Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

Main page

Discussion

Participants

Alerts

Announcements

Main article

To-do list

Assessment

Notable articles

Hindi cinema recognised content

Malayalam cinema recognised content

Tamil cinema recognised content

Telugu cinema recognised content

Reliability of sources listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES

I've observed that many users often refer to WP:ICTFSOURCES when assessing the reliability of sources used in articles related to Indian films/actors. I believe it's time to completely update the current list located at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Many of the sources listed there are involved in press releases, paid branding, and brand posts. The last discussion on this matter took place eight years ago, and within this timeframe, the credibility of many sources has likely changed. Therefore, I'm initiating a new discussion to update the list. I'm pinging @JavaHurricane as they discussed this matter in the NPP discord channel a few months ago. I'm also pinging users who participated in the previous discussion for their input. @Bollyjeff, @Cyphoidbomb. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the sources are biased and paid. A certain concrete guideline must be set and preferably an RfC must be done to single out the actual tracker websites.

Also, I should add that in down South, such tracker websites do not exist. Sites such as Pinkvilla only track the movies only if the movie makes headlines. Hence, that should also be kept in mind. The discrepancies between the actual collections and the publicized collections by the producers have caused multiple edit wars in many pages, especially in Malayalam movie pages. So, if we can get a consensus on that, it would be great. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Sites like Pinkvilla, where the editors often fail to reveal their source of information should be scrutinized more Rahu619 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is old discussion and I remembered we had discussion before on it. RangersRus (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ott play (Ht Media) is irreliable website, not stands for reliability sources. Rohiths90 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you get consensus? RangersRus (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey all, I am starting this RfC for the abovementioned reason – to analyse the authenticity and reliability of current ICTFSOURCES, and to reassess and update the sources enlisted. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald, I plan to share my detailed thoughts when I have a bit more free time. In the meantime, would you mind listing the sources we typically use and sharing your opinion on each? This would be really helpful for streamlining the process and finding even better sources. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Good plans here to update the list. I think also it should be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ. The table format is more in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, allowing for rationales and links to past discussions on each source. Something I've been meaning to tackle for a while. --Geniac (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer:, shall we revisit this RfC this weekend? Summer box office need a good guideline and pointers. What I was thinking is, let's just pick apart the ones under reliable section and scrutinize every single one and try to reach a consensus. A level 3 heading for each, which will help future editors to link faster and search faster. Savvy? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have started an essay for better source analysis, which when completed, can incorporate this RfC results and can be transcluded into the page, or can even be made as an opinion/guideline essay. I am thinking of a table like WP:RS/P in alphabetical order for faster and easier navigation. Anyone can drop by and help out with suggestions or edits. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Herald, this is EXCELLENT. I think once complete, it will be easier to update in the same manner WP:RS/P is based on any future WP:RSN thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I have created a shortcut WP:ICTFSA (Yes, a pun on essay and Source Analysis as well). More sources can be added onto it from ICTFFAQ or after consensus from here or RSN. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Good work Herald. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Could someone add a section for Indiantelevision.com as well. Please refer this. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 12:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Now please add your views and comments too :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: Please do not edit the verdict line when there is no clear consensus in RS/P, or on RS/N or any talk pages. Only the clear consensus discussions are deemed automatically reliable.

123Telugu

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

I see this being added to pages on the same day the articles come out. Gives me the impression of possible COI. Regardless, there seems to be discussion that it is not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

About us shows that the site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy. This itself makes it unreliable I think. RangersRus (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald:, is there a time period for commenting you are hoping for? Wondering if some of these such as those discussed already at RSN should be added to the list. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a specific time period in my mind. But the ones who's reliability or unreliability is established, we can close the subsection and add it to the list. Ideally, an uninvolved editor should close, so maybe we can ping some admin or someone who's active here for that. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have posted on WP:RSN to get verdict on these sources moviecrow.com, 123telugu.com, Indiaglitz.com, cinejosh.com, behindwoods.com, thesouthfirst.com, latestly.com. Still what you think of these sources? @CNMall41: @The Herald: RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Except for Cinejosh I see the others as usable. But maybe I'm wrong about Cinejosh. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I too have doubt about cinejosh.com but also for moviecrow.com (does not have any information on this site about the company. Maybe a blog or personal site). 123telugu.com has been considered unreliable for boxoffice numbers and as a whole site unreliable but had no final stance to completely put it on the unreliable list. Indiaglitz also has nothing on the company information and the contact us link takes you to homepage. This too seems a personal site or a blog. Others too I have doubts. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

123Telugu can be used for general film-related updates and independent interviews. This site have many articles that are related to smaller Telugu films doesn't have in the mainline media. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Question is reliability. The site is owned by Telugu film producer Sri Shyam Prasad Reddy and this puts the reliability of this source in question adding onto what is said here by an administrator Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_8#Reliability_of_123Telugu.com_-_123telugu. RangersRus (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Bollywood Hungama by Hungama Digital Media Entertainment

