funny.... 1. What source you want other than the one suhail listed above to include Great father in the list?

2.Why Mohanlal movies like Oppam,Munthirivallikal and pulimurugan has included in the list with the same source as he provided for Great father?If you remove Great father from the list,then the same is applicable for above Mohanlals movies as well.

3.Who is the user Jupitus Smart to decide the credibility?If he is a malayali,then definitely he will be the fan of mammootty or Mohanlal.SO how can you consider his confirmation as the source for editing wiki?Dude...many people are refering this and you should not loose your credibility by saying these kind of lame excuses.

So the case is simple.Either you include Great father also in the list with the sources provided by muhammed or you remove other movies from the lists those are referred by the same sources as used by Great father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.kottappuram777 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagar.kottappuram777: You want me to clarify the reason I removed Great Father from the list. What list are you referring to. It's helpful if you link to the article in question. Also, are you sure I removed it? Because I think Jupitus Smart has been the most vociferous opponent of that data. If you've read my responses to Muhammed.suhail, then you have all of the information you need. We don't take a producer's word for their gross claims, we don't use blogs, we don't use random faceless websites, we want independent verification. Sites that look like they're just acting as press release outlets should not be used. As I'm sure you are well aware, Indian film financials are inherently unreliable, so getting upset that the inherently unreliable data you believe in is not being represented, is rather fruitless. If you have questions for Jupitus, feel free to talk to them directly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Since 1 and 2 has been discussed multiple times in multiple forums, there is no point in discussing that again. As for 3, yes I am a Malayali, and no I am not a fan of either Mohanlal or Mammootty. See this if you think I am a Mohanlal fan trying to degrade Mammootty's movie - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randamoozham (upcoming film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suchitra Mohanlal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohanlal Special all of which were deleted after I nominated them. And since every Malayali has to be a Mohanlal/Mamootty fan, what are you, @Sagar.kottappuram777:. You seem to have the name of Mohanlal's character in Ayal Kadha Ezhuthukayanu and yet you seem to be fighting for a Mammootty movie. And if you can provide a better translation, you are always welcome to do so. I was requested because I knew the language and if you think my translation is incorrect or obfuscating, please provide a better translation. Jupitus Smart 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb...I didnt tell that you removed the movie from list and i respect you.What I mentioned was,how can wiki take the opinion of a malayali admin for updating malayalam films as definitely that person will have special interest for a particular actor.Also the reason for removal is not convincing.Tell me one thing,if not producer,who will confirm the final collection?You mentioned that independent should confirm...which independent ?From where they get the details of collection?If I am not wrong they will get the collection from distributor/producer.Then what is the problem with statement "Producer confirm the collection".

Leave all this...if that is wikis rule,then fine enough.But why other movies like ezra,oppam,munthirivallikal doesnt have this rule applicable?How can u consider catchnews as relable source?I didnt see that in the reliable source list.Also for Oppam/munthirivallikal the news came is manorama after producer declared the figures.Even manorama also gets the details from producer/dostributor..I dont think they will go to each theaters and count money and confirm...

Another point i want to bring to your notice is Pazhassiraja's collection.Times of India mentioned that it collected 49 crore.But wiki is not updating that.I checked the talk page there and what I got the reason for the exclusion is,they are saying producer confirmed it has not collected that much.Here you are saying you wont take the words of producer and there it is exactly opposite..really feel pity on people trying hard to play against mammootty movie..

What we are expecting from a non malayali admin like you is before come to a conclusion check all the above points and take action accordingly without again asking the opinion of a malayali admin.If you really want to ask the opinion of that person,do it for other languages movies..not for malayalam...its a request

