Talk:Priyanka Chopra/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

FAC reopening

Article will be renominated on 5 July.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice to know, let's hope the fiasco of last time is not repeated. Another thing Blofeld, after the nomination is initiated, both the times I saw that tremendous amount of prose change and edits were going on, even day-today vast changes were noticeable. I believe that should be avoided this time, just the reviewer's comments should be heeded. Else, the stability becomes an issue. Let's hope it can attain the bronze star this time. Bollyjeff, please add your opinion on my thoughts. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely; if anyone has work to do, do it now, and then do not touch it unless big news comes; only address comments! BollyJeff | talk 14:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here we go: Prasant's first edit adds a source that conflicts with the existing source. How can she have date conflicts, and the film needing to go on floors immediately, when they said they were willing to wait? BollyJeff | talk 18:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So you think, I should not edit the article right? Well, It's the director's problem, which they have said to please that actress. The source also says, She wouldn't have looked that innocent. Then, why? She was their's first choice?—Prashant 18:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

He is back to his original tricks. Ms Patel won't be happy. :P --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean I'm back? You concentrate on Bengali articles.—Prashant 18:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User Prashant, I see u have nominated Fashion (film) for becoming GA, although it is yet to be reviewed. Pls contact someone. After that, we can work on Piggy Chops. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What? I didn't understand. FYI, this article is ready for FAC and will be nominated on 5th July. We don't need to work on it.—Prashant 19:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple days left. Anything else needs doing? BollyJeff | talk 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discography section

After deleting my additions multiple times, now I notice we do have a discography section.. finally... Now that's a start. But is there a possibility of putting peak positions in official Indian charts with due reference given to the specific chart? I read there is the Indian Pop Charts. Are there others? Did she appear in them? Can we also mention official sale certifications (gold certification, platinum, and in her case triple platinum) in the discography section in table form (year, title and record label, peaks, certification)? The "music career" section clearly says: "topped the Hindi pop chart and was certified triple platinum". This should be reflected in discography. So does the page for "In My City". Were there chart appearances for the song on other national charts besides India (anywhere else in the world? These do matter and do need research. werldwayd (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No replies? I really don't know if there are official charts in India. Most of the popular music comes from film soundtracks. Judging by who she got to help her, it seems that this is an attempt to break into the American market, and anything coming from India is a bonus for her. BollyJeff | talk 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no official chart in India. Just some radio charts and some Nokia music store charts. An official chart would be an accumulation of the data from all these subordinate ones, and then rank it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"this is an attempt to break into the American market, and anything coming from India is a bonus for her"

Lol, I highly doubt that she or Interscope genuinely believe that she's break into the American market; it's just her manager's dream. Her ::biggest market is India as evidenced by the sales of In My City and Exotic so if anything is a "bonus," its her minor sales abroad.

Also, "In My City" did not chart anywhere in the world. It wasn't even pushed as a single anywhere in the world except India. AyanP (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)AyanP

UserGogo202222 I want to ask can I upload photos from your site http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ Gogo202222 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Stale music sources

The sources recently added for her music chart performance, 149, 150, 217, and 218 (which is actually the same as 149) are chart listings that change every week. Therefore they will very soon not support the text. Can a more permanent source be found please? BollyJeff | talk 13:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The last two, 217 and 218 is actualy archive sources, you can see the date. The other two can be combined with these two I believe. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake then. Thanks. BollyJeff | talk 14:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

About stale music sources, http://www.chartsinfrance.net/charts/world-canada-singles.php that we are using is one such chart. We have it in music section and in discography and both are no good anymore... now that Priyanka is out of the Canadian Hot 100... See our reference http://www.chartsinfrance.net/charts/world-canada-singles.php,p4 from where the song has disappeared... I suggest a more permanent reference like http://acharts.us/song/79221 werldwayd (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

aCharts cannot be used in featured content per WP:GOODCHARTS, hence I used Pitbull's chart history archive link from Billboard itself. That is more than reliable. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"In My City" / "Exotic" -- Which is Priyanka's debut single?

Please remove the misinformation from the article. I would do it, but BollyJeff loves to revert my edits from REPUTABLE sources in favor of unreliable ones like IndianExpress and DigitalSpy. :)

Here are the full list of writers from BMI:

http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=14855931&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID

AyanP (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)AyanP

You have a good point in this I admit, unlike the malicious edit to "Exotic". Bollyjeff, request you to please take a note of this. Broadcast Music Incorporated is a much much more reliable source than Indian Express and Digital Spy when it comes to actual writers for the songs. Infact BMI is referenced in generating the writer details in the song articles. They are the ones to decided the royalty and wages associated with the song along with ASCAP. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My edits about "Exotic" are hardly "malicious." I'm still not sure what is wrong with my pointing out that "Exotic" is her debut single when multiple REPUTABLE sources say so. In fact, her own music manager referred to "Exotic" as her first single on Twitter and multiple sources call it her "debut single". BollyJeff has been editing out the WSJ article in favor of silly, unreliable Indian sources for MONTHS. Why is this? "In My City" was never even given a wide release so at best it's a "buzz single"; these are facts. Actual singles get serviced to radio and get an adds date (like "Exotic" is receiving on August 6th), which is why every REPUTABLE source refers to it as her first real single.

