Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ

Cast / Box / News
Not sure if the Yes/No idea for Cast / Box / News is going to be very helpful. The idea was to do something like this:

However, I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble. If a source is reliable it would probably seem that they'd be reliable for all these things. Might just create clutter. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I cut it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

response
I like this idea and i think this is a good start. it is similar to help guides that WikiProjects comics and games and songs have for their specialty sources. Links to discussions at the notice board archives where the consensus has been reached would be a good idea too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oneindia
It doesn't look like there is consensus on OneIndia as a reliable source. My take is that it shouldn't be generally considered a reliable source by itself. It is a web portal that republished material from elsewhere. Although they do produce original content as well, reading some of the articles there, I get the strong sense that they are rephrasing press material and information published elsewhere, and are not investigating or fact-checking anything. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

New News websites
, I want someone who can help determine the reliability of sites like The Quint, Scroll.in and The News Minute (you are welcome to share your opinion here). , your participation is also encouraged. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They all look reliable enough. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 05:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Box Office India
I do not understand why this is listed as unreliable. I have used this my entire career on wikipedia and even on lots of GAs and FAs. Even the discussion that you cite, although very long, at the end seems to me that it is okay. Doesn't the arguing party say that they concede? BollyJeff &#124;  talk  20:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I too believe it is the most credible source for box office information on Indian films, especially since most trade analysts in India resemble the blind men and an elephant. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the Box Office India that I put in the unreliable column yesterday is boxofficeindia.co.in not .com. Does this answer the concern? It does not appear to be the same website as BoxOfficeIndia. Further, I rarely see people using it as a reference, (274 uses of *.co.in vs 4700+ of .com) and even less frequently see it mentioned by reliable sources. If that doesn't address the concerns, I'm happy to discuss. I only moved it up because I'd heard nothing about it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is the .com version listed as 'not yet determined' instead of 'reliable'? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Chiefly because of a lack of participation from people in the project. I've encouraged folks numerous times to make changes. I'll move it, but I could use help with people digging up discussions, offering their input, moving stuff around, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Although this may sound off-topic, I'll say it here in order to gain a consensus: and, what do you think about Scroll.in and The News Minute as reliable sources? Could one of you please evaluate them? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at them when I get more time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want more input, its time to start considering moving this onto the public space, instead of keeping it in your user space. Have you merged everything from the "Guidelines on sources" section of Indian cinema task force? Once that's done, I think we can move this to there, or maybe a tab on there given its size. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Malayalasangeetham.info
As per film historian B. Vijayakumar, the website Malayalasangeetham.info should be deemed reliable. What do you think, ? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there's enough information here to form an opinion. I understand that the film historian credits the site for helping him with some research. It's possible that the information they have is useful for that purpose, but do we know where they get the information from? Is it user-contributed like IMDb? I can't read Malayalam (or any of the Indic scripts on account of not being Indian) so I can't even look into who's behind the site or anything like that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am certain that the site is reliable. If not, then Vijaykumar (an RS) will also be deemed a non-RS since he gets info from it; fruit of the poisonous tree. Kailash29792 (talk)  17:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Chakpak.com
Could someone please analyse this website to see if it passes WP:RS? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I don't know what this site is supposed to be. Their About page says nothing about their editorial staff. Their contact page mentions one guy, Raghu Krishnan. I know nothing about him, so I wouldn't be able to comment on his expertise. I clicked on News, Interviews, Reviews across the top, but don't see anything newer than 2013. If I click to the very last set of reviews, the earliest is Feb 2012. So it looks like they were running for about a year and a half. I don't know that they'd meet the established reputation qualification of WP:RS. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

www.bollymoviereviewz.com
This blog seems to aggregate reviews and data from other sources. No information about the author, their expertise, methodology or eventual fact-checking. I'll leave a detailed assessment to the topic experts here, but this looks like a clear case of a non-reliable source (I am currently removing unreliable and redundant usages). "Originally started as a hobby blog" per, and it still is a hobby blog - just grown larger and more popular. It should probably be added somewhere between "strongly discouraged" and "do not use ever". GermanJoe (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)