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

BOL Network

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Specifically BOLNEWS which is used 400+ times as a reference on Wikipedia. Cannot find editorial standards so unsure if reliable or not. Although the network is out of Pakistan, it has many references for Indian and other non-Pakistani cinema.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a recent RSN discussion which indicates it's generally unreliable. It was also added to WP:NPPSG as unreliable based the discussion. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.com)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

Per BOI's About us page, "The figures on the website are not taken from producers or distributors of the respective films but independent estimates from our sources and then cross checked through cinema collections." If true, this suggests that they're not acting as mouthpieces for the production companies (i.e. acting as a primary source by proxy). Archive

In mid-2019 we discovered that BOI's budget figures included print and advertising costs. (See this discussion) Worldwide, when people reference a film's budget, they mean the production budget, i.e. the cost of making the film, not the cost of marketing it. So we should try to find a better source for budget than Box Office India. If we have no choice but to use BOI, then we should include notes that clarify that the budget figure is not consistent with other figures. Ex: "(Note: this figure includes print and advertising costs.)" or similar.

— WP:ICTFFAQ table

Now, this is still true because we still have no other proper tracker website for Indian movies, especially Bollywood. Biased or not, the BO figures are almost close to the reported verified amount. So I'll put this one as a reliable source. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald I completely agree with the above. There was also a discussion in which the credibility of BoxOfficeIndia.com was questioned for South films. However, since the user was identified as a sockpuppet, it can only be seen as an attempt to discredit BoxOfficeIndia.com rather than the other way around. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Box Office India (Boxofficeindia.co.in)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Business Standard

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Paid articles are published by Business Standard here. Articles which's URL contain "content/specials/" are sponsored. Grabup (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

All articles in the Content/specials/ doesn't contain disclaimers, some contains, same like India Today. Here are some examples:

1. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/pioneering-thoughts-with-dipen-bhuva-a-fusion-of-healthcare-cybersecurity-and-ai-124040900630_1.html
2. https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/hutech-solutions-announces-sanjeev-kulkarni-as-new-chief-product-officer-cpo-124040900662_1.html

Grabup (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Business Today

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

CNN-IBN's IBN Live

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Daily News and Analysis

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Deccan Chronicle

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

One thing to watch for (and maybe we just need a disclaimer if the overall source is found to be reliable) is anything marked as written by "DC Correspondent." These are contributor posts and often have a disclaimer that they have not been vetted by editorial staff. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Deccan Herald

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Dina Thanthi

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Dinakaran by Sun Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

EastMojo

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

I brought this up at RSN a while back but only had one comment. It is being used a few hundred times as a reference but do not see it as being reliable. Bringing it here since it seems to have a lot of film references and we are addressing many of them now. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Filmfare

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

It is used over 2000 times as a reference on Wikipedia. Here is their about page. I do not see editorial oversight and sounds more like TMZ in my opinion. Just at first glance I think it could be used maybe to verify basic information such as film roles but nothing for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Film Companion

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Film Information

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

run by Komal Nahta; see here, for example

Verdict

Firstpost

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Forbes India

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1 ("Branded Content" discussion), 2

Comments

Used 800+ times in Wikipedia. Note that it is NOT overseen by Forbes editorial staff. It is (what I believe) branded as Forbes (likely from licensing agreement). It is actually owned by Network 18. It is used as a reference in many film and actor pages.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Hindustan Times

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

In my experience with press release work, Hindustan Times stands out as a prominent website for publishing paid brand posts. It's crucial to note that any article lacking a specific author shouldn't be relied upon. Furthermore, it's advisable to avoid using articles with a disclaimer or those tagged as brand posts. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Help us to remove these 42 Sponsored Hindustan Times articles cited on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been cleaning some of these up. I am also finding there are quite a few paid posts from other sites on those Wikipedia pages and sent three to AfD already. I would actually lean towards saying only using HT with staff written articles for verification of basic facts (release dates, etc.) and NOT for notability. And NEVER using anything that is paid, branded, no-byline, or otherwise falling under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

India Today by Living Media

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

India Today has published paid articles within its "Impact Feature" section, with 50 articles currently cited. It's important to note that sponsored content should not be used as a citation. I encourage anyone to help remove them; I'm actively working on it as well. Grabup (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

They haven't included disclaimers in all of their Impact Feature articles, but there are some instances where disclaimers have been added to articles. "Disclaimer: The contents herein are for informational purposes only. If you have any queries, you should directly reach out to the advertiser. India Today Group does not guarantee, vouch for, endorse any of its contents and hereby disclaims all warranties, express or implied, relating to the same."

