User talk:Bollyjeff/Archive 4

Check properly

From the archives,they have not replied valuable point.

. These above sites mentioned that Enthiran is the highest grossing Indian film of all time. As u said, Enthiran grossed 375 crores,u can mention it. My question is Why do u take Box Office India website into the account??? Box Office India is an independent website related only to bollywood. First Box Office India mentioned tat 3 idiots grossed 339.4 crores.Everyone know tat Later it was modified. Y r u mentioning Enthiran grossed 255.5 crores as said by Box Office India?????

Leave all those conflicts. Give me one reason tat How 3 idiots is the highest grossing Indian film beating Enthiran??????show me one source except Box Office India. bcoz u know tat NDTV,CNN IBN ,TV9,Indian Express and India Today is far far better than Box Office India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamsha (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra PR

Happy New Year Bollyjeff, wishing you a great year ahead. Hey, I think A PR would help only after the C/E completes. Coz, the points or issues would be raised from several editors and by that time, the editors from GOCE might work on it. It would be a mix. So, a PR would help after GOCE frees it. Otherwise, it would end up as a mess.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 05:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

important link

Hey, You asked me about her interviews.....the following link may help you...

1. http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=268081&subcatg=&keyword=Bollywood&nid=268081 —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad It helped you. I would definitely do that. Well, I'm helping IndianBio on the artistry section as I want it to merge as fast as we can.....Coz its near top position on GOCE and there is also a drive in this month. Its it possible that someone may grab the article. So, we have to as fast as we can.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ya, its nice. Hey, the article is very near at GOCE position ,we have to do whatever we have in a day or two. We should start working on that section. What's say.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Another link

1. http://www.rajeevmasand.com/uncategorized/i-dont-see-myself-as-sexy-priyanka/ —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 06:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sex Symbol

Hey I don't think it's appropriate to call an actress like Chopra, a sex symbol. As it is widely used for the actresses who normally don't make any mark in film industry. This would suit more the actresses who only add glamour to every film they are cast. Probably, like Mallika Sherawat or others. So, I think it's good to remove the word as when you see biographies like Kareena Kapoor, she is also called sex symbol but is was not used. And if you are going by the articles or reference name then kareena should be tagged Queen of Bollywood. We can't go by reference name. When I was going through that section I felt she's not an actress but only a mere sex symbol. Its enough to say Most desirable or popular or Syle/youth icon. What's say. I hope you understand.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 06:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong in being a sex-symbol? It's a huge compliment. And Priyanka is one of the rare actresses who is both sexy and talented. Why do you want to have it removed? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 09:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Off course, But I'm saying from readers point of view. A mere sex symbol?? It questions about her talent. You may call her Desirable/Attractive. Have you heard Julia Robert being called Sex symbol. She is also a mix of both and same for Kate Winslet or others. So, my views are regarding that.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't quite agree with you. Firstly, no one is calling her a "mere" sex-symbol. Secondly, being one does not put a question mark on her acting abilities (as the acting section talks quite illustriously of her as an actress). And if you talk of Hollywood, several actresses such as Sofia Loren, Penelope Cruz etc are called "sex-symbols", but are held in very high esteem as actresses. As I said before, being sexy is a huge compliment, and on top of that she is a fantastic actress. And no one can question either of those. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 09:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against it coz I myself had added "sexiest" Asian title to her page. Ya we must say she is sexiest. We may call her one of the sexiest woman. I checked Cruz page ,its also says one of the sexiest not sex symbol. We should adopt that.what's say.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that the same thing? Anyway, let's see what Bollyjeff and the other editors have to say about it. (P.S. Also check Scarlett Johansson's page). --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 10:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Johansson page has a separate section on that. I'm not saying to adopt that. This is an Indian article and Indian reader's perception is like that.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Perception to what? Being a sex symbol? I don't understand why you are looking at it from a negative point of view. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 10:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

coz I'm an Indian reader also.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So am I. What has that got to do with anything? That's the most bizarre thing that I have heard. A boy/girl is sexually attractive, irrespective of the country they belong to. And remember, Wikipedia is not censored.--smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 10:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My view should be obvious since I reverted it. We must include all valid (but not gossipy) info: good, bad or indifferent. The article is for all readers of English in all countries. Also, in the future, please bring up these discussion on the talk page, so that others can contribute, and not on my talk page thanks. BollyJeff | talk 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is a valid guideline in this case. If the third party reliable sources are calling and bestowing that title upon her, so be it. We are not to judge based on our opinions. And frankly, its a compliment for her to be both talented and sex symbol. Bipasha Basu could never. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

useful links

Hey I found some more links, one is for La Martiniere, lucknow. And study in Boston

1. http://www.hindu.com/2000/12/03/stories/14032181.htm
2. http://hindu.com/2000/12/02/stories/02020004.htm—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3. one more, it says she refused a role in Immortals (2012) blockbuster film

http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article342618.ece/—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all good stuff. Added. BollyJeff | talk 16:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Which one??? Sex symbol or what.....clear it all. Are you on twitter, pass me the link.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with it and Hey, the article is just one position down on GOCE. I'm worried about it. Well I'm also working in my second sandbox to avoid edit conflict with Indianbio. His edits are good but if you see as per what it should be in that section, then it's quite weak. Artistry should describe about the important roles. Opinion from experts and critics. He had added, chopras own opinion. But, I think Indianbio would polish that as he told me it would be polish. Well, hope it occurs fast. Fingers crossed.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 16:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

NDTV link

Thanks bolly, care to check the section now? Me and Pks are working on it and its really coming along. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Telugu film in cinema of india

Please undo User:vensatry on cinema of india he is not using the talk page and simply making changes to the section, trying to state telugu not as second largest. RTPking (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Chopra Artistry

Hi, its been few days working on it. Due to conflicting edits with IndianBio, I continued the section in my sandbox My sandbox. Well, Indianbio loved the section. We need one more day to finish. Its getting awesome, take a look and say what you think. ( one reference for aitraaz is taken from IndianBio sandbox- "Bollywood and Globalization").—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra

Hi Bollyjeff, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done - feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck

Happy belated New Year Bollyjeff. I think you, pks, Gleekvampire have done a great job. New artistry section is very effective. I found GOCE copy-edit is completed. Its high time to hold a peer review. All the best to you and your co-editors. As Chopra article is in flc form. I'll not be helping on it as I'm gonna work on some other Bollywood articles like Salman Khan, Abhisekh Bachchan, and few films. These articles lacks sources and are written like a fan page. They are more like a fan site and looks like they are represented as "Best Actors" in the world. Especially, Abhisekh bacchan. They had listed him as National award winner. Oh gosh, I'm going to die soon working on these pan page articles.Green Parakeet (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Humorous lines

The funniest lines on that rediff that you just used as a source in Priyanka Chopra article are as follows: "We wanted to give a chance to Himesh Reshamiya and the results are there for all to see. Youngsters must be encouraged. " ([1])--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Katrina Kaif issue

Hello User:Bollyjeff, thanks for the message. I've left my comments on the article's talk page. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

New message

Hey Bollyjeff! I would greatly appreciate if you could offer your inputs here! Thanks -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup! A lot of patience and time is required during a FAC and this can be seen by observing the FACs of Zinta and Balan. In the case of the latter, the first so-called 'support' came almost one month after the article was nominated. Usually an editor should scratch out their 'comments' and indicate whether they support or oppose the FAC. (P.S. Do you have any more inputs to offer for Kapoor's FAC?) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just getting really annoyed and I really don't know what to say. Hoping for the best! BTW how is Chopra's FAC shaping up? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Removed italics from concert titles and charity events. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey bud! Refrain from beginning paragraphs with pronouns like 'she' and 'her'. I was dinged for that during Kapoor's FAC. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL... I know! It's kinda tough! Try something like "The following year", "Later in the year", "For her next release", "Following", etc. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL... it was quite obvious bud! Especially in the end when they are like who says awards are not rigged/cannot be bought! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 23:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks bud! I will try my best to comment on Chopra's FAC. It's just that I'm very busy in real life and due to a certain individual the FAC of Kareena Kapoor took longer than expected. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New version of artistry section

Hey, its so long since we talked. Peer review is going great. Going through it , I found the issues on artistry section. But, I was about to work on that then that sudden block. Ok.....i had worked on it and its a lot lot better then earlier. A neutral version and more stable. Well referenced and has some important links that could be helpful to you. Have a look here. I'm confident....this is neutral and has no issues. Still, some work is left.Prashant  Conversation  04:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so coz every artistry section is pretty much the overall description of acting career along with experts comments. Even, Balan artistry section has same elements. It has also used reviews to showcase some highlights. As, i said still a little work is left. I'll be working on it.Prashant  Conversation  13:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you always don't listen to me. If you see Zinta's, Kapoor's(kareena kapoor is about yo be an FA) section. Both of them have Section talking about experts, critics and exploration of career. I had used 3 Bollywood. Hungama sources of her career, which you can used as many section and hence can remove unneeded sources. Chopra's article seems too long coz of too many sources. Go through the sources and I know it will help and can tone down more and more less required sources.Prashant  Conversation  14:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, Public image(aka In The Media) are not same as Artistry or performance and analysis. Some editors only pointed about not including negative comments along with positive as well. It seemed fancruft to them, my thought was the same but now, this section is neutral and its critical analysis of her career which means the section should talk about her performances and critics opinions and analysis on them. I had nicely described in that section.Prashant  Conversation  14:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Refrences

I used the Old BH refrence on her award list, then you said that the article has too many references. Yes I know the new link too. But, the new link has only critics filmfare info. Ok I'll archive it when this years awards will end. I hadn't left any award without the reference. I will be cleaning more references. So that the article would be small.Prashant  Conversation  17:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, bollyjeff may I remove the un needed reviews about her critically failed films and use the BH journey reference to show they were critical failure. What you think?.Prashant  Conversation  18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes...they are very much reliable. I think the BH archive is also used in Balan's page. Check it. Don't worry. I had every reference in the awards page.Prashant  Conversation  18:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh great!!! Now, again I'm the clown. I don't know why, nobody sees my hard work. I'm just saying that we should use journey link to show the critical failures, which you used in her 2004 films plan, kismat and ashambhav. My thought is to why have too many reference when many claimed things are present in a single source. It seems I'm a idiot and I don't know how to edit. Everybody just blames me. Sometime I feel to leave it. Again, you hurt me.Prashant  Conversation  18:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually both, negative and positive both. Even the source "over the years from priyanka to peecee" is also quite helpful. I think we should use them. Then, it would be helpful and unneeded sources will be removed. What's say?Prashant  Conversation  20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well...correct me...where I get wrong. I'm working on it right now.Prashant  Conversation  20:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was also present in my sandbox. I need your help. There are two review for thamizhan..which one to remove?Prashant  Conversation  21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sholay

Did you ever think about taking Sholay to FAC ? I used to have Anupama Chopra's book, and did many edits in the article based on that book in 2006 or 2007. But I don't have the book currently. I think the article is in ok shape, and would need many rearrangements and edits if you think to take it to FAC. Compared many other articles, it is pretty well developed. Moreover it deserves to be an FA among all the indian films.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The main problem for any indian article is prose. We tend to use a lot of ornamental language which is not really required. A notable exception in recent times was the article Vidya Balan. Smarojit wrote in a skeletal fashion, which helped it a lot.