@Jupitus Smart...Are'nt you smart enough to understand that I am a mammootty fan?That doesnt mean that I am a lal hater.That is the reason why i opt the name of a lals character which i like...and its my choice ....now coming to our point...tell us clearly...which source you are expecting to put great father in the list?How can you confirm Oppam,MVT and Ezra with the sources like catch news.Also manorama took the collection after the producer confirmed the same.SO why you are not removing those movies from list?Not able to understand why this intolerance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.kottappuram777 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagar.kottappuram777: A common, irritating argument that I've seen used plenty of times in Indian film article editing, is, "Problems exist at X, Y and Z articles, so you have to fix those first!"[13] That is a red herring, as it has no bearing on whether or not the data from The Great Father belongs in the article on The Great Father. Because what's the proposition? We should let the poor content exist at The Great Father until the poor content is removed from all other Mohanlal articles? How on earth would that make sense from an academic perspective? "Hey, it turns out Earth revolves around the sun. We should put that in the new textbook." "Oh no, we don't write a new textbook until we amend all of the old textbooks!" Wikipedia has no deadline. If there are problems with financial figures in other articles, they should be dealt with in time. To answer your question "why other movies like ezra,oppam,munthirivallikal doesnt have this rule applicable?" Easy: The content was probably added by ignorant editors who don't know what Wikipedia's standards are on the matter. And because Wikipedia has a short supply of competent, vocal editors interested in maintaining the persistently irritating world of Indian film articles, we are all spread very thinly and can't be everywhere at once. One of the general principles of Wikipedia is "assume good faith". Not everything is a conspiracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please see if it passes WP:RS? The fact that it was founded by one of India's greatest journalists should help it I think. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kailash29792, I think this sort of thing should be discussed at WT:ICTF so that others can weigh in. But if there are quality people behind it, then perhaps it should be acceptable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I have found a reputable source that says this series premiered on YTV on January 9, 2010, not 2008 as it says in the infobox. Should we at least change that? https://twitter.com/ytv/status/7565766356 DeathTrain (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@DeathTrain: I'm really not sure what a good solution would be. If Zeke's Pad was a co-production between Australia and Canada, then maybe the series did air first in Australia in 2008. The YTV tweet (since it's from a verified account) might be sufficient to indicate when it aired in Canada. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

hey, u had better add this or change the protection level to semi protected so i could add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindkrishna29 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, u had better establish consensus for that as noted here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the nonconstructive world-salad of a correction.

Had I realized the editing environment here was so toxic I wouldn't have attempted to contribute in the first place. Good luck with the dying charity, your time hasn't been wasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.54.27 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User called Kellymoat is reigniting the debate that the 2.0 film is the most expensive film in the whole of Asia and not just India, don't know if he's just patriotic, but he keeps denying the facts I place in front of him, and keeps undoing my changes. Might I suggest you talk to him and see if the film's page is OK generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaCambridge (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@NutellaCambridge: I don't get the impression that user is Indian, but I'll take a look and see if I have any thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed it back to the most expensive film in Asia and left a few good references in a comment next to the edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaCambridge (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@NutellaCambridge: Please sign your talk page posts by using four tildes ~~~~ or clicking the signature button in the edit window. I think you should revert your last edit and wait until the discussion is resolved. Edit-warring is never helpful, it can result in being blocked, and nobody's going to die if the wrong information exists for a bit. Part of what I see to be problematic is your use of IMDb as a reference. You need to find better sources, as per WP:RS/IMDB, the site is not considered reliable, as it is largely user-generated. I'm going to re-open the discussion on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The page is draining me, can please check the films I brought up and make the necessary changes, I seem to putting water in an oil fire NutellaCambridge (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you take another look at the Talk page for the film there is now a massive list of solid evidence against the claim, so if you deem it OK, could you make the neccesary changes (i.e. the most expensive film in India not Asia)NutellaCambridge (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I would probably wait until Kellymoat has a chance to comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would, but they didn't. I have opened an SPI. Ultimately, any decision should wait until that has concluded.Kellymoat (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That didn't take long. User is now blocked.Kellymoat (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat: I was suspicious as well, but I still think the user's argument has merit. 2.0 was clearly not the most costly Asian film up to that point. Maybe the easiest thing is to remove the superlative entirely. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