And for the record, Indian Express and Digital Spy are not reliable when it comes to anything; all they do is copy and paste from other sites. How can you rely on them for real information lol? AyanP (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)AyanP

Your edits are malicious because you have not provided any reliable sources, just yelling here that "so-and-so" has said "so-and-so". Her first "worldwide" single does not deter from the fact that "In My City" was still a single. I'm sure you are aware of how labels deter a single as a buzz single when it flops, and "In My City" was a flop globally, hence "Exotic". In no way we can label "In My City" as a song and in this age of digitally serviced music, wikipedia articles do not rely on just radio add date to defer a song as "single". Independent release to iTunes Store is enough to defer IMC as a single. FYI, Wall Street Journal relegates "Exotic" to her first "worldwide" single, not her "first" single. You want better answers? Take it to WP:NSONGS talk page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WSJ is a completely reliable source and so is the CEO of Relevant Sports. If you actually read the whole WSJ article, it refers to "Erase" as the planned "second single" for later this summer; so what does that make "Exotic"? Yes, I'm fully aware that labels throw planned singles into the "buzz single" bin after they flop; in fact, I had to struggle with BollyJeff months ago just to get the facts about In My City's poor performance into this article! "Independent release to iTunes Store is enough to defer IMC as a single" is some personal standard of yours, not a fact. If that were really the case, is "Erase" a single as well? No, it is not (not yet at least). And why is Lady Gaga's Beautiful, Dirty, Rich not categorized as a "single"? Maybe because it isn't? Although it was digitally serviced and received a music video, it wasn't properly released a single and the label scrapped it in favor of Poker Face a week later. This is problem with Wikipedia; people are always putting their personal standards instead of sticking to the facts. Fortunately Gaga's article receives a lot of attention so it gets proper edits with REAL information.

(redacted borderline, racist remarks) At least the BMI info will finally get rid of those lies about Priyanka co-writing the song. I've been trying to get rid of that for months, but BollyJeff has reverted every edit trying to change it! AyanP (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)AyanP

Talking about Wall Street Journal, here is another WSJ item that says "In My City" is her first single http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324809804578511200128025398.html#articleTabs%3Dvideo The caption: "Priyanka Chopra On "In My City" & New Album" - In this excerpt of Bollywood star Priyanka Chopra's interview with the Wall Street Journal's Lee Hawkins, Chopra discusses her new single, "In My City" and her upcoming foray into the music industry." So which is which. Here Wall Street Journal is saying "In My City" is her single in the United States..." So which is which... Just exactly what is WSJ is saying is her first single anyway... Am I the only one confused by WSJ or what? werldwayd (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is "Exotic" being her debut single being edited out?

Terrible, just terrible.

“We could not be more thrilled about the exceptional list of world class teams playing in this year’s tournament,” said Relevent Sports CEO Charlie Stillitano. “This is a landmark event in soccer and Priyanka’s debut single “Exotic” brings to life the spirit of the tournament.” Source: http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/priyanka-chopras-single-exotic-chosen-theme-song-2013-gic

Why does her refer to it as a "debut single"?

"'In My City' featuring Black Eyed Peas frontman will.i.am, was released in September in India, where it sold 45,000 copies its first day. The track was not widely released in the U.S. but became the anthem for the NFL Network's Thursday Night Football. Ms. Chopra said she shot 'Exotic' in South Beach to infuse it with some heat. A second U.S. single, titled "Erase," also plays on America's current obsession with electronic dance music and is set to be released later this summer." Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324809804578511200128025398.html

If "Erase" was planned to be her "SECOND single" planned for later this summer, what does that make "Exotic? Let's use simple subtraction.

Keep in mind that the company that runs the soccer tournament that is using "Exotic" as their theme song and also The Wallstreet Journal are reputable sources unlike many of the silly "sources" used as references in this article. Anyway I'm not going to edit it anymore, but this article has become a joke when misinformation is preferred over actual facts. AyanP (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)AyanP

The sources clearly state what I had just mentioned above. "In My City" was a local release, did not sell well in US (flopped) and is being relegated as a buzz single, nevertheless a single. "Erase" is another case where its relegated as a second "US single". So simple substraction lets us deduce that "In My City" was not a global/US single, "Exotic" is the first global/US single, "Erase" will be the second US single, all according to The Wall Street Journal, the reliable source which is saying that "Exotic" is the debut single in US. And be careful for the borderline attacking tone on BollyJeff and all. Before blaming editors here, get your facts straight. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly my facts are closer to the truth than the "facts" in the current article since you're finally acknowledging that "Exotic" is the first global single like my edits said ("first worldwide single"). Thank you! And yes, I'm fully aware "In My City" was a local release, which is why I kept it in the single chronology and removed "Erase."