I think Kareena Kapoor stands a good chance as of now. But I don't have the capacity to judge it for the quality of prose. That the veterans of the FAC reviewer will decide.

I have not looked at Priyanka chopra article in the last few days. Of course it is beyond ga level. I think you should wait to see the fate of kareena kapoor before starting chopra FAC.

Mother India is getting a good peer review. Lets see how it goes. MeA has too many trivial anecdotes, that needs to be addressed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sholay would be a good idea for getting to FA.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Important link

I got a link which may be useful for you for chopra's article it here!.Prashant  ✉  17:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Kareena FAC

It is not even in the "Older Nominations" section of FAC page yet. Once it crawls into the "older nom" section, may be SandyGeorgia will return to have a re-look, and some other reviewers may also pass by. The FA delegates will come eventually. But it may take some time. We don't have to hurry. If you ask me to take a guess, I think 2 weeks would be my guess; that is you don't have to worried before 2 weeks for non-activity.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC on second Largest film industry in India

Please comment on the which Film industry is considered Second largest in India on the Talk page of Talk:Cinema_of_Andhra_Pradesh. RTPking (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Don't worry Bollyjeff. Hope for the best. I have observed Chopra article from 2010 and the article is so good just because of you. I have seen your hard work on the article. This is completely your work. I respect your thoughts and implementation on the article. It is far far better when I saw in 2010; that time I wasn't aware that common people can edit Wikipedia. But, truly happy for your hard work. It is completely your work which had made the article what it is. I'll be spreding the word of its FAC to seasoned reviewers, so that they will reflect to the article on its FAC.Prashant  ✉  12:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That's so sweet of you. You are saying so because you are good hearted. Well, happy editing. Will talk when my exams will over. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  16:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's quite difficult to do FAC reviews, especially if you are not interested in the subject! Two days is nothing, there may be inactive period lasting weeks. So, lets just wait and watch.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you online?..Prashant  ✉  18:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hey...i think we should use a picture in the public image section. That will add a bit something to the article as we can see in Balan's article. Just my thought. Its not that you should use the image, its just my thought. Well, anyway....i was surfing the 60s film and then I read Mughal-e-Azam. It was nicely written and then I got to know that you were the main contributor for the article. Felt very happy to see it a GA. I think you should also work on the classic Indian movies. You write so well and too good in them along with contemporary articles. I also want to work on some classic movies. But, I will when I'll back on Wikipedia.Prashant  ✉  23:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What you think of the lead now which I changed.Prashant  ✉  13:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

some concerns

• the comedy Bluffmaster!, loosely adapted from the 2000 Argentinian film.
• the Hindi adaptation of the 2005 Hollywood release The Wedding Date.

why? These are important for her article. These better suits the film article. Also, they are not official adaptation like Stepmom . These films are unofficially adapted from those films. Don't know why they are here. There are only allegations that these are inspired. The producer hadn't produced calling "adapted from...." If then every Indian film article will have to be described as loosely adapted from. For example.. Chak de India from Miracle, Ek main aur ek Tu from What happened in Vegas, Black from The Miracle Worker (1962 film), Barsaat from sweet home Alabama Etc.....Prashant  ✉  15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing but Few more:

• 7 Khoon maaf was a critical failure. I think It's fare to just called critically acclaimed as we see Kapoor article which says the same for Dev, Chameli and Omkara; All performance based but all flops and unsuccessful and we may use when it's only about a critical acclaim and not box office success.

Text says commercial failure and critically mixed. I don't see the problem. You objected on Kapoor and now you want the same here? It is not FA yet. BollyJeff | talk 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• 2 Thamizhan reviews why? One just to show negative review. I don't think so it's that important noting that was her first film and previous line says her character lacks depth.Prashant  ✉  16:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying the character lacks depth is not necessarily criticizing her; it could be the script. Negative reviews were needed per peer review. BollyJeff | talk 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I replaced the OneIndia source with some relevant ones. Don't worry I have replaced both of them with good sources. Its now much better in terms of sources. I had corrected every reference and checked. I got both new sources after much search but the great thing is I got it. I want treat from you for my work...hehe. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  04:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Would you please look at my Sandbox. I have worked hard on improving artistry section. Look at that and I think it has no problem and is very much neutral.Prashant  ✉  14:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, no it would be last and has no issue and is neutral and artistry and performance analysis will complete the article.Prashant  ✉  14:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, reply me I think that should be added and that should be last addition. I bet no reviewer will tell to remove that section and it is well written and nicely edited. It would be a good inclusion to the article.Prashant  ✉  15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't seen Balan's, Zinta's and Kapoor's section. So you mean they are also fancruft. I don't know why everyone reminds me that the section is fancruft. Its just the analysis of her career and have experts comments. Which can be seen in other Indian actresses FAC. The thing about her acting career then it is the problem that you adopted things from her analysis. The coming of age and poor performance of Plan..... That suits in the analysis section. I don't see fancruft in it. If you see some then remove and edit yourself then add it. It would be fine.Prashant  ✉  15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't let it go because it analyses her career and is not fancruft. Only 2 lines praises her the one is about barfi and other is aitraaz. Rest are analyzing her selection of roles and her improvement with every passing year. I have removed the line about "act as a hero". Its now neutral. I don't think this is a copy as if you have a media image section then you must have performance analysis (as she is an actor) please, take a look again and if you think it's still have some fancruft then edit it.Prashant  ✉  16:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So, what. They don't have? We can have a section. Those don't even have influence section. I think it doesn't matter. When she would be more known as a singer then we have to add Music style and voice section. So what? All those GA are not as same as hers. Please, let me add and I bet nobody will oppose for this. I guarantee you.Prashant  ✉  18:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My point is if we can have an influence section, then we must have Artistry section because influences are part of artistry. I have added to the article. I don't see anything bad in it. I guarantee you there would be no oppose. The section is comprehensive. It only discusses her selection of folms and transition over the years. Please, don't revert it. It is looking great and had made the article complete. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  03:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Ok...I got it. I will never again going to work on the article. I think it's an insult as my work has gone into vain. I worked so hard on that section. Removed fancruft comments and just included what the real fact is. That's it. I didn't expected this kind of behavior from you. My intention is not wrong. I added that part because influences are part of artistry. I can't believe that it was removed just because no other actresses have this kind of section. It should be noted that she is a recording artist also. We will also have to include her music style and voice-timber sub section in coming days if she becomes successful as a singer. Also, that section analyses her roles and career graph and not what you are thinking. If this was the problem then Mariah Carey and other artists would not have passed FA. Also, Balans page is a big example and the Kapoors is also a big example. The editors were against it at that time because it was just copied text of the source. But, now it has been written with a balance approach and is encyclopedic. Rest, you are talking about addition during FA. Then, I think you are creating this...you removed so much of it. Look at Kapoors page Dreamz has been editing the way he wants and not by listening to others. I mean you have contributed so much to the article but you are agreeing with others. Its not a good thing. I hadn'tadded any wrong info....all were/are correct. It is more neutral. Even more then kapoors and balans. Kapoors article section describes her like a Best actress ever and balans section describes her as Female hero (are these neutral?)......Yes because the editors have added the true fact and what these actresses are. I'm the same way I prepared this for Chopras which is again true. And I'm not called her female hero nor the Meryl Streep.Prashant  ✉  17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Chopra FAC

Well....i think you were right. Inclusion during fac is quite wrong. I think it's ok to let go that section. But, I'm worried how others are trying to humiliate me. They should do their own work and not make me learn how to be civil and blah...blah. I'm also a contributor to Chopra article and I too want the bronze star for hers. I need to resolve all problems with my co-editor on this article and not by others who just try to count mistakes of others. So, ok now it is stable and we should go with it. I think when I'm back...the fac would be successful. Please, reply as soon as possible as I don't want distance from a good editor like you, who only do his work without complains. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  03:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you online? I have to talk to you. Reply soon.Prashant  ✉  06:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should be protected as some IPs are vandalising it. Why one editor added discography? That was a kind of strange I guess. Well, Fac is going too slow. Why? I think you should ask for comments by posting to other seasoned reviewers.Prashant  ✉  14:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay..the article is very much stable now. I will watch out for the vandalisers. Yes, we have to be quite patient. I'm sure no one is going to oppose the article for the sources for sure. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey....hey. I wasn't aware of that I should not notify other editors. So I didn't continue to do that. So sorry for that. And, rest about the article. I only UPDATED HER INFO. AS, she is confirmed for Shootout at Wadala. That's it.Prashant  ✉  17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I asked that and you answered but, I was not aware of Canvassing. I just read it today. I'm sorry again. What I do? But, I was doing for your help. It is very slow. It was for well and not for trouble. I updated about her song in new film which is good as it shows the article is always updated. But, im really sorry. I would be patient from now. But you should not shout at me.Prashant  ✉  17:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing for FAC

