Talk:Hindi cinema/Archive 15

Split proposed
Since this article needs some content spun off, a logical target would be History of Indian cinema (currently a redirect to Cinema of India). I've pinged WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly the global markets section might be a good spinoff too. It is pretty long. I'm not sure what sort of title to give something like that, though, or if Bollywood should have its own article versus something like "Indian film in foreign markets" or something like that. On the other hand, I looked at the article Cinema of the United States and its section on foreign markets is very short despite the size and maturity of the industry. And it does not have a spinoff as far as I can tell--at least, one is not linked under the heading. Prometheus720 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I suggest a new article as "History of Bollywood". :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Article name Bollywood to Hindi Cinema
It would be much justified if the title of this page is changed to Hindi cinema instead of Bollywood as most of the prestigious Hindi film makers and Actors and Government prefer the Industry as Hindi Cinema Industry and Bollywood is used informally by entertainment media. Hope you all accept this request and change the article Title and Name to 'Hindi Cinema/Film Industry'

Thank you.. Includents.h (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the English-language media in both India and internationally refer to the industry as "Bollywood". Since "Bollywood" is the most widely recognizable name for the industry across the English-speaking world, that's the name which should be used for the article, as per WP:NAME. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There is an element of confusion which stands unresolved in the informal naming of Regional Films. Tollywood represents both Bengali and Telugu films. So how does one get around this dichotomy? --Moitraanak (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Bollywood being a shit industry
Bollywood is a bitch industry Super Lord (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019
BOLLYWOOD MOVIES 2019 VERDICT http://bollywoodfever.co.in/bollywood-movies-2019-budget-box-office-collection-verdict/ bollywoodfever 2001:420:5445:1300:F9BD:6236:90F1:6124 (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide exact details of the changes you want to be carried out.  OxonAlex    - talk  16:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism section
A lot claims are made for songs copied from Pakistani musicians in the Plagiarism section and cite some unsubstantiated unreliable resources with which are mostly based on social media claims. I have gone through the refs and they do not fit WP:RS at all:
 * The News18 only compares music videos and makes uncorroborated claims about plagiarism (no byline as well).
 * The [m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/english/cine+tales-epaper-cinetale/these+songs+are+copied+from+superhit+qawwali+s+of+nusrat+fateh+ali+khan-newsid-87248020 DailyHunt] ref is not reliable and makes similar claims to the ref above (no byline here too).
 * The Times of India article is based on a Twitter thread of a user with no credentials.
 * The Daily Pakistan articles also makes similar unsubstantiated claims to the above by just comparing music videos.

All of the "articles" are based on claims by people on social media with no inquiry into it. Just because the tunes/songs sound similar does not mean the song is copied or wasn't officially adapted/licensed.

Recent case in point being where users on social media claimed that a newly released Punjabi song was copied from the Pakistani band Vital Sings, which as it later turned out was probably based on a folk song from the Punjab.

We should be careful making claims of blatant of copyright infringement on Wikipedia and should cite proper references to published newspapers and journals rather than giving weight to online mudslinging especially on a core article like this. Also, the article should be giving a broad based overview of plagiarizing in music rather than listing each and every claimed instance of a plagiarized song.