He tried to garner up support by approaching other users. One of them said they would look into it. Kellymoat (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat: Yes, I get that. I was one of those users and I literally say at the top of this very discussion that I'll look into it. The argument was sound, the methodology of getting it to stick was not. If the content is fundamentally flawed, then it should be revised or removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was actually talking about someone else, lol. Tuxipedia. He posted at the end of the conversation - after the block.Kellymoat (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cb - regarding your notes on appeal #182183 (this one), you haven't actually corresponded with the blocked user. First you have to click the "reserve" button then click the "Custom response - Awaiting user" template from the drop down menu and type your message in to the pop-up box. Their username as well as yours will autofill when you click "send email". --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Geez, I am such an asshat. Thanks for the tip. I think I'll just stick to reading the the requests. This is the second boneheaded mistake I've made on UTRS. Clearly not my strong suit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no training for UTRS, it's not super-intuitive, and it can take a bit of trial and error to get the hang of it. That's totally normal and involves no asshattery on your part whatsoever!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoid, this user is continuously going on adding non-free album cover art of Baahubali 2 to all the franchise articles here. I would like a thorough last warning to be left. Can you take a look? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi IndianBio, I think the user might benefit from a link to the relevant policy and an explanation for why their additions are problematic. If we just scold editors without explaining why the changes are problematic, it doesn't give them a great opportunity to learn, and we're basically setting them up for failure. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with your thoughts, but I do have a hunch. Seeing that time and time again other editors have asked the user to not add this/that however, I don't see him responding to any of them, rather going on with the edits. So I'm skeptical that explaining the policy would even work or not. But you are right, he deserves an explanation. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I agree with your hunch, based on my experiences with him, but part of AGFing, is sometimes we invest effort even when we think it's a waste of time. It's never fun, but it's part of the "dance". If you give them a detailed, policy-driven warning and they ignore it again, then admins can administrate. Unsatisfying, I know... :/ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Cyphoidbomb:, this user Thapa 75 (talk · contribs) has made some fundamental changes to the article (moved the article) from Mirabehn to Mira Behn based on a simple Google search (allegedly). But Britannica Encyclopedia claims her to be Mirabehn not Mira Behn. And the user has also included images that are in possible violation of copyrights to List of Baahubali characters. Sreeking (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sreeking: I've moved the Mirabehn article back. You should participate in the discussion I opened on the talk page. And if you think the user has violated copyrights, you should consider reverting the images and warning the user. I don't personally know too much about the image copyright rules. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues have been resolved. Thanks for the prompt action. About the violations, an administrator has removed them. Sreeking (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at this IP, 116.72.74.105. The user is not here to contribute to the Wikipedia. A single purpose IP for deliberate malicious edits. --112.133.248.25 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect me to do here. The IP made disruptive edits on 29 April, three weeks ago. They haven't edited since. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I've temporarily reverted your redirect on notability grounds of MD Asif, as the article creator has just responded by creating a cut and paste fork at Md Asif, which I've tagged for speedy A10. If this goes to AFD, I'll support redirection on the grounds you gave in your edit summary. Thanks, Uncle Roy (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh well. Article (and fork) creator has removed the notability tag from the now un-redirected original, so I've just gone ahead and started the AFD. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have the fortitude to take on the over-the-top promotion at Barun Sobti? I'm trying to catch up on my watchlist after being away for a few days and I don't have it in me to do what needs to be done there (which will require a sharp cutting implement to gut the worst of it).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: As a favor to you? Sure! I did a massive trim in these edits. Much of the obnoxious crap was added by IP 1.186.37.61 in these edits. Wow! What a drooler. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is SO MUCH better. You're a star!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look at RockabyeBaby444? Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: I think you were correct. I see that he's been blocked, so nice work. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You probably know what I'm talking about already. Over the last few days, an IP user has been reverted several times over on List of Bear in the Big Blue House episodes. The IPv6's there are now blocked by a rangeblock on 2604:6000:e589:a200::/64. An IPv4 also made the same edit as those IPv6's to the page after the IPv6's were blocked and before the page could be put under pending changes protection, so that's obvious block evasion there. (The IPv4 is 97.33.65.184 and has yet to be blocked at this time.) My question is if they are related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Muppets LTA. If so, do you want to add Bear in the Big Blue House to their interests? — Gestrid (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gestrid, the Muppets vandal IPs from my experience tended to geolocate to Indiana and California, where these seem to be from New York-ish. On the other hand, if it's one person doing the disruption from proxies, then maybe. I do definitely see some likely candidates circa 2014, like this guy. My instinct says it's probably not him, but there's always a possibility. Not much help, I know... Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you mind commenting here? I mentioned the LTA on that SPI and would rather have someone who knows the LTA comment about it. — Gestrid (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Really is the film Tubelight (film) not fictional? How could you declare it as "real film"? Is it a biopic? or docudrama? or experimental film? Let me remind you sir Cyphoid that Inglorious Basterds was also set in Nazi era during WW2 so was it a biopic? The characters in the film were trying to avenge Hitler but according to his "biopic" he committed suicide. Strange that a backdrop of the film counted as historical film. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