There is a bit of canvassing going on for the Chopra FAC I believe, with Pks not understanding that going on requesting people like this won't be considered in a good light. The nomination is not even that old and already has been derailed due to instability. I hope you guys can understand this as I have seen delegates frowning at quid-pro-quo reviews like this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I seriously don't know in this case. You guys are senior than me in this respect. Maybe Dr. Blofeld or maybe a note to the delegates of FAC should do it? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that leave a note to the FAC delegates that in spite of asking not to do it, a user has been canvassing about the FAC; provide links about you asking not to do it. And also notify about the sabotage thing which you guys noticed between this FAC and the Kareena FAC, just in case the Chopra FAC gets derailed like that one. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and I do apologize for that, wasn't my intention. Just that over enthusiasm can be bit of a hindrance to editing in this case, eh. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Imran Khan PR

Hey Bollyjeff! I would greatly appreciate if you could offer your inputs here! Thanks GleekVampire | talk! 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bollyjeff. You have new messages at Dr. Blofeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reviewer Request

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that I have approved your request for the reviewer permission. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Mike V • Talk 02:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Well I have addressed all the new points by new editor. Except one...Their point is that "Why lot of paragraphs starts with "Chopra" or "In xxxx". They want Some more variety for the prose. I think you should use variety of words and phrases. May be like.."The Following year", "Later that year". Cheers!Prashant  ✉  04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Race (2008 film)

Hello Bollyjeff,We put lead actors usually at top as you know too well.---zeeyanketu ^discutez 21:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother India/archive1

Thanks for participating in the PR (Wikipedia:Peer review/Mother India/archive1). Mother India is now at FAC.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing material from talk page archives

Hi Bollyjeff, I have reverted your change here and another seven talk pages because it is generally unacceptable to remove third-party comments from talk pages, which includes archives, per WP:TPO. Please refrain fronm doing so in future, unless you have the permission of both parties or are redacting for policy reasons, in which case you should state the reason in your edit summaries. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're gonna wish you had asked for clarification before inadvertently adding to this comedy of errors! Bollyjeff has an article at FAC. Another editor spammed 30 people with a poorly-worded request to participate in the FAC, despite being asked not to do so. Bollyjeff discussed this at the editor's talk page and above; the other editor apologized for the messages, and has been inactive since. Today Bollyjeff removed the talk page messages to avoid the appearance of canvassing; this is what was meant by his edit summary "FAC: this was not my intention as the nominator". Oh well: maybe all the watchlist hits will pull a few more reviewers in...Maralia (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Maralia, If I come to your talk page and remove someone's comments without their permission is that acceptable? No it's not. See here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Akshay Kumar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Bosco School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fac

Hi....Bollyjeff! I think FAC is going great but one reviewer has opposed the article. I was knowing from beginning that the points raised by that user would be raised by someone. The acting career; it only says she starred in this...that...these....those films, without describing her roles in the films and a quick one line description of the film. I also feel...it lacks her views on her roles, her preparations for them. Some films, she refused but did later such as Fashion, Kaminey should be mentioned. Look at Kapoor's page, it does it so perfectly. This is my only worry but nothing can be done now. See you soon.Prashant  ✉  13:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you are improving the prose of Chopra's article. As, I said earlier You should also use the one or two line description of films and some views of Chopra on her roles. This will enhance the prose. Good luck.Prashant  | talk!  10:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will definitely pass this time. Yes its very sad that no one is ready to review it. Well as per your question, i think you should use something like this to make it more engaging--Like for The Hero Set on the backdop of Kashmir, films revolves around an art officer whose work forces him to marry a Muslim girl for....Whatever. For Kaminey...Tells the story of two twins who are.....plot. For Fashion-- The film revolves around the fashion industry and tells the story about the UPS and downs of the career of fashion models. For Dostana-- Set in Miami, is the story of two men who pretend to be gay and falls for her landlady. For---Barfi, The film is a romantic dramedy or drama comedy in which.....So. A description about the film will enhance the prose.Prashant talk 16:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No need for thanks Bollyjeff!, it's my job. Well yes you should correct few grammar mistakes. I need to spice up a bit more for films like The Hero, Waqt and Kaminey as well. Because around all these films (excluding Kaminey) all the text says she starred, featured....so I would add more text to it. Would you please suggest me one line descriptions of these above three films as I'm confusing with these three only.Prashant talk 13:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I'm done with it and now, you could take over. Correct it and tell the editor, who opposed to look again at it. Meanwhile, I think the separate review for thamizhan should be removed and Deewana main Deewana Para should also be removed. As you can see Kappor's that article doesn't describes the films in which her role is small. So I think that would be for good.Prashant talk 16:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ranbir Kapoor

Uber fan or hater? Don't know which or just blind reverter. Anyways, user is continuously removing the filmography tables from the article citing MOS:TABLE, which is a moot point. Keep an eye please? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Chopra public image

The oppose by George Ponderevo is a very valid one. Whether before my edit, or after my edit — still it has choppy flow (and it is indeed difficult to have a nice flow in sections such as this). Did he (Ponderevo) edited that part? If yes, we can request him to have a look at the version after my edit, and whether he thinks the version is ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What is meant by "like data together"? You mean, say, data about family together?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, yes, too many cooks, true. My alibi: I did not do any edits for a long time in this :)

The acting career section pretty much follows a set pattern for this type of articles, including the recent FAs Kareena Kapoor and Vidya Balan. However, after the acting career, the article increasingly reads like collection of discreet information, some of those considerably trivial (of course editors will differ in PoV whether something is trivia or not).

A reason why reviewers get worried about reviewing is size (others being non-familiarity of the topic, poor appearance of the article etc). So, following WP:SS, and keeping out intricate details is often helpful, unless specifically asked for or very interesting. As an example, I chopped of parts of quotes in this edit. The parts I chopped off were "I really like them a lot", and "They make the kind of music I like". Since the quotes already have contexts, why do we need these ? --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Failed FAC

Hey! Well I'm disappointed. The article also failed because nobody commented on time. For ex like Kapoors it was improved only in its fac period (probably because there were much inputs from other editors). But, Chopra FAC was too slow and nobody was interested in that. I mean she is not a bad actress buddy, why this discrimination with the article. Well I have replaced my previous request on Copy Editors Guild with Chopra's and requested a good editor to edit and hopefully it will pass this time. We would nominate it in April. We should try to make the article appear on main page on her birthday. What are your thoughts on the artistry section in my sandbox, shall we add (don't be angry just asking). I think that section will go with flow with including influences.Prashant talk 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was going to help you with Chopra's article but since you thought that I "screwed up", I decided to leave it to you! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I know it was painful (I felt the same when her list failed). Yes, I would definitely ask for your help, whenever I will need. Thank you for even saying that. Meanwhile, I'm preparing Parineeti Chopra for GA (She recently won National Film Awards ). Since, you have reviewer right, so will you review it and help me in passing GA. That would be grateful. Cheers!Prashant talk 16:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, I never knew you would be editing at the same time as I did. I was just trying to help out by copy-editing the article. I'm sorry if my edits had interfered with your work. Secondly, I'm upset that you would accuse me of sabotaging Chopra's FAC when I had no intention to do so. The process of taking Kareena Kapoor to FA began in July 2010 with a peer review, which was then taken further by a copy-edit by User:SMasters several months later. I was initially planning on taking it to FA then, but due to my busy schedule I was unable to do so. I began working on the article again around May 2012 and I added my edits a few months later. I later consulted User:Lobo512 for suggestions to improve the article and User:Miniapolis helped out with the copy-edits. Once I finished my exams, I decided to nominate the article. As you see, the process of taking KK to FA began a while back, but I just didn't have the time to fully commit to the FAC process. When I nominated the article, I was hoping that the process wouldn't take that long, but due to a certain individual it dragged on!

Lastly, barring Shahid, Prashant, David and the anon editor, I personally asked the other "reviewers" (including you) to comment on the FAC. You personally saw the lack of involvement at the beginning... didn't you? So you can't really say that they "had probably had enough of Indians actresses by then". If your accusation was true, I wouldn't have sent you this long message to clarify myself! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Imran Khan

Hey Bollyjeff! I don't know if this is allowed or not but I wanna ask you anyway. Can you review the Imran Khan article? I've already nominated it for GA. It's ok if you can't, no pressure! :) GleekVampire | talk! 18:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ok bud. :) The pic's done. [2] GleekVampire | talk! 13:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, you've gotta wait for someone to review the pic. It'll be done in a couple of hours. GleekVampire | talk! 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ek Tha Tiger

Hi Bollyjeff! I would like to start the peer review of mentioned article.Please give a look if you dont mind or have free time.I never did it with any article before.Thanx---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,Have'nt you noticed my msg.Please let me know if you are busy then i would ask with someone else.Thanx---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 06:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It is ok friend,Could you name some to whom i ask with because i have interaction with very few editors.Thanx---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Chopra pic

I'm ok with it. You know, you are right. That picture is a good one. Have you seen her Filmfare 2013 pic? That is also an awesome one. One more thing, please review Parineeti Chopra (I'm working on it for a long time). Reply soon.Prashant talk 10:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that pic (looking good). Yes, I tweaked for example he removed Coming of age (fashion) and I just made it look neutral. Added year for some films (missing previously). So, I think it is alright. On your Question on GA (Parineeti Chopra), No (not aiming to pass GA easily), I just asked, coz I don't know any other editor (I ping vensatry; seeing Priyanka Chopra's first GA). Well I will nominate it in some days.Prashant talk 13:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. The section talks about her roles and performances. Not acting style (I previously thought of including her acting style but didn't found any article describing it). Well, role selection doesn't sound good. So, i have changed it to performances and analysis (the section talks about her performances and their analysis). How is it?.Prashant talk 10:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Need some help!