Thus, I have removed the claims from the references listed above. Gotitbro (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * News18, Times of India and Daily Pakistan are all reliable sources that fit WP:RS. Also, News18 and Daily Pakistan never cite social media as a source, but the allegations of plagiarism come from the newspaper journalists themselves, not social media. However, I will acknowledge that there may be some uncertainty about the reliability of Dailyhunt, and that Times of India cites Twitter as its source. Other than that, News18 and Daily Pakistan are entirely WP:RS, and should therefore be reinstated, but with the wording changed to "allegations" of plagiarism. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No the particular articles do not qualify as RS, News18 is under a blog (does not even provide a byline) and just lists different videos with no input from the artists they allege they were plagiarized from or the artists who plagiarized it and doo not cite anyone who has put up these allegations. The DailyPakistan article is also under a blog and not RS and has similar issues (it even lists songs which were officially recorded by Nusrat). We can't just makes such allegations or such hefty accusations of copytheft without any backing to the claims especially when the artists said to be plagiarized from make no such allegations. Gotitbro (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does the News18 article mention "blog" anywhere. The only one that does mention "blog" is Daily Pakistan. However, the author of the article is a staff writer, not a user. So it counts as WP:RS, which states: "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format." Also, there are no rules anywhere that allegations of plagiarism need to be from the original authors themselves. All that matters is whether they are published in WP:RS sources, and that it's made clear that these are allegations. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in an edit war, so please discuss it here rather reverting (WP:3RR). Blogs do not qualify as RS, I have not removed anything from reliable sources such as the one's sourced from The Hindu or Rediff. I have already mentioned why the News18 and DailyPakistan are not RS and make unsubstantiated claims. The News18 is clearly is blog under their "Buzz" section, the Daily blog is already problematic as it lists even songs officially recorded by Nusrat. I am going to undo the reverts, this can be further taken to the RS noticeboard or WP:ICTF or better sources can be looked for the allegations. Gotitbro (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In what way does "Buzz" mean "blog"? The News18 articles are clearly news articles, not "blogs". The word "Buzz" is clearly a reference to "showbiz" buzz, not "blog". Nowhere is there any indication that it's a "blog", so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. And even if it was a "blog" (which it does not appear to be), I already posted above what WP:RS states on the matter: "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format." If a news site has a blog-style section, that makes little difference. What matters is that the authors of the articles are staff writers, which is true for both the News18 and Daily Pakistan articles. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * After looking more into it, I can say with absolute certainty that your allegation against News18 is completely unsubstantiated. Firstly, WP:ICTFFAQ lists News18 as a reliable source for Indian cinema articles. Secondly, there has never been any dispute over News18's reliability at WP:ICTF. And thirdly, the News18 "blog" section is called Blogs, not "Buzz". You're confusing two completely different sections of the site. So please, stop removing News18 with a false claim about it being a "blog". There is no dispute over News18's reliability. The consensus is that News18 is a reliable source, period. As for Daily Pakistan, I'll leave that alone for now, and first try to reach some kind of consensus regarding it. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are interested in a discussion if you keep engaging in edit warring by reverting. News18 might be listed as a reliable source at the Project but that particular article clearly isn't, the article just lists videos and makes absolute statements that the songs were plagiarized with no substantive backing behind the claims (the Hindu and Rediff at least intrude behind the allegations) I already made this clear in the section above "only compares music videos and makes uncorroborated claims about plagiarism", it does not even have a byline of an author, no way this is passing as an RS anywhere on the wiki. The "Buzz" section is clearly a blog which lists 'trending' things on the Internet. If the News18 article has any valid backing then you can most likely find better sources for it but this particular article is not going to cut it. Gotitbro (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, the "Buzz" section is not a "blog". The word "trending" simply means how many hits certain articles are getting. The terms "buzz" or "trending" have nothing at all to do with "blogs". Like I already said, News18 already have a separate section called Blogs. That's where the blogs are, not the "Buzz" section. And like I also said above, News18 is listed as a reliable source on WP:ICTFFAQ. Which means that all articles published on the site are reliable sources. If there was an issue with a certain section of the site, then the ICTF FAQ would've mentioned a disclaimer or note besides the source, yet there is no such note or disclaimer. If you disagree with News18's reliability, or the reliability of a certain section from the site, then you can feel free to raise an issue over it at the ICTF talk page. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you really telling me that an article with no byline, in the section of the website which posts things that are trending on the internet (you would know if you actually visited the section and would not be arguing about the word trending here) which are treated as blogs anywhere else on the wiki; is reliable? There is no way that this is passing as a reliable source. If there is any validity/backing to the claims in that "buzz" article there should definitely be a better source for it; if you can cannot find it then the claims and the News18 ref have to go. This is more a case of WP:RSN than ICTF and you should take it there if you believe it is a legitimate source. Gotitbro (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are entirely based on your own personal opinions, with no concrete basis in any of Wikipedia's rules or guidelines, or the ICTF's guidelines. I have already posted above that News18 is explicitly listed as a reliable source under the ICTF FAQ. If you feel otherwise, then this is an issue that should be raised with the ICTF, since News18 is a reliable source according to its guidelines. If you feel otherwise, then it might be a good idea to take that up with the ICTF. Either way, I think it would be best to hear a third-party opinion on this matter, so I have raised the issue at ICTF talk page for now. Bollywood falls under the ICTF, so that should be the first option. If the ICTF can't resolve the issue, we could later raise the issue at WP:RSN as a last resort, if you want. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph on Nepotism in "Cast and Crews"
In this section, it's claimed that "Stars such as Dilip Kumar, Dharmendra, Amitabh Bachchan, Rajesh Khanna, Rishi Kapoor, Anil Kapoor, Sunny Deol, Sridevi, Madhuri Dixit and Shah Rukh Khan lacked show-business connections."