Examples:

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/piramal-finance-offers-home-loans-with-seamless-process-and-competitive-terms-2510232-2024-03-04

2. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/could-2024-be-the-year-gold-has-been-waiting-for-a-long-time-2503014-2024-02-16

3. https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/breaking-barriers-celebrating-women-achievers-across-industries-2490394-2024-01-18

Grabup (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly the case; also note that the people in the byline at the bottom of the page will typically come back with marketing positions in the company. I've updated my entry here and will be happy to help remove these. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kuru, thanks for User:Kuru/fakesources; it's really helpful. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, this is gold. Thanks Kuru :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Indiatimes by The Times Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Indiantelevision.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

There are currently 1000+ uses of Indiantelevision.com, the same owner as TellyChakkar.com. And this raises concerns on its reliability. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Unreliable per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 9#Indiantelevision.com

Magna Publications

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mid Day

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mint (newspaper) by HT Media

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Mumbai Mirror by The Times Group

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

NDTV

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

News18 India

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

Verdict

Outlook

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

There are currently 17 uses of Outlook India "business spotlight." I believe the publication would be reliable OUTSIDE of that but these are paid-for articles. I would support reliability but maybe a note in the box that says those marked as "business spotlight" or sponsored should not be used as a reference (in the process of removing the 17 I linked to above once I get the time). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The paid-for shall not be considered as reliable at all. Reliable outside the paid-for articles. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Pinkvilla.com

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2, 3

Comments

Website editorial guidelines for reference.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

With an editorial team and a published editorial policy, as well as an affiliate disclosure, Pinkvilla.com can be deemed reliable due to their reportings to be very close to the actual BO figures and other film related news. But, I'll still stay clear of the gossip section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

How'd one determine an actual BO figure? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What I do is go through the established RS. Most of the time, all of them stick to a particular figure (lets say X). Sometimes, they have discrepancies, and I use the figures as a range (est. ₹ X - Y crores). Pinkvilla almost always give the same figures as other RS and it is always less than the promotional figures tweeted by filmmakers and other primary sources. Hence, I use them as RS. (As they say, if it looks like a RS and posts like a RS, it is most probably is a RS , lol.) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think pinkvilla is a reliable source. They underreport south india movies collections a lot. I think for better reporting. Need to rethink about pinkvilla as reliable source for south indian movies. NithishSagi (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)— NithishSagi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Verdict

Rediff.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

• Comment: Rediff.com might be the oldest Indian website that carried some news and email services in early Indian internet services days, but they were the primary business creators with 2MB webhosting for Rs 2800. Rediff.com initially published many fake interviews before Tehelka was founded. SaTnamZIN (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewit.pk

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1

Comments

I brought this up at RSN a few months back. Looks like auto generated content from Twitter and also possibly paid. I would suggest adding this as an unreliable source.

Verdict

Screen (magazine)

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Sify

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

Verdict

The Economic Times

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Express Tribune

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Financial Express

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Similar to the note on Outlook India above, First Post has sponsored content marked as "brand wagon" (often included in the URL as well). I have no comment on the reliability of the overall publication but will say the branded posts should not be used in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Hindu Business Line

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Subsidiary of The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU)

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Hindu

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:THEHINDU

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Indian Express

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:INDIANEXP

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The News Minute

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Statesman

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Telegraph

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

The Tribune

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Similar to Outlook, The Tribune has paid articles "Impact Feature". Grabup (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Wire

Included in RS/P?

Y

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Y

Comments

Reliable per WP:RS/P

Verdict

Y Reliable source

The Week

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

Zee News

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

1, 2

Comments

Zee News is owned by Zee Media Corporation. They also have other publications such as Daily News and Analysis. Not sure if we should address any of these individual or JUST Zee News for the purpose of the RfC. Just throwing it out there. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

DNA is already added in the RfC above. I'd say while we are at it, let's review all the sources. India.com is deemed unreliable per this discussion. So, that's out. I don't know other publications under them. If there are any that are used frequently, by all means add them to the miscellaneous category below. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

• In addition to the aforementioned sources, the following references are also brought up multiple times and are used in various pages.

Koimoi

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

OTTPlay.com

Included in RS/P?

N

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

N

Comments

According to their website (About us page), they apparently use 4 sources; Hindustan Times, Film Companion, Live Mint and Desi Martini, of which HT and Mint are reliable per RSP and RSN. Desi Martini is a partner site for HT. Film Companion, I'm not so sure cuz the page doesn't mention anywhere about their sources or their origin or history, hence sounds dubious. But other than that, OTTPlay.com should belong in the reliable side of the spectrum. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am coming across this one quite a bit when sourcing filmographies. I think the main issue I have is that it is a commercial website and they benefit from aggregating news. A lot of the articles are bylined "Team OTTplay" so not sure if these are coming from the reliable sources or if they are original content from that site. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

DareshMohan and RangersRus, your opinion please? DareshMohan removes articles credited to individuals who have worked for other sources before. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say reviews are notable but OTT release information isn't since it is compiled from many sources. @Kailash29792: Sorry, if you are mad at me for removing the reviews. Once this reaches a consensus, you can re-add them. @Manick22: Thoughts? DareshMohan (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

DareshMohan, I'm not mad at you for removing the reviews. Just confused because I thought it was previously agreed upon as RS due to HT Media owning it. But I agree that OTT release information can be obtained from better sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The Times of India

Included in RS/P?

WP:TOI

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

• Per RS/P The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. That puts TOI in either unreliable or no consensus region. It is generally unreliable for box office figures since I have seen them using Sacnilk.com and promotional figures a lot. They may be reliable for news articles, but IMO it all should be taken with a pinch of salt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Help us to remove these sponsored articles published by Times of India, (1), (2). Grabup (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I found another subsection with containing Lifesyle/Spotlight on The Times of India, this subsection is cited 185 times without drafts and 193 times with drafts. I found a article on the same subsection which contain a disclaimer “ The article has been produced on behalf of Globsyn Business” but other articles majorly does not contain any disclaimer.