Speaking of Erase, why did you revert my edit and put Erase as her second single? It's not a single. Being uploaded to iTunes doesn't make it an actual single. AyanP (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)AyanP

You need to stop reverting and start discussing first, you have crossed wP:3RR now but I'm not warning you since you might not be aware of this. Firstly, being a global single and being a local single does not deter the fact they were all singles. So the chronology is in fact corrrect. "Erase" was released before "Exotic" by The Chainsmokers as evident by the iTunes link and yes, iTunes is reliable since they are the biggest market for digital release. "Erase" had an article before whcih was deleted because it did not pass WP:NSONGS, however as I said, it does not deter that it was a release. Chronology trumps all. And I'm warning you, becuase you just crossed WP:3RR. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In answer to colleague AyanP -- Since when was the Wall Street Journal a reference in music? They hardly follow any music news and are not knowledgeable in this field at all. The Indian press is just Priyanka-crazy and they know everything there is to know about her, not some financial editor sitting on a desk in Washington DC. By the way, there is no difference between a "buzz" single and a real single. A single is a single. Plus international release is no criterion. A release is a release is a release. If she marketted "In My City" as her first-ever single, it is her first single. This notion about what AyanP calls a "worldwide release" is very suspicious. Flop or no flop, in fact saying "In My City" is a flop is just personal opinion. It did very well in India. Plus it is not just Indian Express. Here is Hindustan Times [1] "Priyanka Chopra’s first single ‘In My City’ was well received by listeners all over India. Not only the song, but the video also got a positive response. Her second single ‘Exotic’, featuring Pitbull, was also much anticipated..". The Hollywood Reporter another website who knows its celebrities [2] "Top Bollywood actress Priyanka Chopra will take her first steps as an international music artist with the debut of her single “In My City” on NFL Network's Thursday Night Football.". Ryan Seacrest website (Ryan Seacrest does the Billboard Top 40 throughout the States) [3] "Hollywood is about to be taken over by Bollywood star Priyanka Chopra! She has risen to pop star status in India as a successful actress and looks to make the move to America as a singer. Chopra recently released her single “In My City” featuring the talented Will.I.Am. The song is an upbeat, party jam that makes you want to get up and dance". IBN Live [4] "Priyanka Chopra's second single, 'Exotic', from her album 'In My City' has leaked online, but the actress is not complaining. "Okay! So my new single 'Exotic' has been leaked! I should be angry, but I'm actually quite relieved and happy to share it with you all," tweeted the 30-year-old (that is Priyanka herself...) American rapper and songwriter Pitbull has collaborated with the Bollywood actress for her second number, which is catchy and, a few Hindi lyrics add a bit of a 'desi' flavour to it as well.". Here is TV9 also crazy with Priyanka fever.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI21poFLhXc (report in Hindi) "Actress Priyanka Chopra, who unveiled her debut international music single 'In My City' last night, says she wants to sing in Bollywood movies someday and would like to lend her voice to veteran actress Rekha.Priyanka Chopra who made her singing debut through International Music Single "In My City", said she had fulfilled her father Dr Ashok Chopra's long cherished dream of becoming a singer". the fact of the matter is, besides the erroneous misinformed WSJ article you repeat over and over, you will not be able to reproduce a single source that Exotic is her debut single, whereas I can go on and on and on with tens of sources that say "In My City" is her first single, "international" or otherwise. At the end, if she released "In My City" in India and India alone, and you cannot deny this. it is her first single, however you may look at it. werldwayd (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(→) FWIW pasting the link to the AFD of "Erase": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erase (song). It "is" a single as evident by the iTunes link however it got deleted since there was no notability. It might be the case that re-promotion and re-release in the US might amp up its notability and the article might be created again. We will find out. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a joking passing remark. "Erase" was doomed from its mere title "Erase"... When you read erase, what do you do? You erase LOL Now back to serious comments werldwayd (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up guys! I don't know how many times I read my name in that rant; don't know why he is picking on me, I am not the only editor here. As for the co-writing, I would agree to, and have in the past, removed "song writer" from the lead sentence, but others add it back. It is obviously not her career, but there were some articles that said she co-wrote "In My City" and wrote the Hindi lyrics for "Exotic". Is that enough? BollyJeff | talk 13:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would give the edge over to BMI. They are truly the fiercest reliable source on songwriters and their royalty wages. They would not exclude Chopra if she contributed to the songwriting and vice-versa. I would say mentions of her co-writing the song might be true but ultimately when the registration was done and the royalty wages were calculated, Chopra was removed from the songwriting credit. So no credit = no writer. That's how it essentially works. A change, if done, would be needed in both here and "In My City" article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Song writer just got put back. See what I mean? BollyJeff | talk 16:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What is happening here? A long conversation. well, Bollyjeff we worked so hard to get this article to FA. Now, some have started work to delist it from FA as they cant see as they are not a contributor to an FA. Editing through IP and New account to create a situation to increase your contribution no. will not help as a contributor of an FA.

Also, they dont have mind but Bollyjeff, why you got into this. It is clear she had written Exotic and has admitted that she will be writing most of her songs on the album. It is called songwriting. The same sources which says In My City is a debut single, says that she has written songs. If you use only one side story, then Im sorry you are wrong. Remember Humraaz casting discussion. If you are putting that IMC is adebut single, then it also has songwritting stuff provided in the source. Think before editing things.