I haven't checked all of these actors, but at the very least, it's ridiculous to say that Rishi Kapoor, whose father was Raj Kapoor, had no connections.

Nepotism is supported by bollywood which isn't mentioned in this article Super Lord (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Rishi kapoor is the son of Raj Kapoor and the grandson of Prithviraj Kapoor. Sunny Deol also has show business connections as his father is the actor Dharmendra. Please fix this section. Vuppulur08 (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020
Please insert this citation under Genres : Bollywood films are primarily musicals, and are expected to have catchy song-and-dance numbers woven into the script. A film's success often depends on the quality of such musical numbers.[1] A film's music is often released before the film itself, increasing its audience.[citation needed] AngieWP (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I also expanded the sentence slightly based on the source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020
I would like to update this wikipedia page as some of the information is quite outdated. SoulEditsx (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove Page Protection
The wikipedi page of Bollywood is locked for unknown reasons. So many improvements need to be done and it is locked for what? Unable to expand and add more history. The information about Bollywood history is incomplete here unlike Hollywood page which is more expanded and organized professionally. Kindly release the locked page. Thank you.--Chintu89 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * go to Request for Page Protection, which is also where requests to lower protection are handled. The page protection was raised back in the summer due to persistent vandalism and disruptive edits.  Ravensfire  (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2021
Please remove "British Asian" wikilink which doesn't exist. The Future Of Cinema 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Instead of unlinking, I linked to an existing article British Asian. Please reopen if that's not ok. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

History section (between 1940-50) needs attention
The years 1940-1950 were critical in the history of Indian cinema, especially Bollywood, since this was the time when cinema came to define a major market, and movie-making and watching intersected with important political movements.

Regarding the economics, this was the decade in which we had the first example of what later came to be known as the 'All-Time Blockbuster', the movie Kismet which was the first movie to cross the psychologically important barrier of 1 crore (10 million) Indian rupees. Quoting from Vijay Mishra's 'Decentering History: Some Versions of Bombay Cinema' (East-West film journal, Volume 6, Number 1): "The next canonical text was Luck (Kismet, 1943), which, in 1970 at any rate, held the "record as the longest running hit of Indian cinema" (Star and Style, February 6,1970,19). [Luck] owes its amazing, unexpected success to the time in which it was made." Achut Kanya and Kismet heralded a move away from what Shyam Benegal called alienating and orientalist cinema to movies that could "deal with reality".

There are a host of other references which point out how personalities like Bimal Roy, Sahir Ludhianvi and Prithviraj Kapoor participated in the creation of a national consciousness against British rule in India, simultaneously leveraging the popular political movement to increase their own visibility and popularity.

"IPTA’s Contribution in Awakening Nationalism." Agrawal, Bhumika. The Criterion 4 (2013).

"Bollywood and Social Issues Dichotomy or Symbiosis?." Bandidiwekar, Anjali, "Indian cinema grew up in the days of the National Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. The Gandhian philosophy of social reform deeply influenced Bollywood directors, screen-play writers, and lyricists. Their films became vehicles of social reform, taking up the cause of the common people." https://www.academia.edu/download/56918791/Business_of_Bollywood_-book_plan.pdf#page=57

"Remembering Prithviraj Kapoor" India Today, "In 1946, Prithviraj Kapoor founded Prithvi Theatres, a theatre group that became a legend over decades. The house would stage influential patriotic plays and inspire the generation to join the Indian freedom movement and Mahatma Gandhi's Quit India movement." https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/prithviraj-kapoor-birthday-349871-2016-11-03:

Colourism
Casting in Bollywood has been highly controversial as the films reputably have a role in colorism. The casting is typically of a lighter skinned and Eurocentric actors and actresses with little representation to darker skinned actors and actresses. Additionally, the Bollywood industry often collaborates with the Beauty Industry in India, and many actors and actresses advertise products that are used to lighten your skin.

popular Images
Currently article is 95% populated by commercially popular screen actors only, It wont look encyclopedic. Can someone with copyright knowledge help here to add the images of back-end legends Musician, Lyricist etc. I remember earlier there were images of Satyajit Ray, Guru Dutt and need to include female legends such as Durga Khote, Smita Patil etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Headlining photograph
Anybody can tell me who the genius was who thought a photograph of Mme Obaba was a good choice to head an article on Bollywood? You want to highlight Indian choreography, take a publicity still from a movie. But the Obamas are not in the least bit relevvant to this article (and to a few others where their photographs nevertheless appear). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brijkishore rai (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2021 (2)
love ≠ romantic 164.100.25.135 (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 11:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2019 and 22 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aiza83.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split
There was a proposed split in April 2019 (see here) but no strong consensus was formed. Relisting the discussion here to try to form a consensus. Wgullyn ( talk ) 16:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
Please link to the disambiguation page Bollywood (disambiguation)

