Talk:W (2014 film)

Promotional edits
I've been asked to move this discussion to here, which I have no problem doing. However the subject in question is that one of the people involved in the film has been making edits to the article that removes usable sources and adds content that is very unambiguously promotional- to the point where it could actually be speedied as sheer promotion. Phrases such as "Not a battle of fists, W comes as a contemporary youthful musical thriller which explores the clash between the 'Women of Today' and 'Men of Yesterday' and how each side justifies their actions, words and mindset while setting an example for the rest of us without being preachy." is incredibly promotional. It also doesn't help that it is also a copyright violation of the official synopsis. Even if the people involved were to file a OTRS report to have the content become fair use, it is still too promotional to use on Wikipedia.

Another concern brought up is that the sources are out of date. Now while they are all from 2013, the date of when a source is not something that would make it invalid to show notability. We actually want coverage over a longer span of time because it does help establish notability. Only using recent sources works against proving notability for the movie. In the reversion that an IP keeps going to, they remove most of the sourcing and predominantly sources that only show that the film exists. These database type sources can't show notability regardless of how many are posted or when they were made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The question is whether this article should be UP-TO-DATE aswell, The source which you are refer to and quoting are independent sources and are in no way related to anyone involved W. Similar to IMBD and approved by wiki. For references: [www.nowrunning.com/movie/15009/bollywood.hindi/w/index.htm] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShivangSehgal (talk • contribs) 07:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they're independent, the sources are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia guidelines. They are considered to be database entries at most, which can not be used as a reliable source. They prove existence, but existing is not notability. IMDB is not usable as a reliable source. At most it can be used very sparingly as a trivial source, but even then it's discouraged because we're supposed to use reliable sources such as news coverage to back up data. (See WP:RS/IMDB for further information on this.) Also, please sign your messages using four tildes ( ~ ) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What you could do, is find current newspaper articles or reviews that talk about the movie. If they explain how the finished movie is different from the original concept, all the better. But really independent sources are needed for verification. And I agree with Tokyogirl79 about the text being too promotional, as well as a copyright violation. Sjö (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How many movies do you know of who do that in 2014 being a digital age? Even if a new paper would publish the same text in hard copy and publish it online, it would still come across as a copyright violation & "re-print". My point being...atleast a derivative synopsis from available synopsis can be incorporated in the article in your own words (no copyright violation). ShivangSehgal (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)ShivangSehgal


 * Quite a few, actually. It's incredibly common for movies, even independently run movies to gain coverage in reliable sources. Part of my "thing" here on Wikipedia is to help find sources for the independent films that never gain a full theatrical release. You would be surprised on how many independently made movies get coverage on a regular basis. Emily Hagins is a great example of a solidly underground independent filmmaker whose films have received coverage despite being ones that very few people have heard of. As far as re-writing things in your own words, that's fine but it still can't be worded to sound promotional. What exactly in the film's premise needs to be changed or added? We can always add things in but we really shouldn't have promotional prose in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Something you might want to look into as far as coverage goes is talking to sites that are outside of India. I can say offhand that horror movie sites would be particularly interested in this and you should check in with places such as Dread Central, Fearnet, Ain't It Cool News, and Bloody Disgusting. Those are all sites that routinely cover independent movies from all over the world. There are other sites out there I can list, but these are a good start since they're all considered to be reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned and they're used on here on a very routine basis. They all do reviews as well, so it would be worth your time to ask them if you could send them a screener copy to review. Now I can't guarantee positive reviews, but I know that many of them - especially Ain't It Cool News- are very kind to newer filmmakers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It is a clear COI violation everywhere. An upcoming movie article created by its producer User:ShivangSehgal. Still no sign of significance in the year 2014. There's only one reliable source that suggests March 14, 2014 as the release date. As per NF, Significant coverage in the reliable sources, it still doesn't meet the standard. Approx. maximum sources do belong to the year 2013 when it was first supposed to be released. However, one could expect some sources with dates close to release. See also, Daboo Malik article, musician of this film, most probably seems to be created by himself User:Singer Daboo Malik. Additionally, Multiple ip users edit, at first instance, I believe belonging to them. They have a team? Anupmehra - Let's talk!  12:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Hi