Also, I think this article will not be stable for a long time (only when that person will become atop contributor). Everyday, that user is editing the same thing to increse contributions. OMG she is not even an established singer but, some are calling her single as flop. Keep your personal opinion in your pocket. Katy Perry's first album was also a disaster. No one becomes a successful singer so easily.—Prashant 02:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Get your facts straight, read the discussion and then start yapping around here. First of all, BMI sources indicate that Chopra is not getting royalties for the track, hence not being credited as a songwriter. I can open a RFC at the WP:SONGS page also but just simple facts are being pointed out. And it was not even me who came up with that BMI reference, user AyanP did. So yeah, the FA status of this article is fine and it will remain so but disputed content needs to be discussed which you should have done before edit warring. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh great!! Then, ill have to remove IMC as her Debut single. No? Because the same sources says that IMC is a Debut single, But putting only one thing and not rest is not appropriate right. AS, the same sources says that she has written songs. She herself said that she was writing her songs. For that user, i dont even want to discuss to him. As, all this was started by him. Let the article be stable.—Prashant 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying that "In My City" is not her debut single, it is and always will be her debut single. The question is regarding the songwriting credits. An artist saying I wrote this song with a valid reference is fine, however, when it is challenged by another reference from the governing body of songwriters (BMI, ASCAP) then that is something that should be discussed. And that is what is expected from every one here sans the yelling and losing head. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian Bio, I don't think you need to bother explaining anything to someone like PKS. He is a complete waste of time... all the time going blah blah blah blah.....--smarojit ^HD 16:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait!!! This made me LMAO IndianBio--> =D Continue!! :P GleekVampire | talk! 00:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if BMI and ASCAP are saying then its fine. I think that user was here just to create an unwanted situation. Smarojit you are the one who wastes time in harassing others not me. : —Prashant 06:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be comprehensive enough to say about which user you are talking. Pretty much difficult to understand your English on a regular basis anyways. However, I can see you have understood that the songwriting issue is not something being farted around. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fashion and Dostana's box office verdict

Both Fashion and Dostana were "average" grossers at the box office as can be seen from this source: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=215 The article claims that they were big hits, which they not and hence must be changed. Any thoughts? --smarojit ^HD 09:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have one suggestion. Remove the same claims from Vidya Balan's and Rani Mukerji's pages. you have used the same technique for NOKJ and Kahaani for the so-called female hero and the woman who changed the face of indian cinema. Look who is complaining!! the same person who has claimed an average grosser like Ghulam as a hit (later changed as commercial success, when Bolyjeff noticed). I bet he has used in his many articles. Any correction in those articles. Oops! the female hero fan has been caught.—Prashant 16:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Prashant, will you stop being an utter child and start replying to the point? If he has done that in other articles, take that to those talk pages and don't bring other's business here. If you cannot reply to the point and address the concerns and counter-challenge Smarojit's points then refrain from adding utter bullshit. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am just showing "the mirror" to him. I corrected his edit at Ranbir Kapoor that's why he has created a new problem for the article. I will not come on the talk page of those articles but will prefer a "Reassesment" of those articles as he has praised those articles by squeezing all neutrality. Just wait and watch.—Prashant 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are again missing the point. You don't have to show anybody any mirror. What you can do is address the concerns raised and counter-challenge it. As for content in other articles, I pointed out WP:WAX to you. Please don't bring those issues here. Either take it to the talk page of the concerned article or raise WP:RFC there. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dostana is listed at 33rd all-time grosser in the source given. The article does not claim that Fashion was a "hit", just successful, which is backed up by the source. I don't really see a problem here. BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes Bollyjeff, Dostana may be the 33rd all-time grosser, but the overall gross relative to it's budget is what makes a film successful. If you check the list (http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=312&catName=TGlmZXRpbWU=) you will find a film like Kites is listed on the 31st position, but the film was a huge box office flop. I am not going to argue any more, but since the articles that I am working on are being mentioned repeatedly for neutrality issues, I think the same applies to all the articles here. --smarojit ^HD 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OMG!! Kites is a flop but still is one of highest grosser then, BOI is a wrong source for Box office verdicty of movies. Then why Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna, Kambakkht Ishq are mentioned as biggest hit in Mukerji's and Kapoor's article. As media reports that Kank was an average much like what media reports about Kites. Someone is caught here. Now, from here I'll be correcting all the articles from the female hero to male heroine.—Prashant 04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Box office India's verdict on Kites can be seen here: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=317&catName=MjAxMC0yMDE5 --smarojit ^HD 04:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You would be happy if it said something like, "Although film xxx was an average grosser in India,[s1] it was overall considered a commercial success with a worldwide gross of yyy.[s2]" Is it really necessary to go to that detail? BollyJeff | talk 13:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Look I am not here to make trouble. Was just pointing something out. It can be left the way it is. --smarojit ^HD 14:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations for being featured article in English Wikipedia

Priyanka Chopra page was chosen as August 14, 2013's featured article in English Wikipedia. This is a landmark for this page and for so many who have worked hard to reach this goal. So it is time to celebrate!!! Here is Cliff Richard in "Congratulations". See Eurovision live performance. Cliff Richard is an international artist who was born in Lucknow, India actually, so fitting to the occasion. My secret pleasure out of all this is that both "In My City" and "Exotic" appear in the framed article on main Wikipedia page. It was me who added a brand new "Discography" section which I proudly established putting "In My City" there (I love Priyanka through this song actually.. and I just love RedOne's work in the song), and time and again I found it deleted as being a "one song" section. Then one day, it magically became a permanent part of the page thanks to "Exotic".. Now I notice the songs are mentioned in the text chosen for main Wikipedia page right there in the last sentence . Wow. It made it to the main page for everybody to see and discover... werldwayd (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, is there a way in which today's English Wikipedia main page is saved and a frozen picture of the page is put here in talk page just for good memories for a job well done? werldwayd (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Snipping Tool on Windows, or ScreenHunter and other screen grabbing tools are available. BollyJeff | talk 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