*193 cited list

Article containing disclaimer Grabup (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

The New Indian Express

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

IndiaGlitz

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

cinejosh.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

behindwoods.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BehindWoods for BehindWoods. -Bogger (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

thesouthfirst.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

latestly.com

Included in RS/P?

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

Comments

Verdict

TrendingTopicc.com

Included in RS/P?

No.

Discussed in RS/N or any talk pages?

No.

Comments

Trendingtopicc.com is not a reliable source for citing budget or box office collection figures. The website lacks transparency regarding its ownership, editorial processes, or methodology for calculating box office data. Without a clear framework or evidence of how its numbers are obtained and verified, the site cannot be trusted as a credible source of financial information. Additionally, Trendingtopicc.com does not provide details about its contributors or their qualifications, further raising doubts about the authenticity and accuracy of the information it publishes. Unlike industry-recognized trackers, such as Box Office India, or reputed publications, this site has no established credibility in the field of film journalism. Using its data may lead to the dissemination of unverified or exaggerated claims, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolly ka Badshah (talk • contribs) 08:22, December 18, 2024 (UTC)

I think this site is unreliable for anything. It appears to just be a slideshow of tweets. I'm confused, though; are you the creator of this site? --Geniac (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Lol, would the creator trash talk about his own website? Kailash29792 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Verdict

Requested move at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 2 September 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 2 September 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 13:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Promotion of Wamiqa Gabbi and Kriti Sanon to GA Class

Can someone please start the review of Wamiqa Gabbi and Kriti Sanon's articles so they can be promoted to GA-Class? 19Arham (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Is Box Office Index reliable?

I was wondering whether Box Office Index could be used as a reliable source for box office figures. At the bottom it says "Box office data is sourced from trade reports and various industry sources. Figures may vary from official producer/distributor numbers. We do not claim accuracy or authenticity of this data." Just want to know the reliability of this website. Babin Mew (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Good point! Honeybrowneyes (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Missing article

@Kailash29792: . DareshMohan (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed it needs an article but I'm travelling till Saturday night. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Reassessment of Sacnilk.com

I would like to request a fresh reassessment of Sacnilk.com as a source for Indian cinema box office figures, in light of substantial new information published by Sacnilk since the 2022 discussion.

For transparency, I contacted Sacnilk about the concerns raised in that discussion and asked them to publish more information on these areas. Sacnilk has now published the following documentation:

1. Sacnilk Box Office Methodology
2. Sacnilk Box Office Glossary
3. Data Sources, Provenance and Estimation
4. Editorial Policy
5. Corrections, Revisions and Error Handling Policy
6. Editorial Team and Authors

These pages provide information on Sacnilk's box office methodology, data sources, estimates and updates, corrections, editorial standards, and editorial team.

The practical sourcing situation is also worth considering. The current Indian cinema task force specifically identifies Bollywood Hungama and Box Office India for worldwide box office figures in infoboxes and list articles. While these sources predominantly track Hindi films, there is no comparable dedicated box office tracker with similarly broad coverage for the major South Indian film industries, including Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada. In practice, many otherwise reliable publications report individual box office figures based on producer or distributor statements, social media announcements, or figures attributed to trade trackers such as Sacnilk, rather than maintaining their own systematic box office tracking across films and languages.

Sacnilk states that it tracks theatrical box office across Indian films and languages. I therefore propose that editors consider whether Sacnilk can be used alongside the existing specialist sources for box office figures, particularly where it provides broader coverage.

I would appreciate comments from other editors on whether Sacnilk's reliability should be reassessed in light of the new documentation and the current sourcing situation. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

As an additional check, I compared worldwide gross figures reported on the respective Wikipedia articles with Sacnilk figures for a sample of films across five major Indian-language industries. This is only a sample comparison to see how closely the figures correspond.

Language	Film	Wikipedia worldwide gross	Sacnilk worldwide gross	Comparison
Tamil	Jailer	₹605–650 crores	₹604.50 crores	≈
	Leo	₹595–615 crores	₹605.90 crores	Y
	Amaran	₹320–335 crores	₹333.67 crores	Y
Telugu	Pushpa 2: The Rule	₹1,642–1,800 crores	₹1,742.10 crores	Y
	Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire	₹614–702 crores	₹617.75 crores	Y
	Mana Shankara Vara Prasad Garu	₹300–310 crores	₹301.49 crores	Y
Malayalam	L2: Empuraan	₹265–268.08 crores	₹266.81 crores	Y
	Lokah Chapter 1: Chandra	₹302–304 crores	₹301.41 crores	≈
	Bethlehem Kudumba Unit	₹312.50 crores	₹312.40 crores	Y
Kannada	KGF: Chapter 2	₹1,200–1,250 crores	₹1,215 crores	Y
	Kantara	₹400–450 crores	₹407.82 crores	Y
	Kantara: Chapter 1	₹850–852 crores	₹852.36 crores	≈
Hindi	Jawan	₹1,148.32 crores	₹1,160 crores	≈
	Pathaan	₹1,050.30 crores	₹1,055 crores	≈
	Chhaava	₹797.34–809 crores	₹807.91 crores	Y

Y indicates that the Sacnilk figure falls within the range currently reported on the corresponding Wikipedia article;

≈ indicates that the Sacnilk figure is close to, but outside, the currently reported Wikipedia figure or range. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll look into this a bit later but courtesy ping to @Ab207 who was involved in the previous discussion. — EarthDude (Talk) 18:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I support reassessing Sacnilk as a source for Indian box-office figures.