Anup, No Question about the COI violation. ( I did not remove the tag. Did I?) Hence this Talk. I believe you are in a better position to understand sources for bollywood movies. You do consider Bollywood Hungama as a reliable source for references in your Article Bollywood Films on 2014. The issue popped up cause the synopsis on bollywood hungama was pasted here. . DabooMalik has not contributed to the article (sure of this). And no.. theres no team LOL. The point was is the new synopsis should be placed using bollywood hungama as a source. (Ok. should not have just copy pasted. own words would be better, can one of you please sort this out) I think ill start a new Talk Topic with information on W so that you and other wikipedians can atleast know what to edit etc. Presently the movie info & synopsis is also grammatically incorrect. like "what is an events company" should it not be an event management company? "since the police don't seem to help them any" Whats any doing there LOL. Sonal's name somewhere is Giani Somewhere Gyaani. I believe some edits can be made to improve the quality & information of this article and some info must be considered on basis of newly circulated synopsis 60.190.181.238 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)ShivangSehgal
 * Reply: Hello again, You can not write an article and claim, hey wait! sources would be soon coming anytime right about now. Just two things, WP:NPOV & WP:NF should be maintained in particular to this article. Yeah, I do know bollywood and related sources very well (that is why I started a discussion here), and let me admit, I'm so sick and tired seeing flood of articles on upcoming movies. There's some fault in the notability guideline, reviews should not be considered a reliable source, in my personal opinion. But it is still a personal opinion till this very moment. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  14:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Clearly most people have been ignoring the "Common Sense" bit on WP:NF. About WP:NPOV Lets say you meet an actor in real like come back and write he/she is not 6 feet tall or does has a flaw in apperance. You will not be considered Nuetral ? No cause you met them. Similarly, a Producer can be considered as a NPOV cause Come to common sense 1) best knows about the movie 2) Will always give the most presently dated information. About upcoming movies. Not sure on that Anoop. If an article should or should not exist about an upcoming movie is a different question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.190.181.238 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not Anoop but Anup. I hate that double O often misspelled in my name. Common sense (WP:COMMONSENSE)? Well, I agree a producer knows the best related to his upcoming movie. But sources, man! Wikipedia doesn't include original research. It relies on sources, better If I correct myself, reliable sources. I'm walking out of this discussion. I'm pretty sure as per present WP:NF, the present article would satisfy it as dates close to the date of release. And, WP:NPOV is just a 2min. edit of a willing editor nothing else. Have a good time, people. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  15:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with a producer editing the article is that in the end, there will always be a concern with a conflict of interest because you have a vested interest in seeing the film succeed and seeing it written about in promotional terms. Of course a COI means more than you wanting to write about it in as good a light as possible. It also means that you tend to have more of a emotional interest in how the page is written and in many cases, people with a conflict of interest tend to feel like they WP:OWN the page. That's why it's usually better for people that are personally involved with the article subject make suggestions on the talk page rather than make edits to the page themselves. Again, I would like to request that you contact some of the places above. The thing about Bollywood movies is that the coverage doesn't have to begin and end with sources in India. Coverage can be from places from all over the globe as long as they're in reliable sources. One of the biggest downfalls of many different filmmakers from all over the world and from various different genres of film is that they tend to only look for coverage in their specific country. I know that a lot of people tend to ignore the horror genre media outlets because they want to avoid the horror tag. This always saddens me some, since the horror world has adapted over the years but remains a place where they genuinely enjoy films that show women conquering people who have or would want to harm them. I genuinely think that you would find a fairly warm reception from the Western horror world as far as this goes- especially if you've had trouble marketing this film over in India. That's the type of thing that they eat up. Also, please take into account that someone does not have to be from India to be familiar with sourcing from that country. I'll admit that I'm a little irritated that you seem to automatically assumed that since I'm a woman from another country, that I know nothing about how coverage in India works. Maybe you didn't mean to come across that way, but that is how it comes across to me. In any case, as far as the grammatical errors go, you have to take that in stride as this is a common problem on Wikipedia, especially with films that are in another language. I know that I've had several people come on from several different countries (France, India, even places like Africa and Russia) come on and edit when it's clear that English is not their native language. The key here is to fix the grammatical errors without ridiculing the people who made them. After all, we all make grammatical errors when learning another language and it looks like the grammatical errors were added by a random IP user. I've tweaked the summary some to remove some