BOI links dead

Some BOI sources (99, 100, and 111) appear to be dead. BollyJeff | talk 17:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Krrish 3

In the article, it says that Chopra's "performance [in Krrish 3] was praised by critics", and uses the first two reviews to source that claim. However, I beg to differ. By looking at the analysis below, it shows that her performance was not praised (as stated in the article)—not surprising since actresses are usually the damsel in distress. I'm not saying that it's not necessary to provide reviews for every film, but if and when done, please provide the general consensus—her performance was not well-received. Any opinions and/or comments? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Positive

• Bollywood Hungama "Priyanka Chopra is efficient enough, portraying her part very well. Note her sequences in the post-interval portions. She's truly fantastic!"
• Komal Nahta "Priyanka Chopra gets limited scope. She acts with a lot of sincerity and does a truly fine job."
• TOI "Priyanka is good in her limited role."
• Filmfare "Priyanka Chopra is good as the love of Krrish’s life"

Mixed

• Stardust "Priyanka Chopra too as Krrish’s wife is average at best."
• DAWN "Priyanka Chopra, so-so"
• Sify "Priyanka Chopra is made to dance, giggle, get pregnant, and shriek for help, all of which she does competently and without ruining the look."

Negative

• Subhash K Jha "Priyanka Chopra is wasted. Wonder what has happened to her lately! She seems to trying hard to make an impression in under-written parts."
• Full Hyderabad "Priyanka Chopra is shrill and plastic, and you are left wondering where the actress who made her debut in Aitraaz has disappeared."
• DNA "Priyanka is saddled with a role that doesn't do her justice. She deserved a meatier role"
• Rediff "Meanwhile, Priyanka Chopra, who kept insisting that she's the heroine of the film, only seemed to exist to be in trouble and cry out for help, and to act as a vessel for reproduction and furthering of the franchise."
• NDTV "Priyanka Chopra, in contrast, is saddled with a sketchily written role and is reduced to the status of a hanger-on waiting for things to unfold"
• First Post "However, Hrithik, Priyanka and Vivek play their parts with neither wit nor charm"
• Deccan Chronicle "But as an actress she’s stuck at the same place. Neither is she a better actress, nor is she taking on new, more challenging roles. She’s busy maintaining status quo."
• The Tribune "Priyanka, too, is a surprising disappointment, who retains a consistent clueless smile in the first half of the film and a consistent fearful expression in the second half."
• Zee News "Priyanka Chopra looks pretty as the ‘wife’ and doesn’t have much to do."
• Live Mint "Chopra looks frightened throughout the film"
• Mumbai Mirror "Priyanka Chopra who's reduced to mere eye candy like she was in the last installment."
• Rediff.com "Priyanka Chopra, who plays Krrish’s wife Priya, is anything but that, a shrill giggler with the most inane role possible."
• Rediff.com "Priyanka Chopra is mostly wasted as Krrish’s rollover romantic interest."

Seems a fair enough assessment by you. Now how can you provide a general consensus without citing all of these reviews? BollyJeff | talk 18:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it's not necessary to provide reviews for every film, but if you guys are looking to add them in I would recommend something like: Reviews towards Chopra's performance was generally negative with critic X describing it as "..." and "...". Critic Y, however was more appreciate of Chopra's performance, noting that "...". This shows that her performance was generally not well-received by critics, though Critic Y had a different opinion. This and this can be used to source the general consensus. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, neither of those two links say that she was bad, just that her role was badly written; not her fault. One of them is a blog too; not good for an FA. The first construct that you presented with critic X, Y, Z, etc sounds okay though. BollyJeff | talk 23:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that's what I was trying to say—her role was small and badly written hence it wasn't received well. Something like this could be added: Critics opined that Chopra's role in the film was small, and critic X criticized that "...". Critic Y, however, and so on. The HT source can be used to show that her small role was not well-received. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 23:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good. Ya know, I think the article already had said that until someone removed it. IMO, please do fix it. BollyJeff | talk 00:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And we all know who that someone is eh? :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Done! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 21:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Someone (User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ) wants a reassesment of Kareena Kapoor Article right?? Needs to wait till my semesters are over on 11th. Negative reviews for Heroine became critical acclaim for Kapoor.....hmmmm. A lot more films. ...i have alll the reviews. I will definitely correct her article toooo. What's say?—Prashant 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

