User talk:Cyphoidbomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Happy New Year..![edit]

Magadheera gross reports[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know about different gross figures reports of Magadheera, I think the 150 crore claim is from AndhraBoxOffice and has been circular reported by other sources. Here are some different figures with sources 80 crore (12), 104 crore (1 2) and here (104 crore), an interesting article where the director Rajamouli is talking about inflated Magadheera box office figures (video). Panda619 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Panda619: Since there has been clear doubt cast on the high figures, with some walking-back by Rajamouli, I'm happy to yield on this if you'd like to change it. But would you please participate in that talk page discussion so that it's clear what the rationale is for your changes. I'll be happy to respond there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear about the "clear doubt cast on the high figures", I was referring to the Hindustan Times article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb, there are conflicting reliable sources for 2.0 collections. So, we should change the 2.0 collections to 500-800 crores. tamil.samayam.com is the Tamil version of Times of India. https://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/2-0-china-box-office-collection-rajinikanth-akshay-kumar-s-film-tanks-makes-just-rs-18-crore/story-gNxEIU4eabsjvEBtcwPdcJ.html https://tamil.samayam.com/tamil-cinema/movie-news/list-of-a-top-10-tamil-movies-of-all-time-worldwide-box-office-collection/articleshow/68112250.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.237.200.200 (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYSOURCE[edit]

For years I've been trying to get Mullum Malarum to FA status, but my efforts always fail because there is always at least one cynical user whose comments are hard to address, let alone understand. In the latest failure, it was Fowler&fowler who partially (maybe more) opposed the use of the film's director J. Mahendran's memoir Cinemavum Naanum as it was a primary source. He did however say, "It can be used for some factual data, but not for sentences about the history of the writing". I raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Memoirs as RS, where someone replied, "When used for information about the subject, or the subject's works, a memoir would be a primary source, which could be a reliable source but must be used with care, as explained on WP:Reliable sources. It could be a secondary source when the author is writing about works written by others". Sadly, the book doesn't have an OCLC or ISBN, does that make it non-RS? But there is third-party coverage, and I bought a copy years ago. Now do you believe the book can be used at all as a source in MM? If so, where all should it be removed? All I know is, primary sources cannot be used for info like box office collections. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I'm not much of a content creator, but I don't see what's wrong with using a primary source for small sections of content, and for uncontroversial claims, so long as they are properly noted, like "In his memoir, Mahendran explained that he did ___". I understand F&F's point about maybe not quoting, since translations might be open to interpretation, but I don't think we need an English secondary source to explain everything if that's what they expect. That said, I'm not familiar with the article or its progress so I'm not sure to what extent you were using it, though, and it seems like something the community could/should figure out. As for the quality of the memoir, I certainly can't issue an edict about that. Who published the book? Was it an established publication house? I don't think the lack of an ISBN should prevent a source from being used, but I'd probably only be comfortable using something that came from an established publishing house, where, presumably, there are fact-checkers and editors. Sorry that I can't be of any more help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This is what Fowler wrote

The problem here is that we have a book of recollections of J. Mahendran, the director of a movie, Mullum Malarum: Mahendran, J. (2013) [2004]. Cinemavum Naanum [Cinema and Me] (in Tamil). Karpagam Publications., published in the Tamil language, unavailable under the author's name on WorldCat (see here and here), or in the Library of Congress Catalog, or on Google books (all three list Tamil language publications); never translated; very likely not peer-reviewed before publication; and to my knowledge, not reviewed in an English language journal or newspaper after publication (see here) These recollections were being employed for citing text added to the Development section of the movie . Its assessment proved very difficult for this reviewer [...] that uncataloged memoir is not appropriate except by way of one or two vignettes that support statements in reliable secondary sources.

So what does that make the book? Usable or not? I shared with Fowler the development details translated so that he could verify, but I don't understand why he didn't use them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Sorry, I was out of town for a few days. I think this is a little out of my league and I might recommend asking some of the folks at WT:IN or even at WikiProject Biography, since they would have ample experience about self-published sources. Does WP:SELFPUB help at all one way or another? If we knew for a fact that the memoir was written by the subject, for example, if he were hawking it on his verified Instagram channel or selling it on TV, then there might be a reasonable argument to use it based on WP:SELFPUB. But in the absence of certainly, maybe it's not the best choice? On the other hand, I don't know who'd go out of their way to fake an entire memoir. That just seems unlikely. Sorry I can't really be of much help here, and I sympathise with your frustration. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Latest on our HK friend[edit]

Reverted several edits, others seemed tolerable. Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Thanks for the heads-up! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
101.78.245.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), already reverted everything. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: Thanks, blocked. I'll see if there's any way to get a rangeblock set up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Songs notability[edit]

Hello, could you share your view on this? WP:NSONGS #2, #3, most probably, are not applicable. I am unsure if millions of views/newspaper mentions on YouTube helps in notability. Regards --Titodutta (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Hey there! Short story: this editor's contributions had the aroma of undisclosed paid editing. Brand new user, sloppy cookie-cutter articles thrown together, running across scores of article talk pages and fudging their article class assessments, etc. Later I learned that the user involved has been CheckUser indeffed as a sockpuppet of Vc4137, so even if any of those songs had standalone notability, they could absolutely be deleted on general principle (or specifically, G5 Speedy), which I guess they have been. In this case, my bullshit detector was picking up some serious stink and I acted accordingly. That said, I do very much appreciate your assumption of good faith and circumspect approach. You are a strong asset at Wikipedia for many reasons. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your action and message. Please let me know if I can help you in Indian movie-related articles or elsewhere. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

ABTHEBOSS[edit]

Hi can you help this user ABTHEBOSS (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). I explained him here [1] and [2] that Star Parivaar Awards are not notable and also advised him to start a discussion on Indian Cinema Task Force talk page but this user is still reverting edits. Warm Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Here itb looks like the user logged out to revert the edit. Sid95Q (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
List of awards and nominations received by Ronit Roy I think this page needs protection for a while. Sid95Q (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sid95Q: Done. 2 weeks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Watermarked image[edit]

First of all you should talk respectively. And secondly I thought I can use any image which is free to use. Anyways now I'm cropping the image so I think I can use it on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABTHEBOSS (talkcontribs) 03:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page, where you are more likely to benefit from the discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Message at User talk:ABTHEBOSS[edit]

I dropped a message for you at User_talk:ABTHEBOSS#Repeated_unconstructive_edits. Notifying you here in case the user deletes the section from their talk page. --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Janhvi Kapoor[edit]

Hey Cyphoidbomb, do you think Janhvi Kapoor now holds up to the notability criteria? Since Kapoor has not had any release after her first film Dhadak, I thought nope and tagged it for speedy deletion under G4, but was reverted on the basis that she received an award for best debut. WP:NACTOR says nothing about awards, so I am a little confused here. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@DeluxeVegan: Speedy deletion won't work, but it could feasibly be redirected again. With two unreleased films in the hopper, there's still no indication she's met WP:NACTOR, since nothing really has changed since the last time it was redirected. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)