of the grammatical errors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Now another thing that you can do if you're really and entirely unhappy with the page as a whole is to get it deleted or moved from the userspace until more coverage has been received. We can always move it to the draft space as an alternative if you think that the current version is that harmful for your company. Another thing I wanted to point out is that when it comes to Bollywood Hungama, there is a big difference between linking to their database and linking to an article or review on their site. The database entry is unusable but if you had say, an article like this one or a review from one of their staff critics, then those can be used. It's just that the site also has a pretty big database layout as well, similar to how the New York Times or several other newspapers will have databases on their website. You just can't use the database parts as a reliable source to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is a better idea to incubate the article till substantial coverage in the reliable sources not received. Almost all sources belong to 2013 when it was first said to hit theaters. The only 2014 source cited (twice) in the article is, I'm not sure the way it does help. Actually, WP:V fails here. I'm under impression that the present article is a piece of advertisement and serves the objectives of the producer of the movie (creator of the article as well) to attract sponsors assuring them that film is finally going to get released on March 14 this year for sure. Go see, Wikipedia a trusted source! It (the movie) is quite popular as well in between people, because Wikipedia only includes notable subjects. But what is real here? We've few sources of the last year discussing a movie was about to release last year... No sources even say that, there's a movie W earlier was scheduled to release some time in 2013, all set to or is ready to or is about to release this year on March 14.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Anup & Tokyo. Sorry was MIA. First Tokyo, It deeply saddens me that you thought someone who has put in over two years of his life, efforts & hard earned money (not the important bit) into production of a Woman's movie titled "W" to assume in your words" I'm a woman from another country" W may be only about women from this country (India), but the issues women face because of certain old-school men exsits across the globe. I am quite Happy that someone like you is taking active part in helping the article. The whole discussion started based on wiki rules (normally does) and the COI bit, one thing lead to another. Coming back to gramatical error, etc. Were they even noticed by anyone else besides me till I literally had to point it out this was my point, Anup also said the same thing ("W"illing editor). I am glad and quite contended with your edit, and I do thank you for it. But you must understand audiences across different countries vary, their perception does vary, Bollywood is primarily a star power driven industry where content, genre, etc. come into play much later and the first question people ask is not What is the movie about, but Who is in it. Horror and Thriller are quite different but I am gonna actively look ino your suggested sites. The only reason I mentioned BollywoodHungaga and NowPlaying.com was that alot of Wiki Articles use it as a source, which you cleared by the database bit. Now to Anup, the point was made when I deliberately put the double "OO" in your name "perception" LOL. I again remind you, that the COI tag was not even removed once during my edits. Anup you understand how it works with a non star backed film, and you also know the issue is the title of the movie when it comes to search. There are many thing around us which happen but we never hear about them until much later. I am putting a few links for you which might help about your doubt on the W's release date   I have been mentioning this since a long time now, Wiki is only to give out information to people and not publicise the movie and in now way do I wish to use it as an advertisement. be patient, you will see more articles online hopefully trusted sources and I am only hoping a few more wikipedians take interest after that. Following for information only, if you like. do checkout  &  these are not considered wiki reliable sources, but I am just giving them to you so you can atleast note the efforts which are going into W. You both know I am "Listening" hence you dont see any edits/contribs from my end on the article. Peace. ShivangSehgal (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is going too much wide. Let me revive the original idea. I'll start with your last comment. There are 5 links given by you in your last comment. I'm not asking you to prove (as I notice you are trying to) the release date of your film. I'm concerned about WP:NF. I'm waiting to see some reliable sources that discuss the film W going to release on March 14 this year not a film W what was scheduled to release last year. Do you have some? See, Wikipedia reliable source examples. Another editor has suggested to incubate the present article, and move it back to mainspace once coverage in the reliable sources found. I'm agree with her and would suggest you to have a view on that opinion. And few misconceptions, you're probably suffering from, It is not necessary that one has to be an Indian to know about India. I've met many who are not an Indian but knows much more about India than an average Indian citizen. This way, I find it ignorant to say, hey! you are not an Indian, hence your views about India or India related stuffs are subjected to doubt or factual accuracy. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  21:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Two are of blog, hence not reliable (as per WP:RSE).
 * Other two are self-published, hence not reliable (as per WP:RSE).
 * Last one, is a re-print of press-release, hence not reliable (as per WP:NF).