Under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, the key question is whether it is reliable for the specific claims being sourced. Here, that is theatrical box-office data. Sacnilk now gives detailed documentation on its methodology, data sources, estimates, corrections, editorial policy, and editorial team, giving us substantially more information to assess its reliability.

The Indian cinema task force currently identifies Bollywood Hungama and Box Office India for worldwide figures, but their coverage is mainly Hindi. Sacnilk provides systematic coverage of Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, and other Indian-language films, where comparable specialist coverage is limited. Espenthordsen (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I fully support reassessment of Sacnilk as a reliable source for Indian box office figures. While a subset of data has been used here, during my editing journey for hundreds of films in 2025 and 2026, including Hindi, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam, Sacnilk's figures always matched estimates by reliable sources and I have never seen a case where there was a significant difference. In addition, Sacnilk provides state-wise and language-wise collection breakdown which is also useful for many articles and whose data I observed to match with other reliable sources for tens of films.

In fact, I found Sacnilk more reliable than some of the sources in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources which are sometimes biased/inflated from other sources (for example, look at top end figures of Pushpa 2 or Salaar from the table above), while Sacnilk's estimates tend to be conservative.

While my support come from experience and observations rather than "proof" that the data is correct, other replies here seem to explain Sacnilk's transparency. 4Pas (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I would support reassasesing Sacnilk for following reasons:

a) Many sources which come under "Reliable" category often use Sacnilk as a source in their article (though currently such articles are not considered but if they mention same figure without mentioning Sacnilk name, they will be accepted)

b) Often noticed few of them straight away mention occupancy % exactly as Sacnilk (with or without mentioning them)

c) More often than not, the final figures accepted in Wikipedia for most of the movies in all languages is usually very close (Maybe +/-5%) to Sacnilk figures or Sacnilk figure will be within the range accepted by Wiki in the end Kataariveera (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Where are they getting their figures from? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

In the Sacnilk Data Sources and Estimation page, they state that their figures are based on ticket-sales/booking, show schedules, theatre availability and occupancy data. They also state that producer and studio collection announcements (which are often inflated in Indian box-office reporting) are not used to determine the figures. However, their specific platforms and proprietary estimation methods are not disclosed. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Sacnilk's box-office figures are determined exclusively by its own tracking and estimation process, not by advertising, sponsorship, producer announcements, or any commercial relationships.

---

Sacnilk does not retrospectively alter its box-office collections simply because a producer, studio, distributor, media outlet, or another tracker publishes a different figure.

Seems promising... Vestrian24Bio 06:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I support the re-assessment of Sacnilk. I'd also like to give a recent example on why it is needed:

Bollywood Hungama hasn't provided worldwide, India and overseas gross of the film, Hanuman Ansh (only India net) despite it being a Hindi film (contrary to popular belief that only the box office figures on the films from Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada cinema are not provided).

This has led to looking up articles from reputed media publications for box office figures for Hanuman Ansh (without the word 'Sacnilk' being mentioned because WP: FRUIT) everyday and citing them.

Similar had to be done for Toxic (2026 film) recently which I am aware is a bilingual Kannada-English film but it was marketed as a pan-India film, nonetheless.

I agree with User: Kataariveera on media publications publishing the exact same box office figures as Sacnilk but not crediting. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Sacnilk needs reassessment because many reliable sources rely on it. If it is not a trustable source, thousands of otherwise reliable sources become examples of WP:FRUIT. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, one noticeable thing is that our reliable sources are always mentioned, using phrases like 'according to industry specialist Sacnilk. Rahul999999999 (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Tonyy Starkk, how did you contact them? If it was via email, would you be open to sharing the email thread with all of us here?

Why did you think they would care whether they are considered reliable or unreliable on Wikipedia? The website appears to be completely vibecoded and is riddled with ADs of all sorts. The editorial team lists one person as the Box Office Analyst and if I am right, around 1,000+ films are released each year in India. If one person is responsible for analysing and publishing figures for all of them, daily, weekly, monthly, etc., then I am not buying it.