D'SuperHero, I think the term "historical" as a genre also applies to works of fiction; such works are hence called "historical fiction". But I've never heard "uchronia" being used as a genre. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - @D'SuperHero: I didn't declare it as anything, I reverted an obscure descriptor "uchronic" in favor of the more common and legitimate film genre. I think you're (erroneously) assuming that "historical period films" = non-fiction. That is not accurate. There are plenty of fictional stories that are set in historical periods. Please note also that I did respond to your post at Talk:Tubelight (film), so maybe that's a more intuitive place to have this conversation? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hii administrator I noticed a duplicate article of tv series chinnari pellikuthuru is telugu dubbed series Hindi serial balika vadhu so redirect it balika vadhu article.

Sri Harsha Malempati (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Letting you know that a proposal has been made in a lower discussion on the talk page. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Gone too soon... The consensus was that the site lacked notability (although I don't think that undermines its reliability). On the basis of this discussion, it is still a reliable sources in select cases. So do you think it should still be listed under "Sources generally considered reliable" at WP:ICTFFAQ? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Since WP:ICTFFAQ isn't really a live document yet, sure, I suppose it could be added, with the specific notes about those select cases. I know that everybody's busy building the GAs and FAs, but it would be ideal if you could use your influence among your circle of editors to rally them to weigh in on some of the ones in the "Not yet determined" section. In general, more discussions about reference suitability need to take place at WT:ICTF. This guy has questions about Catch News, for example, but the amount of discussion about that source was flimsy at best, so I can't say with any confidence whether or not Catch holds any actual weight. Jupitus Smart also had negative feelings about Catch. My point being, if anyone is going to determine whether or not various sites are suitable as sources, it needs to be a larger group of editors. but someone's got to step up and rally the troops, and I think you have a greater influence than I. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That person's views were just a rehash of the questions Cyphoidbomb usually poses when vandals like him source their numbers from blog sites () (and of course his desire to remove Pulimurugan's collection figures). That said I still believe that Catch's reporting on film financials are no better than that of some of the above average blog sites like Filmibeat/Nowrunning/Blastingnews. Ezra's 50 crore collection was only carried by Catch and other blog sites, and Catch is still our source for the number (though IBT does mention that Ezra grossed 50 crores in Kochi multiplexes - here which seems like an oversight because later in the article it also mentions the figure as being 50 lakh). I therefore believe that Catch can be used for non-contentious sourcing, though it must be avoided in contentious areas. As for Scroll, I personally think that its a reliable source. Scroll's editorial policies are in variance with the nominator's beliefs, and that is probably why it was nominated in the first place. That said, many of the articles on these news sites will not survive AfD if nominated, and that should not be a reason for undermining its reliability. WP:CORPDEPTH is skewed against companies from developing nations (apart from IT companies), and that is the reason why I don't write articles about companies.Jupitus Smart 12:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: A bigger question for me is how do we get this level of thoughtful dialog going at WP:ICTF? My dream is to one day be able to walk away from Indian film articles entirely--I only gnome them because the corruption offends me--but I can't leave if members of the Indian cinema task force community aren't engaging in more open discussions about source suitability and things of that nature. Someone needs to be a strong leader and corral the troops. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your dream will never be fulfilled (unless all movies are 30/500 protected ). Anyway you are the admin around, and if anybody can marshal troops in this area, its probably you. And you are always welcome to ping me in discussions at WP:ICTF.Jupitus Smart 15:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: It's an insular community and I'm not really part of it as is evident from my walls of un-responded-to posts at ICTF. So in this case, I have only authority, but no influence. That community has lost a lot of decent editors to sockpuppetry, which is a major shame. The remaining editors really need to rebuild. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well your problem lies in the fact that you are an admin who is working in an area where you are not the most knowledgeable person around. That is the reason why you are being forced to ask questions (or is it because you are too polite), instead of being bold. As for sockpuppetry, how about considering a premature block pardon for User:Charles Turing. He was a real asset besides being a regular in the forums, though its a shame that I still chose to initiate the SPI against him. By the looks of it, he is still around, editing pages about Mohanlal's movies as an IP editor, in a bid to take them all to GA. He is the reason why I still start off articles about Mohanlal's movies, as I know he will invariably show up to expand them. Jupitus Smart 15:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: No, I'm not knowledgeable about Indian films at all. Don't watch them. Don't care about them. Re: Inside the Valley/Charles Turing I would consider clemency, but if he's still lurking, that would be a problem. I have previously given a break to a long-time sock operator who wanted to reform, so it's not out of the question, but I'd have to get Yamla's input. Was there a suspicion that Inside the Valley was a paid editor who didn't disclose? I can't remember. Anyway, it was a bummer when he got nailed, because he was a decent editor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at his editing pattern, he could be a paid editor working for Mohanlal or he must be some die-hard fan of the actor. He was probably the only editor working towards taking Malayalam movies to GA (even if it was only Mohanlal's movies), and the Malayali in me would want him to continue, to match up with the strong numbers of Telugu and Tamil movies achieving GA. Consider an unblock is he decides to disclose why he is biased towards Mohanlal's movies. Jupitus Smart 16:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this section has strayed from the focus, which is about Scroll.in's reliability. Considering it is a RS on the basis of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I wondered if it still should be under "Sources generally considered reliable". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb,I am respectable to you.. I kindly request you this that Ason27 is discouraging me in editing. He/she mostly like Revathi, Shriya and Simran.Some times he/she crossing the limits. You are not a motivator. he/she knowingly attacking of my edits (Not only Jyothika) Please do help me. Don't let him/her to follow my edits. GOOD morning (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@GOOD morning: I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I left you on your talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