For a second, I thought that you had actually changed but as they say, some people never do. When will you stop taking things personally? All I can say is bring it on. I have nothing to hide so why should I be afraid. In regards to your so-called ranting ("negative reviews for Heroine became critical acclaim for Kapoor"), an analysis was already conducted during the FAC as requested by you. As a matter of fact, you even said that it was okay. So I don't know what your problem is now. In regards to the other films, I have already conducted an analysis of the reviews she received for some of them, and I could do the same for the rest of them as well. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One second, User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, If i was like before...i would have reverted all those and from Kapoors article also. I don't take Things personally anymore. I just want a reason criticized means.....if her role was like that that was not her problem...it was directors fault, in the same manner what Kapoor had to do in Satyagraha and Bodyguard (despite a long role) bcoz hrer roles were plain....you need to change those text as it's fine to say that her role was considered small. Nothing else. Every critics said she doesn't get scope but they didn't said she had not acted..or she can't act??? Hello! Be accurate.—Prashant 07:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with the public fighting, again! At least he asked for permission on the talk page before making changes to an FA, unlike you. BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, please learn to write properly. Second, haven't you read the discussion above? That's what I had explained. The fact that her role was small was not well-received by critics similar to what I mentioned on Kapoor's page — nothing about critics criticizing her acting. Another example can be seen on Angelina Jolie's page: ("The role was small, and The Washington Post criticized that "all she does in this movie is stand around, cooling down, modeling those fleshy, pulsating muscle-tubes that nest so provocatively around her teeth."") The review provided on Chopra's article is similar. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 14:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

But, This says a different stories (Yes, I don't know how to write, would you help me in writing only praise to favorite stars;Kapoor for particular) Chopra's role in the film was small. Writing for the entertainment portal Koimoi, Mohar Basu criticized that "Chopra is still high on the sugar rush from Zanjeer and has very little to do in this film as well."

It says that the critics critized her and not her roles not only in Krrish 3 but in Zanjeer also. So, I think Kapoors duds like Kushi, Loc, .....are defined in one line....so I should add whole Para for her negative reviews as well.—Prashant 11:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop talking about Kapoor on Chopra's talk page. You have a grand total of 5 edits on Kapoor, and 0 on her talk, despite all of your talk here. Please go there to raise your concerns about that article, not here. BollyJeff | talk 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@Prashant!: do go through the trolling policy of Wikipedia and stop acting like an irritating troll. Get a life. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes... and that is the same here too — one review to show the consensus for Zanjeer and Krrish 3. Instead of finding two separate reviews for two separate films I just thought it would be helpful to have one review for both of them. But if your hell bent on removing the Zanjeer part, just trim the review: (Writing for the entertainment portal Koimoi, Mohar Basu criticized that "Chopra [...] has very little to do in this film.") Happy? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay....will do that. But, please clear before what you are interpreting other reviews. I think we should replace that review with a more critical one.—Prashant 16:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Added a review which clears everything that her role was badly written and doesn't have scope. Thanks for the discussion.—Prashant 16:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

I want all the grammar and spelling mistakes to be corrected and as in english i wish if you could guy's change all the alphabet's to smaller case except the first one as in english it is said that first alphabet should be capital and other should be small.Please do the correction as soon as possible. Himanshulawadia (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please point out the grammar and spelling mistakes to which you are referring. Also, which words do you think should be uncapitalized? Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014

Priyanka Chopra, won Femina Miss India World and was not not placed second (2nd) at the pageant . Femina Miss India director gave equal importance to Miss World in 1995 . I wish you will change that . The information about how Priyanka was placed 2nd is false . MissWorldTrinidadandTobagomn (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

you have made the change yourself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New Image

Since it's a FA, I'm little afraid to make any changes especially to article display image. I'm talking about [5]this thanks --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 15:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No way! Sunglasses and open mouth? BollyJeff | talk 15:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahahaha, that has to be one of her most unflattering images, you can literally see what she had for lunch :D —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha can't help if she looks ugly with those fatty lips. I had just suggestion. Anyway thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 16:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Links

The Move From Celebrity to Ubiquity Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)).

Just reduced the url. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

Can we, for God's sake, have a consensus on the infobox image and stick to it? Almost everytime I visit the article there is a new infobox image, which is completely unnecessary as nothing was wrong with the previous image. That makes the article indeed unstable. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess someone has to keep an updated image of her regularly. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems IndianBio has problems with my edits....huh? Is it your article. If yes, then i will not change and see who is talking about stability. I think people should do their job and should not interfare with other's work.—Prashant 09:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

LMAO, keeping it classy as always eh? @Kailash29792:, yes we need to come to a consensus about the image since there is no reason why the main image would need to be changed continuously. Chopra's face does not change on a monthly basis and last I remembered she is not listed as Mystique on the run, ergo. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Titodutta had taken up this constant image changing problem to a bigger forum somewhere. Dunno what happened of it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you by chance have a link to it? At the music biographies extensive discusssions are usually done and a consensus is achieved to change an image. That is how it should be here alos I believe. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

IndianBio, I finally (maybe always) felt that the infobox image should not be regularly changed, until the subject has undergone a major facial change. But Piggy Chops looks very youthful even at almost 32 and may still look the same for many years, so I don't see a point in regularly changing the image... Maybe until she becomes at least a bit fairer than her current state. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to achieve. Let's find one high-resolution perfect image and stick to it, until her facial features change majorly or she adapts a major makeover, like Ranveer Singh did with the RaamLeela phase moustache. Does that sound reasonable? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