This seems more like an attempt to promote their website and generate ad revenue than a genuinely useful source for box office figures. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

From my understanding, box office trackers generally develop software that track booking sites, they also subscribe to international trackers like comScore for overseas numbers. However, there are also considerable number of people who buy tickets from the ticket counter rather than online booking, I don't know how they track that. Nevertheless, Sacnilk is generally accepted for box office figures by the mainstream medias which are considered reliable in Wikipedia. Their figures also match figures reported by other trade analysts, although with minor difference. This is just my observation, not an endorsement.--Teegarden's Star b (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the website is vibecoded is irrelevant. The UI was recently improved and that was the vibecoded part, the older UI was bad. In addition, government college websites like certain IIT websites are vibecoded too - it doesn't mean IITs are fake lol. 4Pas (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Where have I mentioned that they are fake? Please take some time to actually read what's written before you drop your two cents. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Jeraxmoira I contacted Sacnilk directly through their public contact email, info@sacnilk.com. I explained that the main concerns raised in the 2022 discussion were the lack of transparency around their box-office methodology, data sources and editorial information. I asked whether they could publish this information transparently, similar to trackers such as Box Office Mojo and Bollywood Hungama. They subsequently published the details linked in this discussion.

The main reason I decided to contact them was that, in practice, many of the reliable sources listed in WP:ICTFSOURCES have, directly or indirectly, used figures that correspond with Sacnilk, while there is also no comparable dedicated tracker providing broad coverage across the South Indian film industries. Based on my own experience editing Indian film and box-office articles for the past couple of years, I had also found Sacnilk's figures to be accurate in many cases. So I thought it was worth giving it a shot and contacting them directly by email, and here we are today. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I am hoping you would be open to sharing the email thread, perhaps on your user subpage, so that others can review it as well.

Either way, I am not entirely convinced by the idea that one particular person is handling one of Asia's biggest film business datasets while simultaneously producing a bunch of box-office tracking articles every day, many of which I assume are auto-generated or pulled from syndicated feeds.

IMO, it is always better to rely on other secondary sources with stronger editorial oversight than on a site operated by an individual. As far as I can tell, it is still essentially a blog and not much seems to have changed beyond them adding a few pages to their vibecoded website outlining their methodology and editorial ethics. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Jeraxmoira, I am happy to share the relevant email thread, but WP:EMAILPOST says that, "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki". Since the thread includes Sacnilk’s replies, I’ll need to get their permission before posting the relevant portions. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Jeraxmoira, on the point you raised about editorial oversight, I wanted to compare Bollywood Hungama, which is currently treated as a reliable tracker, using the same parameters (this is not to defend Sacnilk, just wanted to have a fair comparison with existing trackers).

1. Editorial information: I could not find any specific editorial information; I can only find a Contact Us page listing contact persons and their designations.

2. Previous reliability discussion: I could not find a discussion tag or consensus link specifically for Bollywood Hungama, so I am not sure how it was established as a reliable tracker in the first place.

3. Box-office methodology / sources: I could not find a dedicated methodology or sources page. Bollywood Hungama states that the figures are "compiled from trade sources and market estimates" and "compiled from various sources and our own research", while "the figures can be approximate", but does not explain the specific sources used or how the figures are verified. box-office page

I am not saying this makes Bollywood Hungama unreliable. I just think the same criteria should be applied consistently to all existing trackers. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It's up to you whether you want to post the email or not. Please feel free to start an RFC if you think Bollywood Hungama is unreliable, but I don't think it should be compared with this because two wrongs don't make a right.

As I mentioned earlier, essentially nothing has changed apart from the six new pages. It's still the same team handling it. If you think adding a couple of pages about their methodology and editorial ethics would make them reliable, then every unreliable source could simply do the same. I don't want to go in circles, so it's better if you work on gaining the rest of the community's consensus. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight. You contacted them and I guess gave them feedback on how they are considered unreliable on Wikipedia. Based on your feedback they jumped right into creating methodology, glossary, practices? Just like that? And we are to believe that such quick response from your feedback is to be accurate and facts? How do we know that they didn't do so for more publicity, advertisement and to gain reliability status on Wikipedia? This is highly suspicious of Sacnilk. I am curious to know what what was the content of the email that was sent to Sacnilk. RangersRus (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  RangersRus, again, I am happy to share the relevant email thread. What would be the appropriate format for sharing it here, as an attachment (please let me know how), or just as plain text on my user subpage, or some other format?

  I can just share the email I sent to Sacnilk, if that is sufficient.