Please change

to

-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#128156; melecie   talk  - 03:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED as proposed. Consensus is clear that Bollywood is, while certainly common, not precise enough to correctly identify the subject of this article. I find here absolutely no consensus for what to do with the page title Bollywood after the move - most arguments didn't really touch on it! - and so will leave it as a redirect to Hindi cinema by default. Nevertheless, many people proposed many different possibilities for the page itself; should it redirect to Hindi cinema? should it be a disambiguation page? what about an article about the term itself and its history and the many things it refers to? That's another discussion for another time and another place, but it can start immediately. Again, I'm not deciding that question because it wasn't directly brought up here much and there was no consensus on it; on the other hand, the move as proposed has a broad consensus backed by policy. I note that Bollywood currently is move-protected, so this move won't be carried out immediately. Red  Slash  21:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Bollywood → Hindi cinema – Already started on WT:ICTF to make sure there's agreement in the first place before a name change is proposed with support. Hindi cinema is the formal name of the film industry based in Mumbai. Bollywood is a journalistic term and definitely not encyclopedic (interestingly, even Hollywood is not given an article of its own). For reference, the most important book on the film industry, by no less than Encyclopedia Britannica, is called just that: Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema. Generally speaking, the informal term of Bollywood refers to a sort of style which covers only a portion of popular Hindi cinema (see this book by Tejaswini Ganti or Govind Nihalani's article on the use of the term). As many viewers know, the Hindi film industry comprises much more than just the popular movie format. Moreover, Indian cinema has changed so drastically over the last couple of years where many of the ingredients which are associated with what is commonly known as Bollywood (a term which came up in the 1980s) have now disappeared. Over the years, and off late in particular, there have been film-industry professionals expressing dissatisfaction with the use of this term, which they find demeaning (Sources: Hindustan Times). That being the case, it is only logical to give Hindi cinema its formal name on Wikipedia. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  11:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 15:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The most common name in English is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONSISTENT with all other film industries in India which are named after language (Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, Punjabi etc.) despite each of them having their own sobriquets like Bollywood. Hindi cinema is also WP:PRECISE compared to the term Bollywood which can easily be mistaken for a genre or Indian cinema as a whole. COMMONNAME, being one of the several criteria we consider, cannot override the others. Hollywood also qualifies as COMMONNAME for Cinema of the United States but that cannot be the sole rationale for move. Also agree with the nom that Hindi cinema more formal and encyclopedic term than Bollywood -- Ab207 (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in English. CONSISTENT (the lowest priority of the WP:CRITERIA) only applies when Wikipedia has discretion to name topics that don't have a commonly used distinctive or alternative name, such as in this case. OP is cherry-picking a particular encyclopedia title when "Bollywood" is quite common in books about this topic and other scholarship. -- Netoholic @ 07:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did CONSISTENT being the lowest priority come from? its more like last but not least. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Bollywood is not a common name - it is a popular term for mainstream Hindi films. Maybe those unfamiliar with the subject won't know this instantly, but I did explain above that Bollywood refers only to a portion of Hindi cinema, that is popular Hindi cinema, and it's not synonymous with it completely. To infer that all Hindi films are what the media and even scholars refer to as Bollywood, is simply wrong, and it leaves out many films which are not based in Mumbai (Bombay for the B in Bollywood) or films that do not follow the format and formula associated with popular Hindi films. Hollywood, as Ab207 has stated above, is also a common name for American cinema but is not used on WP. To nad, it is worth noting that WP:COMMONNAME also says, "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register"; if Encyclopedia Britannica is not such an example, I don't know what is. I also recommend that Netoholic look a little more into the Google books page they've cited - all these books refer to a genre of Hindi cinema (most of the mention songs, music, dance), just like Hollywood often refers to a genre of the big, expensive, glossy film. The bad-faith accusation that I was cherry-picking - there you go, a list of books where I've excluded Bollywood from the search and the list is endless - I just wanted to bring a recognised encyclopedia and not a random list of books. But thank you for casting your votes.  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you feel that "Bollywood" is a subset of Hindi cinema (an idea that could have merit), then what you should seek is an article split - not a rename - because the topic of "Bollywood" is independently notable, and Wikipedia -will- have an article under that title. -- Netoholic @ 12:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'm afraid "will" depends on the community, not the opinion/will of a particular user. No, it does not need an article split, because Bollywood is a popular term (and not a common name) for popular Hindi cinema (which is not a subset and does not merit an article of its own) and it should be covered within Hindi cinema, just as Hollywood is within Amercian cinema (or even loss so, because Bollywood was popularised in the mid-1980s). Think of the Academy Awards, popularly known as the Oscars. The use of the Oscars is tremendously popular (feel free to make another random Google search for it as well to see how widely so). But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, not a newspaper, and not even a film book. That's why when Encyclopedia Britannica published a book on the same, the industry was called "Hindi cinema" just as it should. But it's okay, I think continuing this argument here will be fruitless, because I did cite significant sources to explain the point that I'm sure many Indians already know and many others will undersrand. I do understand your stand because it is likely new to you, and it's okay - it's part of the process, and I respect your opinion (even if it's based on merely a simple Google search). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per nom. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm really in a quandary over here, but it appears the common name often overtakes the formal one, even if it is a misnomer. Like the Spanish flu, even though it didn't originate in Spain, or french fries which most likely did not originate in France. But Bollywood seems to have become the name for the Mumbai-based film industry, including films which may not be mainly in Hindi. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  05:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Ab207. I had the same qualms as Kailash29792, but I also see an evolution from what Bollywood implied in the industry and support the attempt to better capture the current scenario. Hemantha (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support I completely agree with . Apart from that, the term "Bollywood" was popularized in the west by colonizers to make Hindi cinema seem inferior and the "wannabe poor cousin" of Hollywood. Hindi cinema is the apt word. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  15:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bollywood continues to exceedingly be the common name for the Hindi-language film industry based in Mumbai. That isn't the case for the film industries of other languages in India. Personal opinions aside, it is certainly not an unencyclopedic term (see Britannica with their article listed at Bollywood too). And lastly, Bollywood is not necessarily synonymous with popular Hindi cinema. Outliers to the common style of commercial mass films in the industry are still referred to as arthouse "Bollywood". 2001:8F8:172B:3784:680B:B1EC:982E:964D (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The very link you're citing here says, "Standard features of Bollywood films continued to be formulaic story lines, expertly choreographed fight scenes, spectacular song-and-dance routines, emotion-charged melodrama, and larger-than-life heroes."
 * That's my point. Bollywood is just a popular term, like the Oscars, not even a common name (like Hollywood, which is not used either). In fact many Indian actors find it offensive exactly for that stereotypical description in the quote above. As for art films, "parallel hindi cinema" is even more common fyi. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Parallel hindi cinema might be more common but the greater point I intended to convey was that unconventional films made in the industry are still "Bollywood". If say, Dharma Productions were to produce an arthouse movie tomorrow, it would still be a "Bollywood film" because a production house working in the film industry based in Mumbai is producing it. The standard features of popular Bollywood films are also the standard features of commercial Hindi cinema. 2001:8F8:172B:3784:680B:B1EC:982E:964D (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, since you've mentioned Dharma Productions, it might be useful to look into their Official site, where they mention "Hindi cinema" with not a single mention of its popular term. I think it says it all. I wonder if ever parallel films made by Shyam Benegal and the likes were labelled Bollywood films. I can assure you they were not. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongly support - this has been a long time coming if you ask me. Meryam90 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Ab207. We will educate people by having this redirect to the proper, formal, and increasingly more common name. Bollyjeff  &#124;  talk  23:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Bollywood is the colloquial term and does not cover all aspects of Hindi cinema. And at the risk of pulling an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, see other articles: Tamil cinema (not Kollywood), cinema of the United States (not Hollywood), et al. FrB.TG (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Everyone commonly says 'Hollywood', but see what the article is called. The same should apply here. Bollyjeff  &#124;  talk  13:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support without prejudice against "Bollywood" becoming a sub-topic split underneath "Hindi cinema" in the future if the information about it being associated with a specific style or it being considered as a pejorative or etc. ever becomes enough to warrant a split. But the main topic should be at "Hindi cinema". ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: While I was initially in a quandary, now I say this be moved, and "Bollywood" be either a section redirect here, or a separate article akin to Parallel cinema. Kailash29792 (talk)  05:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 'Bollywood' is indeed a commonly used term but not necessarily for the subject of this article. Rather it is a catch-all term that, depending upon the context, can refer to anything from 'popular, contemporary, Hindi-language films made in Bombay' to 'Indian + diasporic cinema/TV in all languages'. For that reason the term is often used reluctantly, and usually with qualifiers/explanation, by academic sources and within the industry itself.