Hello dear Bollyjeff, this user called The Red Pen of Doom is constantly removing filmography tables from actor pages though the tables are helpful and benefitting. I first thought he was right, but then I recently saw the discussions on Ranbir Kapoor's page and noticed that other editors like you have also been opposing his edits. He is now removing the table from Nivin Pauly's page and I think that's not right. Could you maybe just give a supporting statement on Pauly's page? That would be very nice. Thank you. Karthik Selvanayagam (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

archiving URL

hi, r u good at archiving URL's for viewing them in the future? bcoz u seem to have done that in Mughal-e-Azam. Now for Karnan, (which is currently a GA), the sources used are unlikely to live on forever and they are as crucial as the article's life. i know little on how to archive url's, so can u pls get the job done for me? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks, i finished the job. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I went to http://www.webcitation.org/ and archived all the important URL's there. and ProveIt is a wiki gadget. but if webcitation is taken over, will the archives also be lost? it simply says "will stop accepting new submissions end of 2013, unless we reach our fundraising goals to modernize and expand this service." additionally, i have no idea how to archive URL's in http://archive.org/index.php, where i can merely only search for URL's. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sridevi for Filmfare award

Hi! Okay, so I remember in 2005 when Kareena Kapoor got the award for Special Performance Award (equivalent to Special Award) in Chameli, and none of the main websites at that time say that she won it either (the websites only talk about her winning Best Actress Critics for Dev), yet this is still mentioned on her Wikipedia page, and is accepted (her page is now FA). And, I don't think SRK or Saif would pull that type of "joke" on Sridevi- that's mean!! So, I think it was a real award... Chulbul pandey ab (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh..and I forgot, Amisha Patel also received the award in 2002 for Gadar, but this is also not shown on the official Filmfare website. I also checked the site for the 2013 Awards (http://awards.filmfare.com/) - Sridevi's win isn't mentioned here either, BUT Yash Chopra who got a Lifetime Achievement award, wasn't mentioned either, and yet his win is acknowledged on his Wiki page...so I'm still thinking Sridevi DID get the award. Chulbul pandey ab (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Relax

Relax.....! Why you always think negative. Can't you think positive (probably, this is the reason why it failed at first time). For your information, I have collected all the sources and preserved in my inbox. You are saying to not even touch that copy-edited stuff...(See, Kapoor's page; it was drastically changed after it received copyedit from GOCE. The copyedited version was very different from the current. You can't totally depend on the copy-edit, you should use your mind too. You can't stick to text edited 1 month ago (it would change drastically during Second, fac). Dont panic, it is very much sourced....all the claims are linked to the present sources. If anything happens, then I would add (told you earlier about preservation of sources). If you could see Music career section, 5 sources are used only to prove that she signed a deal with UMG. And, all the claims are proved by just one. I went through whole sources, read every word and then removed unnecessary ones. When I'm finished with the sources (music sect.). Then, it would be stable again. Also, if there is bad grammar then correct it. I have given summary of every edit I have made. Two sources in personal life section were saying same thing (that she would not talk about her personal life), so what's is wrong if I used one source which proves different things at same time. Hope you can understand.Prashant talk 16:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank God...! You finally understood. I'm ok with the fact that you UNDID SOME REVISIONS BY ME. But, what Gleek said have hurt me to the core. I'm shattered and I don't know what to say. Is I'm that bad, that no one even have time to notice my work. Do you also think that I hadn'tcontributed to Chopra article? You know, I'm quite weak at heart and when someone hurts me then, I start thinking why it happened to me only. Maybe I'm wrong.Prashant talk 02:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Patience

please dont hurry before my edits are complete, I have added new source, show patience, apuroopam (jan 1 2002 ) and thamizan april 2002 Murrallli (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka chopra filmography

apuroopam was already listed in the filmography section of priyanka chopra as a 2005 film, before I have even edited this article. Further, here is the source which lists her name - tollywood.info/movie/a/apuroopam.htm - and IMDB will not go wrong in listing the date of the release of any film. Obviously she cannot act in a low budget Telugu film in 2005, after having strong hold in bollywood Murrallli (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nightmare!

Hey, all the NDTV sources are giving me a "nightmare". I removed all dead ndtv links (showing 404). But, I checked that Your Call with Priyanka Chopra:Full transcript is also dead now. What to do. Let me check if that was archieved by anyone. Prashant talk 16:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry......Thank God I got this link Your Call with Priyanka Chopra (Video), now I'm relaxed. Replacing it right now.Prashant talk 16:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to include that (just to prove Apuroopam was not her debut film). Why? Majority sources present in the article shows Thamizhan. So what is the need to describe the reason why the film was not her debut film. Also, those users are vandalizers (we have to prevent only). Then, we have to use several others to prove what vandalisers wants. Please, we don't need to make it unstable. Let it be stable for some days. That would be best for FAC.Prashant talk 15:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Hey...I have nominated Chopra article for FAC. As per earlier discussion, I nominated in April. Please, help me throughout the FAC. Fingers crossed this time. Hope it will be listed soon.Prashant talk 03:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to ask for that bud :) I was about to ask the same, if you could join me in the nomination. That is my pleasure. Please, do so right away. Cheers!Prashant talk 12:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Check the Verve "powerful women 2010" source; the youngest claim is listed. You know the youngest actress to win National Film Award for Best Actress was a regional actress (won at 17). She died. But, Chopra (at 27) is one of the youngest overall in every language and youngest actress to win for Hindi performance. Prashant talk 13:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I didn't added that, leave all this. Lets just hope, we wins this time.Prashant talk 14:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra

Hi! This has become really nightmare :) Listen, I propose a pattern change in the lead, a la Vidya Balan. I will first work on that in my sandbox. I will provide you with the link. If you guys like that, the current lead can be replaced with it. DId the article any significant copyedit after the last FAC? (apart from the very recent spurt of activity) So far as the lead is concerned, I don't feel any significant change since the last FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, here is the link. Please see the lead. Of course you may not like it. But it follows a particular pattern, (chronology, award, characteristics etc).--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It was copy edited again by another member of the GOCE. The sandbox does look pretty good. You basically moved the awards down a bit. I would actually like to rewrite part of it as "She was crowned Miss India and Miss World in 2000 before ..." You should ask Prashant to have a look also. BollyJeff | talk 01:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a great idea (the wins in 2000), I made that change. That take away the complexity of the sentence.

Besides moving the awards down, I also added 7 Khoon Maaf and Barfi for their importance in her acting career as far as critical reception is concerned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead (in the sandbox) is good but again, we have to make it unstable. Also, her career defining films are Kaminey and WYR as well. I think we should use Krrish her biggest commercial success at that time. Also, having four Para (containg 2 lines) is not a good idea. Could you please work again and make it more simple but elegant.Prashant talk 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I also feel the need to mention 2008;a major turning point in her career. If you have something to say, then you should say it on the fac No?Prashant talk 04:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay....look at the my version of lead in my sandbox. Sandbox 2. Hope it is a good version.Prashant talk 06:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like Hyder I'd liked to have had a good look at the article before renominating. It is way too soon to have renominated it in my opinion. As Dwai says it has barely been changed, I need time to look at it carefully as does Dwai I'm sure. Prashant, why the big rush? I suggest withdrawing it until it has been substantially edited and we are all ready for it. If on the other hand you are sure that not much can be done I'll try to take a look at it within the next few days.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bye the way, did you guys notice the recent edits made by OhConfucious in Kareena Kapoor? Moreover, Tony1 also noted the flaws in its prose. They were not present in the FAC, so could not comment. Chopra article has similar characteristics. I do not have the English proficiency to locate all such faults though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Chopra was edited specifically to look more like Kapoor, since it passed FA. Now after passing its two month long FA, Kapoor is suddenly not good?!? This is getting to be very frustrating, guys. BollyJeff | talk 14:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A recurring theme in the recent edits in Kapoor was overuse of quotes. You can try to comb Chopra for that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotes by her, or by reviewers? Honestly, various info has gone in and gone out multiple times. When it goes out, then people say the article in not interesting enough. When it goes in, well you are seeing what happens. I just don't know what to do anymore, and am beginning to loose faith in this community. BollyJeff | talk 14:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Both kind of quotes (her and reviewers). I have not read the Kapoor or Chopra article recently, so do not know the specifics.

Well, individual views are bound to be different. Writing on showbiz personalities is difficult, because differentiating fan cruft from neutral tone becomes tough. And the point you mentioned (interesting versus overuse etc) is valid also. Personally I had a feeling that Kareena Kapoor article still had such tendency to "fancruftiness" and so abstained from commenting on prose in the FAC. However, somehow Vidya Balan article read less so. I cannot point out objectively why it felt so, but it did!

IMO, just wait and watch what happens to Kapoor article. And react to comments as those come in Chopra FAC. And consider changing the lead (I grossly liked Prashant's version as well). And definitely, don't loose faith :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"grossly liked"? Meaning? BollyJeff | talk 15:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Should be "overall liked", signifying that I did not read it with great concentration, but just casually read.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, John Le Mesurier was recently described as "not very good" from a veteran on here.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If I was Prasant I'd simply db-author the page and take it out otherwise yes it'll go to 3rd.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have withdrawed the nom as per senior editors suggestions.Prashant talk 19:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Well, I have removed WYR? from the lead and even moved awards below. Look up now. I think it is looking better now.Prashant talk 19:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay....but why you removed "major turning point". Even sources present in the article says so.Prashant talk 20:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right (regarding "turning point"). It doesn't go well with the lines. Leave that. I have added new lead in the article and Listen, we have to be very careful now. Waiting for inputs (from Dr Blofeld and Dwaipayan), their help is very much needed. I heard saying about adding quotes of Chopra on her roles. I think Dwaipayan is right. If you could see, I have adopted that in Huma Qureshi article. Something like that "she described her character as "so and so". Chopra who portrayed "xyz" said that her character.... Like that. But, we have to find some sources. Well I could add some (only for her best role).Prashant talk 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Then, it is fine. I think you should have to use high level English in the article to strengthen its impact. Dr. Blofeld might help us.Prashant talk 03:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've brought up a before and after on the talk page, please discuss the disputed lead issues there. Don't worry about it too much Jeff, we'll sort things out, no need to stress out about it (at least now it isn't a current FAC!).♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Will look at Chopra later in the week.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

New section

I can't believe that an experienced editor such as yourself would let Prashant add such fancruft to Chopra's article, and encourage him to do so. If you followed the recent article history, you will see that I tried to improve the lead, but since my contributions are not welcome and are met with such snide remarks, I think that it's better for me to step away. Thank you. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 07:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bolly, I am just trying to help out. I want to see many, many Indian film related articles as FA on Wikipedia, and that's why I am insisting on making those changes; you want to support me or not is completely upto you. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 17:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reported Pks1142 here. I would appreciate your support in this matter. Thank you. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 05:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Indic scripts in articles

I noted your comments in the previous "indic scripts in lead" discussion. I would appreciate it if you would comment at the new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Indic scripts in lead. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sholay

ARe you interested in taking it to peer review, followed by a possible FAC? --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked at MeA also. Indeed I have that book on MeA by Warsi, but the book did not prove to be of much help. I added several references from Warsi's book in MeA. Sholay seemed to be a relatively easier task. I used to have Anupama Chopra's book, but have lost it now; the good thing is many pages of Chopra's book is available in google book.