 * Anup thanks for the examples. I think you really have misread the comment (read the last bit again) about being patient,etc. But I really do not understand from which part of my comment did you pick up the Indian knowing bit. It was a general statement about bollywood films, not from the Indian citizen perspective! Please read the whole thing correctly where I mentioned genre and star driven content being noticed more, I never stated people from where know less or know more! You have really taken this in the wrong stride. ShivangSehgal (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify one thing (what you seem to be insisting for), one subject doesn't qualify for a separate Wikipedia article unless and until significant coverage in the reliable source shown noting that notion of the self-claim notability is undermined here. Here notability is determined taking into consideration the coverage shown in the secondary, independent and reliable sources. I'm sorry but the idea of self-claimed notability doesn't make sense. All contents within Wikipedia articles are subjected to documentary verification not verbal. And in your one comment, you compared me to the User:Tokyogirl79 as, I'm supposed to know more about bollywood sources because I'm an Indian. Here, I disagree and words of my last comment was driven from your this particular conception. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  10:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are we actually involved in this ping pong of words, you want the points take them haha. Have a look at this one [] And please don't even ask me who Raaj Chopra is,, I dont know! It was Armaan Malik who sang the song. Another example of editorial error. ShivangSehgal (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are saying this source establish notability of your article as per WP:NF? You are advised to not make useless assumptions and keep your words to the point. Earlier you denied making any such remark related non-Indians, when I pointed out, you're trying to defend yourself with this you want the points take them haha? Well, I find it ignorant. Be to the point and do not try to divert the attention to some other unrelated subjects. It'd be more constructive apporach. I guess, I'm tired taking with you. I'll wait someone to interfare into this and nominate the article for deletion. And please login before posting your comments and sign your posts typing four tildes (~) . It will produce your signature with date and time. Thank you, nice talking with you. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  11:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion
I am happy to give an opinion and do some edits if necessary to ensure the article is not overly promotional if you wish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up. Most welcome! Finding the movie online cause of single letter " W " will be a challenge and there is still some time before the information widespreads. I will soon be posting various links to help you find content easily, although some may be reliable some not as per wiki guidelines. Thank you! ShivangSehgal (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not want to get involved in whether this article should exist at all. That should be dealt with via an AfD.  Does anyone think that the article is overly promotional as it is at the time of this message? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume that there is no longer a problem here so I will leave you to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Release date
I've got a suggestion as to the release date: a good alternative would be to place the current release date on the company's website. The official website for W is dead, but if it's re-launched then that would be a good place to post that as well. We can use the official website to back up very trivial details- although it's preferred that we have coverage in a reliable source. There are other issues with the page, but this is a good alternative to the argument that's specifically over the release date. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks tokyogirl, I wasnt aware that the official website is considered as a reliable source. Yes, the website is currrently under redev and will be live again soon. I understand there are other issues with this article. To sort one of them, I have already not been contributing and dont intend to, but can I just leave pointers on the talk page? Further. I would also like to point out with ref to your bollywoodhungama database as not to be considered as a realible source for the release date. Your explanation about the database bit was very clear. I would like to better understand this, Please have a look at [], once you scroll down you will see the number of citations to bollywoodhungama. Anup is an active contrib/editor to that article. My question being, if on that article he can accept & forego it as a reliable source THERE for the RELEASE DATE why not in case of "W"? and keeping harping upon the release date. Anup Please do not take this personally. I request you not to start an arguement on this one. I am just trying to understand it from a third person's perspective. ShivangSehgal (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are actually not listening to anybody. I've been requested you earlier to go through few Wiki help links as such WP:NF, WP:RS, WP:RSE, etc. And the article you are comparing with this article, is a WP:LIST class article. Do you know a diff. between these two articles? No you do not. You do not want to know. You just keep arguing based on nothing. You are here to use Wikipedia to host your upcoming non-notable film details. Very few person clicks google 2nd-3rd page search results, and that is where one or two 2013 sources (press-release and re-prints of the same) related to your film belong to. Having an article on Wikipedia, serves the purpose. (I can't believe, I'm involved again. Damn! watchlists) Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem lies in the difference between how you're trying to use the BH page and the way the list uses them. You were trying to use the database listing to show notability while the list is using them in a trivial manner, meaning that they aren't using it to show notability and aren't trying to assert notability via the BH database listing. That's really the biggest problem I had with the usage of the BH link: you were trying to assert that it shows notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasnt even talking about establishing notability of the entire film, I was only refering to the ONLY the "RELEASE DATE" part and to why BH cannot be refered to only towards that since other articles do. For example. Release Date: 14 March 2014 I do not still see as to why one atricle (whatever class) can use the same reference for the same information and why would any one want to ignore the same information to be portrayed in the same way. ShivangSehgal (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)