"That Bollywood has become the dominant global term to refer to the Hindi film industry, mainstream Hindi cinema, and even erroneously to all of the diverse filmmaking traditions in India, becomes apparent from the two institutions acknowledged as pioneers in the organization and dissemination of information in our contemporary world: Amazon.com and Google. “Bollywood” as a search term on either site yields four times more results than “Indian cinema” and ten to twenty times more results than “Hindi cinema.”"
 * Use is common

"“Bollywood” became a synecdoche for commercial Indian cinema, especially on the World Wide Web. In 2019, a Google search for the keyword “Bollywood” would yield 0.479 billion results, whereas the number of results for “Indian cinema” that represents the sum of all film industries in India would be only 7.6 million, which is clearly at odds with the relationship between the two entities.... In spite of Bollywood’s official output being a mere fraction of Indian cinema, “Bollywood” as a keyword towered over “Indian cinema.”"

"Yet, despite this dubious origin, a look at the use of the term Bollywood in the Times of India shows its gradual incorporation into the mainstream over the decades. While in the 1960s it was used sparingly and dismissively, as in the example above, by the late 1980s it is used more casually and without denigration, and by the first few years of the 1990s it seems to have become widespread in the English media, shorn of its negative connotation, as a catchy, shorthand descriptor of the Bombay film industry."

"The OED’s definition and etymology of “Bollywood,” however, were incorrect: instead of defining the name in the context of multilingual and multilocal Indian cinemas, it defined “Bollywood” as “the” popular film industry in India... Bollywood’s digital footprint is based not just on films but on styles, motifs, and product brand. Cookbooks, snacks, dance styles, wedding planning, and attire are some of the categories that Bollywood is now associated with. A significant number of the search results are not related to cinema. Outside of the digital realm, the history of the use of the word “Bollywood”as a name for Hindi cinema and as a synecdoche for the Indian film industry in general is contested and complex... in Indian popular publications the distinction between Bollywood and Indian cinema frequently blurred... The authors [of India film Guide] took utmost care in defining Bollywood as a “category” in its chapter on Maharashtra and in drawing out a distinction between Bollywood films and all Hindi films: “A large chunk of the Hindi films produced in Mumbai constitutes what is usually described as Bollywood, a label used for a cinematic tradition built on a crowd-pleasing mix of melodrama, romance, moral conflict and music.”"
 * Meaning is ambiguous/contested