Besides polishing the prose, and addressing some technical issues (such as providing proper equivalent of rupees), the one aspect the Sholay might need is addition of a section (even though small) on theme/motif etc. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The origin section merely enumerates the inspiration films. If we have specific patterns of inspiration (good versus bad etc) that could come under themes. I just started the theme section with two sentences, hopefully will grow more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Jeff, I'll be resuming my work on Chopra over the weekend. Been a bit busy with AFDs.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, refs have to be consistent. But I was not worrying about that right now. Right now, I was just adding stuffs, without paying great attention to reference style.

For books, sfn is prefrable. For website references, cite web, cite news are ok. Mixing sfn with cite web is acceptable, many FAs do that.

Although for Mother India, we used sfn for ALL references (book and web), that is as such not needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good thing you did, tagging with rs template. I guess the article should be ready for peer review pretty soon, may be within a few days.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just fixed that. You dont need the "ref" and "/ref" on either sides of sfn. That's why it was giving error message.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For Mother India, I had the Gayatri Chatterjee book with me, so that was big help. All the other sources for Mother India came by web searching, google book etc.

The Prasad themes has Banerjea citation as well because those lines were available in Banerjea's book (which, in turn, is available online). Prasad's book is not available. So, in case someone wants to cross-check online, that can be done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, we do not need to include every available information for being comprehensive. There may be anecdotes and trivia about filming, for example, which is not included in Sholay; that is fine. I have not read production section properly yet. Will do do soon. Regarding MeA, it is not comprehensive because it is missing themes/motifs section, and I guess there are articles published on that aspect of the film (of course if there is nothing available in that regard, then no problem). Also, peer review (and hoping that editors will give suggestions there) would be the next step for Sholay.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if Planet Bollywood would be considered a RS. I personally think it should be though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead with the PR.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Have been busy in real life, so could not follow the peer review for one week. Hopefully will be able to edit regularly from next week.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hey Bollyjeff! I was wondering, would you be willing to copy-edit Imran Khan?. It recently passed GA but a veteran editor is concerned about the number of 'direct quotes' in the article. Some of them need to paraphrased. I would've done it myself, but I'm not good at it. GleekVampire | talk! 06:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Did not you read my message? What's the problem with you? i said is it not okay for you if Mileva Marić is well known for being einstein's wife? And you are talking about abhishek bachchan like you are his PA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aish.ego (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes his dad arranged films for him before his marriage. But I said he is known "OUTSIDE INDIA" for being her husband or his son.Booth of them are in Taussads meuseum etc. Where is he known outside India? He came to Operah Winfrey because she is a friend of Aishwarya. Just ater marriage she also took him to the Cannes. And by the way, malevia meric, Einstein's wife, was also related to physics, and is reportedly known or being helpful in E= mc2 equation.She said in a letter "just finished some work which will make my husband world famous". There is a long list of sch women but i dont think i hav to research on it.. Better is that u accept a simple act about Abhishek Bachchan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aish.ego (talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Which overlinking? Please, tell me. I'm unable to find.Prashant talk 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

O those, Earlier it was unlinked (only linked at 1st occurrence. But, the reviewer asked me to link all publishers or don't link any. That's why i had to link all of them. Well, i just found that Barfi! has also passed GA status. I need your more congrulatory messages hehe.Prashant talk 18:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I know what are you trying to say but, I think Preity Zinta follows the same pattern. It also has same thing. All publishers are linked st every single occursnce in the references.Prashant talk 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd rather that we were consistent with sources. I'd rather see them all linked than just once and I think the sources look better for doing so. But I gave the choice for either link all or none, I'd rather they were consistent either way.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The revision which was passed to GA, I think that means old action. It says date on which article passed. That version from where it got GA icon. I got that id from URL of that revision.Prashant talk 18:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeff, seriously do you not think that I'm aware of every silly policy which was invented on wikipedia? Your choice if you want to delink them all but please be consistent.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, make whatever edits you wish. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Bollyjeff, Can you provide any evidence regarding Film Kati Patang and Aan Milo Sajna about the date of releases that you have displayed on Wikipedia page. Because I have strong evidence regarding both these film's released dates from National Film Archive Of India,Pune. only the thing is I'm not getting a page or link.

Regards Atul Talashikar

As you have said , I just want to mark you to pay attention what I want to show. You have said If a film For example Kati Patang as from your sources was released in 1970 that should be able to be nominated in 1971 film fare awards but for your kind information it has shown in the list of 1972 film fare awards as because it was commercially released on 29 January 1971 clearly. You can see film fare web site or binaca geetmala Wikipedia page. My point is if some body want to see a page regarding Kati Patang it should have same released year for all related Wikipedia page but the fact is it doesn't.

Regards Atul Talashikar

My dear friend, Mr.Bollyjeff, thanks a lot for your data that you have sent to me.But Most of the books and encyclopedia have taken the released year of film Kati Patang as 1970 because the music was released in December 1970 and it has got censored certification in December 1970 that doesn't prove that the film was released commercially on Box Office in 1970 but the fact is film was officially released on Box office in 29th January 1971 and that is why it was included in film fare award list in 1971 category that was given in the ceremony held in the year 1972.You can check film fare awards list or web site. My source is authentic and it is National Film Archive of India(राष्ट्रीय फिल्म संग्रहालय)and on further it was first released in Delhi and North India on above date and was released after in Mumbai and rest India.If you are in Mumbai ,please got to Times of India Library you will get it right information that I have given here.My motive is to give correct information to the people. So please do it.

Regards Atul Talashikar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Talashikar (talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not like that, please don't take it other way, my self have seen the actual date of release in screen issue of January 1971 and also I've searched a lot in December 1970 issue but I couldn't get it.Also I've not said that the others of encyclopedia are wrong and my self only is right. For that purpose I'll send you the scan copy from of screen issue from National Film Archive of India, Pune. So kindly please send your e-mail ID for the convenience.Similarly you can check the Wikipedia page of Binaca Geetmala Page in which there was not single entry of a song from 1970 list for Film Kati Patang, It has got official entry in the year 1971 only.

Regards Atul Talashikar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Talashikar (talk • contribs) 05:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My dear friend ,Mr.Bollyjeff, can you please give me your personal mail Id so that I can mail you the soft copy of Screen 8 January 1971 for editing the date of release of film Kati Patang and Aan Milo Sajana...

Regards Atul Talashikar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Talashikar (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My dear friend ,Mr.Bollyjeff,I've absolutely no problem, but where can I upload this because it's a archive from Screen Issue of 1971 and that's why I want your personal mail Id so that I can able to mail you and then you can change or edit Kati Patang and Aan Milo Sajana page.My mail Id is attugr8@gmail.com that you already knew it, so my humble request to you to send your mail Id to me so that we both can put forward the authentic and true information about these 2 films for entire global people.

Regards Atul Talashikar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.77.30 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC) No, my dear friend, you don't have to tell me your mail Id through this page, you can directly mail me in my given mail Id. Regards Atul Talashikar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Talashikar (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Where Can I upload a screen issue of 1971 January so that you can see it and edit the info of kati patang and aan milo sajana... Regards Atul Talashikar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Talashikar (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sholay CD cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Sholay CD cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing on Sholay

I have been thinking whether that image (rocky location) should be added. God that you went ahead and added it. Also, was trying to think if any appropriate image can be found for themes section. Any idea?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha... ROFL.... that's hilarious.

Well, I don't know whether that much was needed! But the thing is scholarly articles are available, quite a few, on such an angle! So, we have to include that for the sake of comprehensiveness. Now, whether that can be reduced in amount, yes, possible; we'll have a look. Actually, I did not know the meaning of homosocial, learned that during this; it actually is quite different from homosexuality.

I think we have not missed any major themes: feudalism, mobilization of people, violence, homo (!), national allegory... Actually during the FAC of Mother India, more thematic things were uncovered, and needed to be added. So, this time as much as possible should be covered.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I wish we had a pencil sketch or drawing of Gabbar Singh, that would have been really nice.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, since these are pretty much common in scholarly articles. omitting would be challenge to comprehensiveness. If no sources had mentioned it, we would not have included it either. As for understanding of readers, the readers of this article could be anybody, from someone who has no idea of feudalism (as an example) to someone who has a doctorate in Indian feudalism. Yes, one thing is whether we can make these things even more easily understandable to everyone. I have tried as much as possible, but (in my English capacity), making those more easy is difficult.

Yes, I think I have come across a similar aspect too (that some other films were anti-feudalism whereas this one was pro-feudalism). actually, the theme section does say that this film is pro-feudalism, in some flowery language! Anyway, this is far from FAC still. and we may have to do more work.