  Since the thread also contains correspondence from Sacnilk, would their consent be required before sharing it publicly on-wiki, or is there another way to share it in accordance with WP:EMAILPOST? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  You can at least share what you wrote in the email because it was written by you and is your property, so no problems will arise if you just place your typing here in quotation marks and don't include any of their replies. Sacnilk's replies can be talked about later. Babin Mew (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Babin Mew, I have now added the email chain I sent to Sacnilk to my talk page here: email chain. I have not included their replies, as you suggested. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Since you did not share the email directly, I will assume good faith here and presume this is what you sent and did not make any modifications from the original. I looked at the email, and in the first email, "there could be a meaningful visibility benefit for Sacnilk"? I get that there needs to be some motivation here to not have the email be deleted upon the team receiving, but this line was not necessary. The lines saying that reliability is not guaranteed seems good to me. After the September 17 discussion, Sacnilk seems to have removed a link (https://www.sacnilk.com/author) which you previously mentioned. After comparing versions of the website, there seems to be no change made in the about us page or UI of Sacnilk. Five points you suggested to Sacnilk to add. However, how is it believable here that Sacnilk will put everything up front and truthful and not be false? There are a lot of box office trackers with forged info pages. Will look into it more carefully and by detail later. Babin Mew (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Sacnilk.com needs to reassessed. Initially the website is bad but they have improved their insights and methodologies. Over the last two years, 99% (not exaggerating) of the box office sources used by the mainstream media is aligned with the Sacnilk figures. Few media outlets mention that the source for box office figures is Sacnilk while the others don't, but still the numbers matches exactly with the Sacnilk's numbers. The figures mentioned in the media sources that are quoted on almost all recently released major Indian film articles matches exactly with the Sacnilk's box office figuress. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• After going through the email content (presuming good faith) and the action taken by Sacnilk made it obvious to me that their primary goal is likely to get prestige and visibility that comes with being a Wikipedia approved benchmark by getting a reliability status that will help with strong drive for digital authority, search engine visibility, and public relations validation. Why I feel we need to be cautious is because the company's underlying motive remains self promotion and gaining visibility, meaning they may still frame narratives in their favor outside of Wikipedia. Based on the email sent to Sacnilk on methodology, Sacnilk might change or add just enough of its methodology to pass Wikipedia's rules without actually fixing deeper data collection flaws. So, you should still maintain a healthy skepticism about the company's overall narrative. You can trust the audited numbers they provide but remain aware that their ultimate goal is to leverage Wikipedia's massive visibility to grow their own brand. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify my reasoning, I wanted to assess Sacnilk directly, not advocate for it. My thinking was that (as several editors here have pointed out) many reliable publications already use box-office figures from Sacnilk or identify Sacnilk as the source of those figures. That was one reason I thought it was worth assessing the underlying source directly.

  That said, I agree that Sacnilk's new documentation and its claims about its practices should be treated with healthy skepticism and independently checked against its actual practices and track record. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: Alternatively, we can cite both Bollywood Hungama AND Sacnilk, sort of similar to how the editors do at Wikipedia pages of the Hollywood movies.

  They cite Box Office Mojo (owned by IMDb which in turn is owned by Amazon) AND The Numbers (website) owned by Nash Information Services, LLC.

  E.g. The Devil Wears Prada 2. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  But BOM isn't actually WP: USERGENERATED the way IMDb itself is, right? ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 02:45, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Can you provide a link to discussions where Bollywood Hungama has been determined to be reliable? That's not what I've found in my searches - I believe it was said to be WP:USERGENERATED. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I found this discussion on the project page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 8#Pathetic box office reporting of Indian films. Babin Mew (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced by that. The only factors they appear to have relied on are not using Sacnilk data and not revising figures without evidence, which don't confer reliability by themselves - and one of the main participants in the discussion had since been blocked as a sock of a blocked COI. There doesn't seem to be much transparency regarding how any of these sources determine their figures. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Bollywood Hungama reliability came from multiple discussions on ICTFSOURCES talk page and wp:rsn. Per multiple editors involved, Bollywood Hungama was deemed reliable and included as reliable in WP:ICTFSOURCES. But lets not divert from the topic of discussion here. RangersRus (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  I asked because I have tried to look it up before and couldn't find a solid determination. If the task force has officially agreed that it's reliable that's fine with me. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 01:02, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  RangersRus, could you share all the links to the discussions where Bollywood Hungama was determined to be reliable? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  I found the one I'd read previously: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Bollywood Hungama. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 01:23, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve also tried looking for the discussions you mentioned, but I haven’t found a clear standalone consensus specifically establishing Bollywood Hungama as reliable. There are relevant discussions, but perhaps its reliability would be better discussed separately in a new discussion so we can keep this one focused on Sacnilk.Tonyy Starkk (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  There's also the issue of other normally reliable sources quoting Sacnilk for box office figures. If they state it directly we can easily dismiss it as WP:FRUIT, but there have been suggestions that some do so without actually saying so. If those are also going to be dismissed I think we need some kind of evidence and a standard for when they are or aren't acceptable to use.

  For the sake of transparency I have no prior knowledge of the subject matter or sources involved, but therefore also no bias. One of the pages landed on my watchlist via RCP and I've been doing my best to mediate the edit warring based on what I've been able to find on-wiki regarding reliability. I'm happy to defer to consensus as long as we can establish a clear decision (for any of them) based on actual facts. I'd suggest we revisit the standards for which sources are (or aren't) accepted from other countries and attempt to follow those if possible.