They were the latest estimates. As for USD currency conversion I was not aware about it however it is very common among movies and would be a more convenient thing as more people are aware of USD value. I am absolutely guilty for not providing new citations I guess I should leave this to the more dedicated users. I don't quite understand talk pages so tell me if I did something wrong thanks. -dc (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC) dc (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cyphoid Bomb! I request you to let me edit the article Naagin(TV series). I am willing to write the article in a perfect way. I edited it three times but after some time, it appears as it is before editing. Could you give me access to edit the article. You have been changing my edit every time on Naagin. I plead you to give me permussion to edit Naagin(TV series) article. If you could give me suggestions, please suggest me. Respond and reply soon. Pranay Star (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to edit perfectly, you need to be familiar with three things: 1) Our Manual of Style for Television, 2) The Template:Infobox television instructions. 3) You need to know what a good article is supposed to look like. Take a look at Friends, where you'll notice how concise the season plot summaries are, how organized the cast list is, and what sort of information it contains. You'll notice that the image in the infobox doesn't contain weird borders or unnecessary captions. You'll notice that there is a single date range under "Original release" September 22, 1994 – May 6, 2004, not ranges for each season. Etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please take a look at Talk:Max Steel (film)#Edit war and voice your thoughts on the matter presented here? There was a disagreement between Deathawk and Koala15 about which version was being preferred months ago and no consensus was taking place despite adding my two cents on the issue. Now, the issue has been raised up again in the section break and we need to get a WP:CONSENSUS with the others at WT:FILM. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Recently I had edit plot story of tv series Naagin but you had removed it please help me to know my mistake Sri Harsha Malempati (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sri Harsha Malempati: I explained it here: "Del plot bloat from Sri Harsha Malempati. The *ENTIRE PLOT SECTION* should be under 500 words." But it should also be obvious from the giant notice at the top of the plot section, which reads: "This section's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise." Or from the specific note within the edit window which reads: "Per WP:TVPLOT, this section should not exceed 500 words. As of this note, we are at 928 words". The plot section is supposed to focus very broadly on the general shape of the series, not on episode-by-episode revelations. If you want to write episode summaries, you should create a list of episodes somewhere in the article. See our Manual of Style for Television articles for more info. This has been an ongoing problem at this article, because apparently nobody in India who watches this series is interested in creating content according to Wikipedia community standards, they're more interested in creating massive walls of problematic content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing my doubt on naagin tv series Sri Harsha Malempati (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey...I would really appreciate if you can check this user (Reddyvi) as a suspect of Padmalakshmisx? It is currently active on C. Narayana Reddy‎‎ page which is an ITN candidate here. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vivvt: I don't think the standard pattern is there. Note this sock's edits and Reddy's edits. Reddy has marked most of his edits minor. Padma doesn't typically do that. Reddy's edit summaries alternate case "Cinare is the only bridge..." vs "those references are repeated twice". Apart from being extraordinarily pushy at that article, I don't see any glaring sign of an editor with tons of experience. I do think this edit is odd. Why did he remove a reference? And this edit (provided it is properly referenced) is a questionable one, as a reader from Brazil or anywhere else in the world would have no way to to assume the subject's ethnic background, because Brazilians don't know anything about Indian surnames, families, etc. My advice on this issue is to open discussions on the talk page if you have specific areas of objection and try to get them to discuss. Article ownership isn't how we do things. Also, if you do revert like here, please consider using clear edit summaries. But my instinct on this one is to go to the talk page on this one. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sir I wanted your help Sir in the article Qubool Hai's cast section there is this tag:

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Cast sections are not typically broken down by seasons. See WP:TVCAST for guidance. Doing it this way results in needless repetition. Cast lists are typically organized into Main and Recurring sections. The Main cast section is ordered by series credits, and new characters in both sections are added to the bottoms of each section. Lists should include brief descriptions of the characters, as well as real-world content about casting, circumstances surrounding departures, etc. If there are changes in a cast member's prominence across multiple seasons, cast tables can be used in conjunction with the prose information, but they should not replace encyclopedic prose. See List of Millennium characters as an example of the goal. Please help improve this section if you can.

So sir in this case to remove this tag can I add cast table in the cast section of the article or I should compulsorily create a new article as List Of Qubool Hai Characters plz clear my doubt. Regards, YAP123456 (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@YAP123456: Firstly, no, I don't think you should create a new article for the characters, because there is insufficient content (like character descriptions and real-world content) to warrant it. The chief problem with the current list is the repetition of cast members. We don't need Surbhi Jyoti's name to be listed four times, for example. Cast lists are typically broken down into Main and Recurring subsections, not by seasons. If you look at this edit at Naagin (TV series)#Cast, I condensed the giant season-by-season cast list into Main and Recurring subsections, and each cast member's tenure is ordered by season. We can see Mouni Roy appeared in S1-S3. Karanvir Bohra was introduced in S2, so he appears further down the list (per WP:TVCAST, new additions are added to the bottom of each list) and anyone from S3 would be added below the S2 entrants. At Qubool Hai, I don't see what value there is to including years. If we know what seasons they appeared in, that should be good enough.

Other things to consider: Cast members/characters who only appeared once shouldn't be included in the list. Minor characters shouldn't be included in the list. Wikipedia does not endeavor to be IMDb, so it's not our job to blindly list every bit actor on the show. We only care about the most important cast/characters. And, as indicated in the cleanup notice, List of Millennium characters is an example of the goal. It has descriptions of each character as well as real-world content about casting and how characters were developed, etc. Remember that encyclopedia articles are written as academic tools, not as TV guides for fans. If Indian TV articles aren't going to provide any useful (well-sourced) academic information for students (Who are the characters? How do they impact the story line? Was Character X modeled after Y politician?", etc.) then the entire list should be as short as possible. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Give me permission to edit naagin(tv series) page. How many maximum characters should we write in the plot section. I don't edit cast only I will edit plot and info section by following wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranay Star (talk • contribs) 06:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pranay Star: Please note that new talk page comments go at the bottom of the talk page, and you need to sign your posts by typing four tildes like ~~~~. This will append a signature and timestamp so other editors know who said what, and when. To answer your question about plot length, please see WP:TVPLOT. The entire plot section should be capped at 500 words, but since there is no episode list where we would normally find episode summaries, maybe doing something like what was done at Friends#Episodes, would be smart. Short, general 200-word summaries, maybe. The section really can't get bogged down in episode-by-episode twists and turns. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I deal with someone just reverting my changes. Esp with Marykom the film, someone called Krish has been reverting the factual errors sections. Iprathik (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Iprathik: The way to handle this is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, which you've done. Now you should wait for Krish to respond.. I don't quite understand why Krish's explanation here, that he planned to add some of the content to another section wasn't good enough for you, that you had to revert again. Please discuss and be patient. Nobody's going to die if the Factual Errors section isn't in the article for a little bit. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The section I had added had no rumour in it. The actor did hint at joining politics and that was what was added. I have added no personal speculation or opinion, just mere facts. Please reply here on my talk page.