I have read somewhere some more analysis on violence as well. Will try to dig up later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Far" because peer review is in between. It may (or may not) take some time. So, far is just a "time"-related far.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I just saw Gabbar Singh editing Priyanka Chopra article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of AP

I have added the link to Bengal cinema as Tollywood redirected to the AP article. Some people refer even the Bengal cinema as Tollywood and hence it needs a mention. TheStrikeΣagle 12:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

hehehe....sure...I tried to remember the name of the temp but failed. So had to use italics. Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 12:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for updating WP:INDICSCRIPT

Hello, Bollyjeff. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Request to clarify WP:INDICSCRIPT.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Smarojit

Hey bud! How's it going? Just out of curiosity, do you know what happened to Smarojit? Both of us had decided to take Rani Mukerji and Kajol to FA, but he seems to have retired. I've been quite inactive lately due to my busy schedule and didn't notice when he left. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 22:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I just don't want to say anything about a certain individual — I saw how he was during Kapoor's FAC. The news about Smaro leaving is really upsetting... can't believe all this happened! :( Anyways, I can't really change what happened, but I do hope that he decides to come back. What's up with you lately? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 22:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well considering the upward trajectory of actresses in Bollywood and the roles they are getting, shouldn't it be the same here as well? LOL :) Barring, SRK's article and to some extent Saif (which I expanded a few years back) and Mr. Bachchan, all of the other actors' pages are stubs; they will require a lot of work. For now, I'm keen on taking 3 Idiots at least to GA. Would you be able to help out with that? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 23:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Will take a look at it in the next few days and comment. Btw, I'm having trouble finding sources for the budget of Jab We Met & 3 Idiots. Since you're pretty good with finding sources, would you be able to help out with that? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow... That was quick! Lol. But isn't Planet Bollywood unreliable? That was the only source that I came across, but I decided not to use it. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't! Is it a paid service? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Bollyjeff. You have new messages at TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HEL

Hello Bollyjeff, I'm writing to ask you the reason why you deleted the voice "Hen egg lysozyme" from the disambiguation list of the word "HEL". Thank you, Angelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.204.41.157 (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy Wikibirthday!

Happy wikibirthday Bollyjeff. Well I'm very much of disturbed right now. I don't know what to do and what to not. You know I worked so hard on every article. Qureshi's article was like an advertisement but, I worked hard and....Same for 7KM (though it passed easily), but is is not my fault, as Gleek reviewed it and gave it an easy pass just to show that he is also a reviewer and has some contributions as a reviewer also. But, where's my fault. You know that, I mean you have also developed so many articles from a stub to developed one (PC is a great example), the time I gave to these article. Now, I'm worried if I can work on these stubs anymore. For Gleek, I want to say as he should have posted issues on GAs review page. Nothing I can say more. Its tiring and irritating. Dr. B is also worried for the same.Prashant talk 03:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll do that. But, what about that inexperienced reviewer who was questioning my contribution on Priyanka Chopra. Only reverting things, adding photos and adding unwanted things like This movie was adapted from Hollywood movie So and So, All his contribution were baseless. He should know what he has done and not to criticize others. He has ruined my article 7 Khoon Maaf and had made the situation a hell. That was not my fault that GleekVampire passed it like anything, without finding issue just to show he is a reviewer also. HuhPrashant talk 02:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't assume yourself Bollyjeff, I was not saying about Dharm. I was saying about GleekVampire. If the same would have been happened with you, then what you would have done? Its just irritated me and those words says truth. I don't have problem with Dharm as I haven't talked to him before. As for Gleek, I don't even want to talk. I don't know why? Dharm did that.Prashant talk 17:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is your article was reassessed just a day after it passed it GA and one after other? Please! I'm not here to argue that you are cool and I'm hot tempered. But, some users on Wikipedia are too much. Some edits with two accounts, some chat through email and plan, to whom they should target. Some even edit through IPs and revert them ASAP to increase their contribution number.Prashant talk 17:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Snow White GA review

Hello there, and thank you for taking an interest. Like yourself, I have spent much time and effort on certain articles, prior to submitting them to GA (see Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, Dreamtime (Duerr book), Luo Yigu, or the current page at Nelson Mandela, all of which are predominantly my own work). However, there are other topics, like the 2001 Snow White film, which are by their very nature far smaller, and arguably of lesser significance. I used every source that I could find to build up that particular page, and I do believe that it fits the GA criteria, as did the reviewer. I admit that the page is still small and not very complex, but that is due (I hope) not to my own negligence of the sources, but to the scant sources available. GA status should be bestowed upon articles irrespective of how significant and substantial the topic itself is; that means that even if a page is small and not very significance, it should still be as worthy of GA as, for instance, the page on Mandela is. If you have any suggestions as to how the page could be improved, then I would be happy to hear them. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Plan

Hi! Now that I am done with Tripura, we should accelerate the proceedings on Sholay. Regarding the length, I think the best thing to do will be to add an explanatory note, stating what is stated in the BBFC page (three lengths and that conversion from film to VHS reduces the length by approx 4%). Besides that, I think we are not going to get much from peer review.

Regarding FA nomination, it would be great if you nominate the article, with me added as a co nominator. If you think anyone else should be conom as well, you can ask him/her if they wish to be.

will you be relatively available for the next 3-4 weeks? In that case, you can go ahead and start the nomination after adding the explanatory note for the length.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should add a note about nett gross as well. BTW, it is spelled "net" in one place and "nett" in another. Does it mean gross minus taxes? What kind of taxes? Also, the R300c source does not say net. Any way of knowing how much difference it would make? This link suggests it is double. Really, 100% tax? Would certainly account for 1.6 vs 3 billion. BollyJeff | talk 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did notice this note on net versus gross. But did not have any answer readily, and was rather thinking probably we would be able to avoid this by simply using the language in the sources, and not delving into their exact meaning. Anyway, this may need some investigation; and I am kind of pessimistic in this regard that we won't have any answer, just like many box office related question on Indian films.

oh, I did not notice the proceedings on Priyanka Chopra. Personally speaking, I don't think Priyanka Chopra article stands much chance, as of now. Also, film articles are relatively easier than personalities. I think we should definitely give preference to Sholay.

DDLJ is merely listed as having potential for FA, not even under the category of under preparation for FA. Indeed it will need quite of a bit of work. So no worry about that. Actually I was thinking to buy a second hand version of that book; if you already had that book, I won't buy it! --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

HI! Fortunately, Box Office India has a page explaining gross and nett gross. I added an explanatory note in Sholay for that. However, due to some technical reason which I could not find out, the reference is not appearing properly, giving sn error message in red. Can you have a look, please? A fresh pair o eyes might be able to locate the technical error.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are perhaps correct in saying that such formatting of efns cannot accommodate ref. Anyway, now the efn formatting has been changed, and refs appear ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that's a point (prose) which is beyond my capabilities. I do not have the professional level of English. I didn't know you are a native speaker! Definitely you have an advantage, and at least you can go ahead and change the rose as you deem appropriate.

Regarding the lead, the order is perhaps not important (I mean, it does not need to be in the same order as article sections). Yes, the lead itself should be sufficient enough as a stand-alone small article describing the topic, and so, needs good flow (but not necessarily in the same order as the body of the article). In my limited English knowledge, the lead seems overall appropriate so far as flow is concerned; however, better English users are likely to see faults.

The ideal way would be to get someone with mastery over the language to have a look at the article. Anyone in mind?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you concerned about the general prose quality, or, do you have some specific sections in mind?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

DDLJ

Did you use Chopra's book for DDLJ extensively? Do you have it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem?

Its seems that you have joined Pleasant, Smaro and gleek to attack me. Hello! I'm not here to talk to you or listen to other. I haven't reverted any of your edits. Please, be polite and what you are doing is not right. What you keep telling Go home, go home? Is Wikipedia is your property? Learn to work without eyeing other contributions. I'm getting sick of you all. Chatting through email and you all have made a plan to get me blocked on this Wikipedia. I don't want to talk to anyone. What if when I try to interfere in your work. I have worked so hard on that article and that pleasant has breaked paras and have splitted lines sections. This is copy editing? You guys will never learn.Prashant! talk 19:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Try to learn what had happened. That article was listed at GOCE to get a copy edit (now removed as pleasant copy edited; though I can list many wrong things). I wanted an experienced editor to copy edit (he is not from GOCE and not as experienced) then why he chose to copy edit that article. He himself have listed his article to copy edit. If he is smart enough to copy edit, first he should copy edit his own. No? He just created three sub sections under development and moved realase to bottom. Placed some lines from here to there. That wad copy edit? I have faced many problems due to this groupies and I don't want t face it again. I'm not telling that the article is mine. I just said that I have developed that article from and advertisement stub to a decent article and why he chose to interfere in only this article as Wikipedia is full of 1000000 articles. He should work on a stub and experience what one goes through. You are telling me to go home? Please tell them not to try to get me block so that they can own my contributions and credit.Prashant! talk 19:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those editings. But, he had just placed things from here to there and not have edited anything. Okay....ill work on it and will copy edit by myself. Now, everyone seems to have eyeing each and every step of mine to criticize and attack me. Well I'm reverting it back and copy editing myself.Prashant! talk 19:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi...well, I'm working on Aashiqui 2. There are not any pictures regarding the promotion, album artwork and the theatrical poster should also be uploaded. Would you please upload it as i plan it for GA to be passed on 26 May 2013 (1 month of release). Please, help me. I also want the older Aashiqui poster as I want to use it in the marketing as the part 2 poster takes influence from earlier.Prashant! talk 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have asked Dwai. also, lets see what he says. I know about copyright violation but that image (fashion)...hmmm I didn't looked to its history nor did I checked. Well, right now I only working on Aashiqui and I plan it to pass GA on 26. Meanwhile, would you please copy edit when I finish it?Prashant! talk 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mughal-e-Azam

Are u working on making it FA? If yes, there are some valuable points here [3] ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Pls see this edit of User Shaku India, and tell me whether he did right or wrong. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Shaku India has arranged for a final discussion on what should stay and what should not. Pls visit his talkpage for the final verdict. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. Can you open a peer review for Mughal e-Azam? I think we can get it up to FA status, hope you're not deterred from doing so.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mughal-e-Azam/archive1, let's get the ball rolling.. If you don't want to commit to it then I'm sure people will help me address any outstanding issues. I might try to see if I can find anything further in google books tomorrow.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The peer review for Mughal-e-azam has been closed. Should it be reopened? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the music reviews for MeA are less, I think there need not be a separate article for the soundtrack. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mughal-e-Azam was last edited on 13 September, and today is 26 September. There have been no additional discussions since then. Does that mean the article is eligible for FA? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to begin editing it this weekend, promise. I've just got Highbeam back too which might possibly help. Sorry for the delay!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

To both of you, I have one question: How is this image being used in Mughal-e-Azam? Because soundtrack images can only be used in an article's top infobox, and MeA's soundtrack does not have a separate article. (Though it deserves to have) Same case for the soundtrack image in Sholay. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Deewaar

Some trivia from here [4] can be added to the 1975 film by u, coz I have no time. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Crisco

I have addressed some. You can continue with the rest. The comments on themes will need more time, as we'll have to dig out the books again and read.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Books

Haywards book is available (through the given ISBN) in Amazon, including a small preview; but google book does not have that book through the isbn. I will check the Holtzman's isbn later.