"Bollywood is a contested and controversial term nonetheless, both within the Indian film-studies community and the Hindi film industry....Bollywood has become synonymous with any film either produced in India or by diasporic Indians and set in India; Mira Nair’s Monsoon Wedding, Gurinder Chadha’s Bride and Prejudice, and Deepa Mehta’s Earth have all been referred to in this vein. Global media usage of the term “Bollywood” usually demonstrates a complete ignorance that feature films are produced in over twenty languages in India every year and that vibrant and prolific film industries exist in the cities of Hyderabad, Chennai, Bangalore, Trivandrum, and Calcutta... [In] 2009, whereas a total of 235 Hindi films were certified, 132 films were released theatrically; out of which even a smaller number could be regarded as “Bollywood” films in terms of their star cast, directors, and narrative/aesthetic style. Neither is Bollywood synonymous with Indian cinema, Hindi cinema, nor with the Indian film industry."

"...,it is neither possible nor productive to conceptualize Bollywood as a film industry. Television and digital media have been central to the circulation of Bollywood content across the world, in expanding and redefining sites and modes of consumption, and enabling filmmakers and stars to envision overseas markets and audiences."

"Bollywood is a relatively new term that likely means different things to different people. Popularly in the US and UK, the term is associated with blingy and brightly colored costumes or a particular dance style. In India, the term is less common, with more specific terms like “Bombay cinema” or “Hindi popular cinema” being preferred.... By contrast, for film critics, Bollywood references the recent globalization and “gentrification” of the industry that extends beyond the actual films themselves, including marketing, branding, stage shows, global fan followings, and reality shows, such that “Bollywood [is] a culture industry, and ... the Indian cinema [is] only a part, even if culturally a significant one, of that industry.”"

"A popular film magazine in India ran a television advertisement with the following slogan in the 1980s: “You can love us. You can hate us. But you cannot ignore us.” This slogan pithily sums up how scholars of South Asian film feel about the moniker Bollywood. We defend it at conferences and parties, we include it in book titles to grab eyeballs on Google Scholar, we lament its insatiable appetite for cannibalizing other cinematic formations among peers, and we endlessly explain it in introductions to the books we write."
 * Use is reluctant/qualified

"In the twenty-first century, “Bollywood” has prominently featured in the title of books by...albeit always with reference to the name’s historical dimensions and its connections with the twenty-first-century expansion of Indian cinema’s global market."

"Thus, for the purposes of this book, I use Bollywood synonymously with Bombay cinema, as referring to Hindi-language popular films based in Mumbai."

"Film scholars are justifiably upset by the indiscriminate use of the term by the media—and even by other scholars—to refer to all filmmaking both past and present within India.... Within the Hindi film industry, while some are indifferent or resigned to the use of the term Bollywood, others are upset by the term because they feel it is essentializing and condescending; represents a kitschy, tacky cinema; or implies that Hindi cinema is a cheap derivative of Hollywood."


 * Therefore I support moving this article to 'Hindi cinema', a title which better reflects its scope (which is not just popular Hindi cinema), and creating an article 'Bollywood (term)' that explains the term's origins, meaning(s), usage and import. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Abecedare Thank you for your excellent overview of the sources. I think the question of whether Bollywood should merit a separate article could be discussed later. I think an attempt could be first made to incorporate it into this article by creating a section which would explain exactly what you suggested, and if it's big and good enough, it could be split right away. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that how/where the term 'Bollywood' is explained is a matter for later discussion and that issue should not detract us from the current one. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very good research, Abecedare. A gbooks search of bollywood -hindi returns several results where the usage is unrelated to the scope of this article. As noted in the article's hatnote, Hindi cinema is the definitive, unambiguous and common term for the Mumbai-based Hindi film industry. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support Better than the stereotype it use right now. Agletarang (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2022
I believe it is appropriate to add an image of Mumbai like it has been done with Hollywood and Los Angeles. This is the image I propose we use:

Mumbai Skyline Wide.jpg

Thank you AtishT20 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Image not relevant to the subject — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Bollywood destroying Indian culture
can you add this in the first paragraph?

There are criticism against Bollywood that it is destroying Indian culture and traditions, while the south Indian movies embraces it. 128.164.107.233 (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This appears to be giving undue weight and comes off WP:POV-pushy. The Economist probably should be in the article, and I would add it if there wasn't a paywall that blocks me from reading the entire thing. SWinxy (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)