Adwaith s (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adwaith s: I think you're confusing Wikipedia for a breaking news site. We're not here to report on every "hint" or every "tease" uttered by a person. We are here to focus on the most important aspects of a subject. If the content you are adding has no 10-year value, (meaning: will we care about it in 10 years?) then you should probably consider omitting it. For all you know the "hint" of joining politics was a random thought of no consequence, or a publicity stunt, or ____. Not consequential, and no better than gossip, even if not technically gossip. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for clarifying that for me. But it did create some controversy in the state of Tamilnadu, and that is why I had added it. Hereafter, I shall keep the 10-year value rule in mind, when adding information. Thanks again. Adwaith s (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adwaith s: As with writing about anything, the Five Ws should also be employed, and providing context is also helpful too. If this is a significant event, understanding the scope of the significance helps to establish whether something is noteworthy or not. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks. I have one last question- Would it be alright if the information is added saying that "He courted controvesy in May 2017 when he stated in a fans meet that 'If God is willing, I will join politics'. This created speculation throughout Tamilnadu and he also faced flak from some of the political factions which led to protests by his fans."? Or should this part be kept out of the article entirely? Thanks again! Adwaith s (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adwaith s: To be honest, I just don't see the relevance of this. I won't revert you if you add it (with sources), because you've been at least open-minded to the process, which I am appreciative of and I don't wish to discourage you, but I personally don't see the value of adding this vague statement. Also, "controversy" comes up so often in Indian subjects. A guy wears the wrong hat and winds up offending the sentiments of some Indian sect. I don't know that logging every instance of "controversy" is a useful expenditure of time, particularly when there is no actual plan being carried out. You're basically reporting, "Rajinikanth had a thought and said it aloud, which confused and irritated some." If every time Donald Trump tweeted a pointless or controversial thought, his article would be a jumble of idiocy. Just something to keep in mind. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I understand.I won't be adding it for now, but if does join politics later and if this bit is valid even then, I might add it. Thanks a lot for all your help. Adwaith s (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• 76.14.105.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP is back at it again. Similar edits, clearly the same individual. Please block (if another admin doesn't get to it before you, as they were also reported to WP:AIV). Thanks. 2A00:1838:37:C1:0:0:0:6A9D (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• 67.81.107.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I'm not sure what this user is up to, but they can't be up to any good here, making recent edits such as this (among others, too). Seeing that you've blocked them three times already, you may be more familiar with their behavior then other admins, so would you mind looking into this? Thank you. 124.199.193.86 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Though you're probably right to be suspicious, I'd prefer if there was a more recent example of pernicious editing before doing anything, although it does seem to be the same person over multiple months. Thanks and sorry, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If we can create article on dubbed tv shows of different names in different language if it even original tv series article is existing Eg:- in India many Hindi tv series had dubbed into other Indian languages Sri Harsha Malempati (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sri Harsha Malempati: I don't see why we would. It's the same creative work, only with the voices changed. At best, a section within the Hindi article might be warranted to detail the other languages, but I think it would be a waste of space to create individual articles for each other language. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I smell something fishy. So, I was looking for some advice/insight on how to proceed. I would like to get to the bottom of a situation, what I believe to be 25 possible sockpuppets (ballot stuffing, strawmen, and meatpuppets), both from named accounts and ip addresses. Fifteen of them have already been blocked, some for vandalism, and some for being socks. While others have been investigated and not blocked. And a few names that have not been accused (to my knowledge) of anything but still put off that uncomfortable vibe of suspicion.

I mean, the last thing I want to do is go around accusing people a second time, nor would I want to ask admin to investigate people already blocked. But, my theory is, that with every new confirmation/block, it could lead back to one of the ones that were not blocked.

Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellymoat (talk • contribs) 18:21, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat: The only way we can link up suspected sockpuppets to other accounts is through behavioral comparison. CheckUsers can look behind-the-scenes to link named accounts to other named accounts, but they won't link named accounts to IPs. If you suspect previously blocked accounts of editing anew, it's not entirely unreasonable to ask CUs to do another check, provided you have behavioral evidence. One tool that is helpful is the Editor Interaction Analyzer, which allows you to compare the intersections of 2+ editors. I always recommend that editors go into their Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance and activate the tool that marks blocked users. This makes it easier to spot potential socks in article edit histories. Not sure if I've helped any, but if you have more specific questions, feel free to ask. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I've been done SPI before.

But 25? Particularly since some have already been blocked, and some of the suspected have already been investigated together. That's why I question. Kellymoat (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)