When you say "let's find...", you are implying yet another change. Different editors will have their own preference leading to wasted time in debate. If the present image has good copyright status, which I think it does, let's just leave it. BollyJeff | talk 13:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bolly I did not mean that we go around looking for one, sorry for that. I'm fine sticking up with this image in the infobox if everyone agrees. So no change is needed. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Here is a user essay: User:Tito Dutta/Image changing child's play, in Village Pump, it was seen it is more a WP India issues, it was suggested to take it to WT:INB, I have not done it still. You people go ahead and start a discussion at India noticeboard. Tito☸Dutta 15:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So I guess this means that there is consensus to use this image at present in the article as the infobox image, and not change it unless a very specific reason and consensus is achieved through discussions in the talk page. I will leave a hidden note beside the image. Ok? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

Maheshau (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, no request. —SpacemanSpiff 08:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

< Redacted personal attack > Maheshau (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, your personal perceptions of her has no candle over here in Wikipedia. Strongly suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM and do not continue to slander a biography, even in its talk page. And do not abuse the edit template. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

| height = 169 centimetres (5.54 ft) Ddmteetu (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done WP:UNDUE. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2014

divyang virani 150.242.17.41 (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN?

I am concerned that the quality of this article may be eroded by long-standing editors who have acquired an attitude that they WP:OWN the article.

The NYTimes published an op-ed by Ms Chopra earlier this month. I'd never heard of her, and found her account of how she became committed to philanthropy at 9 years old quite moving.

I drafted a reference to that New York Times article -- one where I spent the extra time to fill out the archiveurl field.

In covering her op-ed I thought it best to start with her praise of Nobel prize winners Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi. I was impressed by the modesty Ms Chopra showed in her op-ed. I didn't know she was famous, from reading her op-ed. I thought that her praise of the Nobel prize winners, and modesty about her own prominence confirmed that her op-ed was sincere, not an attempt to make herself look important. So I thought the wikipedia's coverage of the op-ed should start with her praise of the Nobel prize winners.

One of the contributors who reverted almost all of my attempts to update the article excised the coverage of Chopra's comments about the Nobel prize winners. This contributor's edits are almost entirely unexplained. In particular they made no attempt to explain why they cut coverage of Chopra's admiration of Malala.

I am also very concerned that this contributor does not seem to understand that we name references, so they can be used multiple times in an article. I am concerned that they don't understand why it is important not to throw out fields like the "archiveurl" and "archivedate" fields -- particularly when linking to NYTimes articles, a site that has been an innovator in obfuscating its content behind paywalls.

I am not going to get into an ugly edit war with contributors who are going to resist good faith attempts to update the article, who can't even be bothered to explain themselves.

But, I am going to go on record that I think this appearance of lapses from WP:OWN really concerns me, and it makes me wonder if the article is going to be able to keep its GA status. Geo Swan (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to correct you, the article is an FA and not a GA. Okay, firstly Chopra admiring Malala has no purpose in her biography. Secondly, following a different referencing style, and ruining the page format, just because you want to is no reason for us to include it. My edits were made to retain the consistency. Thirdly, her opinion column, at most, needs a one line description, so naming the reference has no purpose. You used this reference to cite additional claims in the lead, which is also unnecessary because all the claims in the lead are already cited with multiple high-quality refs in the main body, and do not need to be repeated per WP:LEAD. So no, none of the three editors who reverted you "own" the article, so there is no need to cite bad faith when there is none. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, FA criteria 2c calls for "consistent citations". BollyJeff | talk 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Link please? I checked WP:FA, it says nothing about consistent citations.

My prediction? I bet the guideline you cite will be recommending presenting a consistent citation appearance for readers, and will not be recommending the initiation of edit-wars over the rewriting perfectly well constructed templates. Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, and if I may make a comment: Why are you getting so bent out of shape about all this? Thank you very much for your contribution, but why go crazy if another editor changes it a little bit to fit the style of the rest of the article? It happens all the time, this is a collaborative effort after all. Why not just move on and make useful contributions to other articles and be happy, instead of writing volumes about how you've been wronged and such? I don't even feel like reading all this, I have other constructive work to do. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 20:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the wikilink to the wikidocument. I put the key phrase in bold.

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes ... or Harvard referencing...

What the wikidocument recommends to maintain "consistent citations" is the same thing WP:MOS recommends -- namely don't mix multiple incompatible citation techniques. It specifically says don't mix the uncommon but acceptable WP:HARVARD style citations into an article that uses the much more common style it call the footnote style. Since I wasn't mixing the incompatible HARVARD style citations into this article neither WP:MOS or WP:Featured article criteria authorized reverting or rewriting the reference I supplied.

Yes, I have no problem accepting that you were genuinely confused about what the wikidocuments mean by a "style", and why they recommend maintaining a consistent style. I have no problem accepting that this was an honest mistake on your part.

You ask why I am making a big deal over this issue? I already explained this, both here, and on your user talk page. The unnecessary rewriting of article's (hidden) metadata, for purely aesthetic reasons, strongly erodes the value of the wikipedia's history mechanism. Each unnecessary change to the metadata makes diffs comparing different versions less and less useful. This is a very strong reason to never rewrite metadata for aesthetic reasons.