Which one did you delete? I mean after which sentence?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I reinserted the Hayward ref for first Masala film, now quoting the exact sentence from the book. Search for sholay in Amazon's entry of the book after signing in.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not notice the sentence had changed. Now that we have at least two good references, we can change it to something like "Sholay was one of the first Masala films" (not using the word considered).--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, on clicking the isbn of Holtzman reference, it is taking me to the correct book (Bollywood and Globalization: Indian Popular Cinema, Nation, and Diaspora). Holtzman wrote one chapter of this book.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

By direct link, do you mean direct link to exact page? Exact page link may not be there if multiple pages have Ben used, in such cases the google book link to the book as a whole is used. Since isbn is given, one has the option to find the boom out in amazon or google or other database. Also, google book access may differ among geographical regions/countries. What is preview in one country may be snippet view in another country. You don't need to URL link as such, if isbn is there. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I usually provide the url link, also. I am not sure why they are not present in those five. We can add the url link to them. It is easy for readers to click the link, rather than clicking isbn and then again click something from another page (two-step process).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was just going over newspaper references, and found several missing parameters. I fixed those. You also have look on all non-book refs. Missing usual parameters such as publication date of newspaper articles would be very bad. Take some time, and then decide on nominating date. May be within this weekend.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sholay FAC

Hi! I don't think we need to wait for Kahaani FAC to be over. You can go ahead and start Sholay FAC; you will be the main nominator, while I'd definitely share the glory to be the co-nom :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bollyjeff. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Katrina edits

Regarding the edits on Katrina's page, I know that is her mother because they were pictured together many times. As for the spelling of her surname, I came across her family members' Facebook profiles and they were all spelled that way. Also, if you look up Susanna or Isabella Turcotte you will find different search results which confirms that this is the correct spelling. Aryan1992 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra

As you seem to be an ace on Wikipedia punctuation rules, perhaps you can help with another inconsistency in Priyanka Chopra. Many sentences which end with a quote have the final period outside the quote (for example ...credited her for "bringing back the seductress to the silver screen". or ...the actor is emerging as one of the finest talents in these fast-changing times".) The majority, however, have the period before the quote - correctly I believe. A period after the quote appears strange to me although I can go along with a short expression inside quotes at the end of a sentence (...asserted that she showed "no promise".). The same problem occurs with commas. Any advice on this? Is it worthwhile aiming for consistency here? --Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Request on Kahaani FAC

Hi! I will be travelling for several days (about two weeks), with very limited access to internet. Although I'll leave a note on that in the FAC page, if something important comes up there, can you please take a look? I am requesting the same to Tito and Karthik. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's on my watchlist, but I myself will be travelling next week. BollyJeff | talk 01:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, when you travel, please leave a note at the Sholay FAC, because none of us may be readily available.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh good idea, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 13:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bollyjeff. You have new messages at Talk:Dhoom 2.
Message added 06:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Dil Se

I would appreciate if you weight-in with your view here. Thank you and regards--Isaacsirup (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Great news!

Great news! Kahaani has just passed the FAC!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 17:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Jab Tak Hai Jaan

Hi, if you are interested, can you please peer review Jab Tak Hai Jaan? Reply me in my talk page. Thanks, ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 13:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Chopra FAC

What a crying shame, I was going to take great pride in the fact that we'd received no oppose votes or controversies, Prashant has ruined it permanently for everybody. What makes it worse is that I told him about 5 times to just drop it, extra "votes" don't matter, and that it was well on course to passing, and the fact he not only hounded Brian Cass and Wehalt twice in two days but also emailed them probably twice too. Generally I am ready to forgive people for stupidity but what he has done in spite of the time I took to warn him not to beg for input from those people is quite unforgivable, at the worst possible moment he blew it. Let's just hope that his little stunt won't affect the ultimate outcome. I've put him on my spam email list, I've given him enough chances to prove himself, but when I really needed him the most to be patient he couldn't show us any respect. I've stuck up for him a lot and given him some good advice, which I'd hoped would help him develop into a maturer person and editor. He seriously needs to learn to be patient as it is obvious that he's desperate to get an FA as soon as possible; he lacks what comes with maturity; foresight. It rather reminds me of the the young boy who gets up in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve to open and play with his train set his parents had wrapped up and were ready to give him in only a few hours time but he couldn't help himself but get there first. If anything comes out of this bombed FAC it is that never again will he be overcome by impatience and that if one or two editors he generally trusts give him some advice to seriously heed their warnings. Bitterly disappointed in him, not often I can really say that about editors on here. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Bollyjeff. You know that my intention was pure. I have cried seeing what happened on the FAC. I was too desperate to take it to FA ASAP. But, once I knew what it mean, I stopped asking others. Well, you know how much i want this article to be an FA. I'm very ashamed of my behavior. I apologized to Brain and Crisco. But, I never asked their support but the constructive comments. Please, forgive me. I can't say more.—Prashant 03:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Bollyjeff, well I know that I should be ashamed of myself and I'ma ashamed of my behavior. But, please From know I really want to improve and come across all odds. Some advice would be great if you could give. Moreover, I really sorry for the fac but trust me, come on you know better that how much I wanted it to become an FA.—Prashant 00:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For not getting involved with the silly shenanigans of a certain co-nom at the Chopra FAC and for remaining dignified in a very unfortunate defeat. CassiantoTalk 10:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite right too! If you and Doc B go back, please drop me a line. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of Kahaani FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your language

What is all this? ....Shame on you, go leave Wikipedia, you should leave it. I'm very nice to you, so please be nice to me too. Its very frustrating what you always says about me. I can also use this kind of language but I don't. This kind of language seems abusive to me. So, please don't let it happen again. I respect you, so take care about your words.—Prashant 20:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am also mad about your screwing up of the FAC, and frustrated that your edits often cause controversy. BollyJeff | talk 20:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If that was for postivity, I would have removed that negative review of Thamizhan and most importantly Fashion. But, im trying to be as neutral as I can. The only thing It making me mad, is the Humraaz thing as Chopra has confessed 100times that She left the project and that's it. What happened, why happened is not important. It is fine to say that and it doesn't highlight positivity or negativity. It just needed a correction. If i wouldn't have got that source, i wouldn't have asked you. But, Chopra has told ...she is the beat person who knows about debut, hits and flops.—Prashant 21:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Chopra

Apologies for deleting the debut - don't know what happened there. Was eaten. I posted this (in a longer form) to the talk but the section was removed as I posted. Keep an eye on article's stability, fwiw, which I understand is difficult for a subject such as this, but wanted to mention. Sandboxing might not be a bad idea. I will probably be reviewing again because she's interesting to me. Victoria (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Vishal Veeru Devgan

Hello Jef

Recently I made an edit in Ajay devgan's page. The edit was adding 'Veeru' (his fathers name) as his middle name. In India fathers name is unanimously accepted as the middle name of that person so when adding Veeru to his name there's no need for adding a source. I will immediately make the edit if you respond in accordance.

Regards Sohambanerjee1998 talk 06:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Jef I provided the source (Koimoi).

Sohambanerjee1998 talk 14:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ek Kahaani Sunau?

Hi Jeff

A few hours ago I uploaded a file called Kahaani Album Art and added it to FA Article Kahaani but you reverted it saying It looks too much like the film poster; will not pass non-free usage ploicy. I would like to clear one aspect before making any statement that I have no grudge against you and I am going forward in this discussion assuming good faith, I hope and think that you understand the same. The album art I uploaded is original album art (look at the T-Series logo). Now you stated that looks extremely like the original poster and therefore will not pass Non-free fair usage policy, I have read Non-free usage policy of Wikipedia but it is stated nowhere that if an album art has similarities to the theatrical poster it should not be used. Going by your opinion I suggest that you contact the graphic artist of the album art regarding the issue, not me! :) Jokes apart I would be more than happy if you post on my talk page with your opinion. Till the matter is resolved I am adding the image to the article as I don't want an image-bot to post on my talk page.

Regards

---$o#aM ❊  আড্ডা  16:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sholay

So, the fac seems to move smoothly so far :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, four supports, but not many comments; some had commented before. I hope the delegates have enough info to make a good decision. BollyJeff | talk 05:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Crisco already had reviewed it in the peer review. That's definitely a plus point. Are you working currently on anything else?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

MEA

I got a source which says the cost of tickets were Rs.100, while the original was Rs. 1.50 I don't know if it is useful but I thought to inform you. here.—Prashant 13:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I used it, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 22:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I had these two sources for Sholay as well which say Sippy changed the climax due to Censor board. Borad members were against the violence in the film. I don't know are they helpful or not but still sending. this and this.—Prashant 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

the censor bord's concerns bout violence nd the alternative climax is discussed in the alternative version section. These two article, liks given by Prashant, discusses that in details, I feel.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I used the second one because it tell how and why the ending was re-shot. BollyJeff | talk 02:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Thank you for cooperating with me on the subject of Kahaani Soundtrack and album art issue and behaving in the best manner possible in such a sensitive issue. ---$o#aM ❊  আড্ডা  06:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

PC FAC

Was this discussed with you guys somewhere? I don't recall the sudden nomination to be prepared. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks! Well, I wasn't able to see the DYK, when it was on the main page as I was traveling. Nevertheless, I'm happy that it was done very quickly. Also, I'm quite sad as I missed some DYKs for Fashion, Kaminey...(as I wasn't knowing the DYK criteria). But, I'll take care when I'll expand other article. Also, you have congrtulated many times bu, in some days get ready to hear tons of congratulations for your FACs.—Prashant 02:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Good that you found great sources for Jacqueline Fernandez birthdate. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Double FA!