  This also might need to be declared a contentious subject (if it isn't already) given how heated people seem to get over it, but there also appears to be a lot of COI editing involved, so I don't know how much stock we need to put in their priorities. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 02:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW, WP:Cite Unseen marks Hungama as "No consensus" via WP:NPPSG, which links to the discussion I linked above. WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force determinations don't appear to be considered, but we could ask to have the results of this discussion added - or we might consider taking it to WP:RSN for wider input. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 02:55, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  I noticed the same issue with many sources listed in WP:ICTFSOURCES. Most of the sources listed as reliable have no linked source-specific discussion or reliability consensus, and I’m not sure how these sources were added to the table without linking to a consensus (or whether many of them ever had one). I think the list as a whole needs a complete revamp, at least for the sources marked in green as reliable. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think many of these sources are considered reliable or unreliable based on WP:RS/PS. But I agree that the whole list may need a reassessment for the vital points such as box office and budget. Babin Mew (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Some of them may be, but Cite Unseen utilizes both PRS and NPPSG (and maybe others?), so if I have to resort to digging through past discussions the source isn't listed on either one. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 05:21, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Summary so far: There is substantial support for reassessing Sacnilk, with editors pointing to its newly published methodology and transparency details, as well as observations that its figures generally correspond closely with figures reported by other reliable sources. Other editors have raised concerns and stressed the need for healthy skepticism and independent verification. A possible approach of using Sacnilk alongside existing box-office sources has also been suggested. The discussion can continue from here. (Feel free to add or edit this summary.) Tonyy Starkk (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Note: The above comment was added by Tonyy Starkk. Babin Mew (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  You can use {{unsigned}} if someone forgets to add their sig. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 03:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to add Koimoi to the list for reassessment. It's listed as unreliable according to the task force, but what I gleaned from the actual discussions was marginal/no consensus based almost entirely on vibes. It appears to be one of the few sources that gives independent figures not derived from Sacnilk. I really think we should take things to WP:RSN at this point. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 07:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think the four major trackers, Bollywood Hungama, Box Office India, Sacnilk, and Koimoi, need to be reassessed. I’m not really sure if there are any others players that consistently track box office on a daily basis (please add if any). Tonyy Starkk (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I am all in for a reassessment at WP:RSN. The four sources stated by Tony Stark need to be carefully reviewed for their reliability in Box Office figures. Babin Mew (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Any source can be reassessed. But you want to make sure to use a strong justification needing a consensus on its reliability or unreliability. Tonyy Starkk might remember the discussion on Pinkvilla held on WP:RSN platform where after all years of reliable consensus, it was given an unreliable status just last year. Here is that discussion. Everyone here go through it. Reason why it was changed to unreliable was because it had disclaimer on Box office figures, Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data. For Sacnilk, you will find same disclaimer The Box Office Data are compiled from various sources and by our own research. These data can be approximate and Sacnilk™ does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data. Now let's take Bollywood Hungama. This too has similar disclaimer but they have an extra line that gives it upper hand. The box office figures are compiled from various sources and our own research. The figures can be approximate and Bollywood Hungama does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data. However they are adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the film(s). Sacnilk for me personally, by adding methodology based on feedback through your email, has put it in weaker spot, an intent to get visibility on Wikipedia. But more things especially the disclaimer will be looked at when reassessing it. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  courtesy ping, @Black Kite: @Simonm223: @Benison: @The Bushranger: @Tayi Arajakate: @Geniac: RangersRus (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Also, courtesy pinging Praxidicae regarding the previous WP:RSN discussion on Bollywood Hungama. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Considering the Pinkvilla point you mentioned, I’m not sure that the one additional line in Bollywood Hungama’s disclaimer, saying that the figures are “adequately indicative of the box-office performance”, is by itself enough to establish the source as reliable. Pinkvilla has now also updated its disclaimer to include the same line, “However, they are adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the films in question.” current Pinkvilla disclaimer A disclaimer is ultimately a statement by the source itself, rather than a reliability consensus.

  I also still haven’t found a clear source-specific consensus establishing Bollywood Hungama as reliable, either in the WP:ICTFSOURCES or at WP:RSN. ChompyTheGogoat also raised this point above.

  I also could not find a dedicated methodology or data-provenance document from Bollywood Hungama explaining in detail how its box-office figures are compiled, such as the kind of information provided by Box Office Mojo in its box-office tracking documentation - About Box Office Tracking.

  I think the methodology and accuracy of the figures over time should also be considered for each tracker, apart from the disclaimers mentioned above. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  bollywood hungama talks about their accuracy and tracking figure at the end of the page of each film's box office figure. box office report covers domestic (India net) collections, worldwide gross, and overseas earnings, along with lifetime totals once the film completes its run in cinemas. You can also check occupancy trends, show counts, and how *** performs day over day. The figures are compiled from trade sources and market estimates and refreshed frequently, giving fans, trade analysts, and film enthusiasts an accurate and adequately indicative picture of *** box office performance. RangersRus (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the information. I still think there needs to be a clear reliability consensus from the community on this. I’ll leave it here for now and let others share their views. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  After having gone through the whole discussion and the several viewpoints carefully, I personally think that all 4 sources need to be reassessed, starting with Sacnilk, but ideally only after you are able to get permission from them to post the entire email thread here, and do so on your talk page with images; Kindly let us know if and when there is an update on that, as it might provide us with a clearer understanding of their intentions behind making the requested changes

  Venkata Karthik Vadlamudi (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve contacted Sacnilk today requesting permission to share the email correspondence. I’ll update the discussion if I receive a response. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, and as above I'd like it to be done on RSN to get wider input. I don't think I'm the appropriate person to open it though given my unfamiliarity with the subject area - maybe @Tonyy Starkk can do so after getting permission from Sacnilk. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 01:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Want a list of Indian films without soundtracks

I had forgot to add them for many films as did Nomadwikiholic1. DareshMohan (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2026 (UTC)