I request you not characterize my concerns as that I have been "wronged". Instead I think I have voiced my concern that two good faith contributors have misinterpreted the advice of wikidocuments so that they thought they were authorized to make reversions that were in fact genuinely disruptive and counter-policy. I assure you, when I think I see good faith contributors misinterpreting wikidocuments, so they make disruptive reversions, it concerns me, no matter whose original contributions they were reverting. Geo Swan (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• @ User:Krimuk90

1. FA not GA? I stand corrected.
2. You write: "Chopra admiring Malala has no purpose in her biography" -- as if this were obvious. I don't think it is obvious. As I wrote below, have previous contributors to this article decided that the article should focus on Ms Chopra mainly as just a pretty face, and ignore her articulately expressed opinions, the well-expressed opinions that have inspired considerable philanthropic activity? If so I think this issue is worth re-opening.
3. You write: "her opinion column, at most, needs a one line description" -- as if this were obvious. I don't think it is obvious.

   Yes, I see she has written columns in newspapers published where her Bollywood movies are popular. I can see how someone could assert that those op-eds were just as significant as the NYTimes op-ed. The counter argument is that op-eds in regions where she is already well-known do not establish the same level of notability as an op-ed in a prominent US paper, where Ms Chopra has been unknown.

   Not to be mean about this, but the one sentence replacement you provided really fell short. You asserted she wrote about "the education of the girl child". Did you actually read her NYTimes op-ed? If you did why did you ignore the considerable portion of the article that was concerned with the unfairness of treating the health care of girl children as if it were less important than the health care of boy children? You aren't really trying to assert that education and health care are the same thing, are you?

4. You write: "following a different referencing style, and ruining the page format, just because you want to is no reason for us to include it."

   Sorry, but this comment exposes a misunderstanding, on your part of WP:MOS. Almost all articles now use references where a <ref></ref> pair enclose a {{cite}} template. There are other ways of providing references to articles that are incompatible with this style. WP:HARVARD describes one of those incompatible reference styles. Articles break when someone tries to use an incompatible reference style in an article that already uses a different style.

   You believe I introduced a new style? Wrong. I used the same <ref></ref> pair enclosing a {{cite}} template style as every other reference on the page.

   Your assertion that I was "ruining the page format"? Hello? What could you possibly mean by this? The render engine, that renders pages, won't distinguish between a {{cite}} template with all fields on one line, or one with each field on a separate line. If the fields have the same values they will be rendered identically. Similarly, the render engine doesn't care if it encounters a reference's {{cite}} template in the body of the article, or if it encounters the {{cite}} template within the {{Reflist}} template. The page will render identically to the end-user no matter where the {{cite}} template is found.

   What this means is that not only wasn't I "ruining the page format" by the way I wrote the template, I wasn't affecting the format the page was rendered to our readers by one iota.

   Sorry, I have tried to imagine an interpretation of your assertion that I was "ruining the page format" that was backed up by a wikipolicy or guideline, and I just can't come up with one. Given that your reversions were initially inadequately explained I continue to be concerned that there has been a no doubt unconscious lapse into ownership thinking on your part, where you feel you simply don't have to explain yourself to new good faith contributors.

   Note: voicing a concern that you seem to have shown an unconscious slip into ownership thinking, because you didn't make a meaningful effort to explain yourself is not the same of accusing you of bad faith. I've already requested you to review WP:AAGF, which offers a good explanation of what good faith and bad faith are. Your repeated assertions that I have accused you of bad faith, when I don't think I have, make me think I need to repeat that request.

5. I am going to note that you have not acknowledged that you threw away the archiveurl field I supplied, which I think anyone who understands why {{dead link}}s are a problem would be shocked at.

In general I am going to encourage you to make a greater effort to explain yourself and a greater effort to try to bear in mind that another contributor can have a good faith disagreement with you. Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The general significance of Ms Chopra's op-eds and the specific significance of her NYTimes op-ed

The NYTimes recently published an op-ed by Ms Chopra. I updated this article to include brief coverage of that op-ed. Another contributor replaced that coverage with a briefer and, IMO, inaccurate one sentence summary. I asked them to explain their rewrite, and they asserted: "her opinion column, at most, needs a one line description, so naming the reference has no purpose."

I am concerned that this assertion implies the opinion it asserts is so obvious it does not require any explanation. I don't agree.

So, how significant are op-eds Ms Chopra writes, in general? Are op-eds Ms Chopra writies for the NYTimes as significant as her other op-eds, or more significant? This article could mainly focus on Ms Chopra as just a "pretty face" -- where her opinions are of secondary importance. There is the story of the young US celebrity, who, after a tour of the White House, stated her admiration of its decor, and congratulated the Secretary of the Interior. I have no problem with articles on unintelligent or inarticulate people, which do not focus on their opinions. But Ms Chopra is clearly an intelligent person, who has volunteered to serve as an articulate spokesperson for the causes she believes in. I suggest this means that the best article on her would devote more than a single sentence to op-eds that are well-written and published in prominent newspapers or magazines.

In this particular case the replacement sentence wasn't even an accurate summary, as it said that Ms Chopra's op-ed "In December 2014 she wrote a column in The New York Times on the importance of educating the girl child." While she did address the need to bring efforts to educate girls up to the same standards as boys, she also advocated making the same effort to provide health care to girls, as boys; and she addressed the widely held disregard parents in the region feel for their daughters, and their general preferential treatment of their sons.

If the coverage of the NYTimes op-ed is going to be rewritten I call for it to be rewritten more carefully, and accurately. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)