Many, many, many congratulations on both Sholay and Priyanka Chopra. :) --smarojit ^HD 01:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats to you, too! Double dose!--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Happy!

OMG! I was traveling again and I woke up to a heartwarming news. Congratulations Bollyjeff for both the FAs. Love love love....Thank You for being an amazing co-writer.—Prashant 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For getting arguably India's most important and high-profile film up to FA status. A magnificent achievement and a shining day for Indian cinema on wikipedia!! A hearty congrats!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you want to work on next?Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 12:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but why the name change? I was originally planning to take Mughal-e-Azam to FA, and Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! to GA next, but now I am thinking to just slow down some. I am a bit burned out after those two FAs, and having trouble getting motivated. BollyJeff | talk 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Chopra FAC

A big congrats from my side :) Your hard work really paid off. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would like to congratulate u for promoting Sholay and Priyanka Chopra to FA status. But how-come both articles have not yet been assessed as FA class? Plus, now r u interested in any other projects? I'm searching for ppl to review Chandralekha (1948 film), which I believe is very capable of GA. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAC/ar says it could take a few days. BollyJeff | talk 15:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your hard work and effort to getting two very important articles of Indian cinema to FA status. Congratulations! —Prashant 17:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bollyjeff, and you deserve this and Sholay. I hope you'll not be deterred from future FAs. It is gruelling, yes, but Sholay in particular is extremely important for India on wikipedia and you've done a tremendous job in promoting it!!Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 07:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You deserve this barnstar for your recent success at the Priyanka Chopra FAC! --Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 06:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sholay on main page

Hey, I think it will be a good idea if you or User:Dwaipayanc could request Sholay to be featured on the main page on the 15th of August in this page. --smarojit ^HD 03:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The article finally has the FA icon, but some other problem seems present: My browser (google chrome) still reads Sholay as "A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently a featured article candidate." What happened? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be better for next year's anniversary of Indian cinema (like Mother India this year). Independence Day is ok, but less desirable, at least to me.what say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The goal was to get stuff done it this year; 2013 is the anniversary year. I say ASAP; 15 August date of release is good. It looks fine to me Kailash. BollyJeff | talk 06:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dwai, I am sure by next year, we will have another important article to feature. In my opinion, 15th August will be perfect. And Bollyjeff, to address your doubt, you can specifically ask on the page linked above, for the 15th of August. All the information is provided in that page itself. So read it, and nominate it asap, before some other article gets booked for that date. --smarojit ^HD 07:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it's fine then. I am running short of time. Can you guys (Smarojit or Bollyjeff) please do the request for TFA?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, being a principal contributor, you should nominate it. And btw, thanks for the revert at Aishwarya Rai. I had reverted it because I did not see the source, and the claim is very laughable! --smarojit ^HD 14:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, I thought my work was done on this, and that it would just appear on the main page. Now there is more work to do?! How do you make a 'blurb'? Is it more than just the lead? I don't have time for all this right now, so it may be a while before I can get to it. BollyJeff | talk 17:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I added the request. BollyJeff | talk 02:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

PR

Thanks for Comments. I Think I have resolved (though removed earnings), still needs chopping aentences. I would be happy, if you list more comments. Thanks.—Prashant 03:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

Are u interested to take part in the peer review of Chandralekha (1948 film)? I do believe it has the potential to become as good as a GA. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

sorting

Hey! What is still not working? I'm not understanding what? Why?? Could you explain (what does it mean 14, 140 before 25???—Prashant 03:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about sorting tables. So, please don't shout!! If you can't help! It's fine.—Prashant 13:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

PC (main page)

Hey! If you want the article to appear soon, then 14 August or maybe 18 August is a good choice. I don't think IMC anniversary had anything to do with the article. It is not that her single topped Hot 100. I think 14 August is anniversary of Kaminey and 18 is her birthday not month though. I think Kaminey anniversary is more important seeing its cult status.—Prashant 23:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Here it is in my User:Prashant!/sandbox5. Edit it and I'll nominate it today. Thanks.—Prashant 23:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bollyjeff!, I re-worked on the lead as it was not describing her film career much like article lead. I looked at other Indian FA (appearance version) and modelled like them (they don't say about philanthropy and other works, one should read the article). If you want to tweak it a bit, tweak. Thanks. Ping me on my talk page, so that I would know.—Prashant 13:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why?? Its important that only I should compromise?? What about you Bollyjeff? First you said let make it appear on the main page this year, I agreed. Not just this, my earlier work like her artistry or whatever, why should I only compromise? You can't compromise not for a single time.

By the way, I don't think so that your version describes her career, other than, it only talks about her other works. Where it is mentioned about her biggest role in the original lead??? I would advice to see [this. And, please don't cause any kind of trouble for now!!—Prashant 00:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have shorten the lead and added request for TFA (August 14). I hope you'll like it.—Prashant 01:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey Jeff, take a look at these userboxes created by me:

Code	Result
{{User:Pleasant1623/The Shining}}	THE SHiNiNG"HEEERE'S JOHNNY!"	Usage
{{User:UBX/Kahaani}}	KHello Bollyjeff, I am Bob Biswas. Do you have a minute?	Usage

What's your thoughts about it? Reply me in my talk page. Thanks, ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 08:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Priyanka Chopra

This is a note to let the main editors of Priyanka Chopra know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 14, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 14, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Priyanka Chopra

Priyanka Chopra (born 1982) is an Indian film actress and singer, and was the winner of the Miss World pageant of 2000. She has become one of Bollywood's highest-paid actresses and one of the most popular celebrities in India. She has won a National Film Award for Best Actress and Filmfare Awards in four categories. She made her acting debut in the Tamil film Thamizhan in 2002. The following year, she starred in The Hero, her first Hindi film release, and followed it with the box-office hit Andaaz. She subsequently earned critical recognition as a seductress in the 2004 thriller Aitraaz. By 2006, Chopra had established herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema with starring roles in the highly successful films Krrish and Don. After receiving mixed reviews for a series of unsuccessful films, she received critical acclaim for her portrayal of unconventional characters, including a troubled model in the 2008 drama Fashion, a feisty Marathi woman in the 2009 caper thriller Kaminey, a serial killer in the 2011 neo-noir 7 Khoon Maaf, and an autistic woman in the 2012 romantic comedy Barfi! She released her first music single "In My City" in 2012, and her second single "Exotic" in 2013. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats!!!

Hey bud! How's it going? Congrats on Priyanka Chopra and Sholay! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Important sources for Mughal-e-Azam

I got some sources.

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/03/21/mughal_e_azam_2004_review.shtml - Themes
• http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/feb/14/mughal-e-azam-reel-history
• http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/a-masterpiece-turns-50/article595996.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/akbars-beloved-anarkali/article4633617.ece
• http://www.hindu.com/br/2007/03/20/stories/2007032000321500.htm
• http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZsKR1RKoJKUC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=themes+in+mughal+e+azam+the+hindu&source=bl&ots=xSlFrHlsCj&sig=RE80f5LXeNL94b7CMlmuWrn3Sro&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N0cIUrmAC8PqrAep5YGIDA&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBzgK
• http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/ie/daily/19970530/15050683.html
• http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/ie/daily/19970524/14450523.html
• http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mughal-e-azam/ 100 % rating.

I hope they are useful.—Prashant 02:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have watched the original version and also the coloured version. I enjoyed watching them. I feel source [[5]] where emphasis is on the role of women in film, could be used for the theme.--Nvvchar. 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying y to your specific question. If I remember right, I watched the movie in the first few days of its release and I bought the ticket in the black market for a fairly high price. The film was then a rage and I feel that the article has brought out most aspects of this craze.--Nvvchar. 17:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Under music section the citation tag could be fixed provided we are able to see the whole article under this high beam reference [6] which is at the end of the next sentence. It is a subscription site. I hope the theme section is now adequately expanded. Should I do more research on any of the other sections?--Nvvchar. 17:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Good news!

Good news! Jab Tak Hai Jaan has just passed the GA review!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 13:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

PC on the main page

Yay!!!! Very happy to see one of the most versatile actress of Hindi cinema on the main page. It feels so great tha her article is a featured content. Yay!!! Very happy!—Prashant 00:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious

film actress
Thank you for quality contributions to articles such as Sholay and Priyanka Chopra, a "magnificent achievement and a shining day for Indian cinema", and for fighting trivia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Currency and inflation

In the Indian articles Karnan and Chandralekha, I am having trouble representing their budgets, and struggling to adjust them for inflation. Can you pls fix them? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra

LOL monumental fail typo -- Y not? 20:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Mughal-e-azam soundtrack

Is the soundtrack section of Mughal-e-Azam complete? Looks big enough to have a separate article. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that it's pretty big to still be a part of the main article. BollyJeff | talk 11:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bollyjeff. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yworo (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey

I thought your revision was correct and the IP one was wrong. Choudary was not her name on that movie I think. So I undid that! --    L o g  X   14:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Heading subtitles

see WP:OR Heading subtitles are not allowed. Subjective descriptors must be made by third parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harirajmohanhrm (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

editors always include their personal opinion to the headings and subtitles which is not allowed in Wikipedia. the subtitles which is their now is enough for the Wikipedia readers. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harirajmohanhrm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

can you please tell me what is GA and FA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harirajmohanhrm (talk • contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

GA means "Good Article" and FA means "Featured Article". ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Has there been...

..something funky going on with these section headers earlier too? I haven't been on here for a while. I also see that there Suriya and Mammootty have now been nominated at GA by the same person as a drive by. —SpacemanSpiff 06:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but this guy seems to be a sock; a new account spouting about WP:... rules, even if they are wrong. BollyJeff | talk

Sholay Info

Hey mate! As the major contributor to Sholay, I would like to bring to your notice, there is an interview of Ramesh Sippy in The Hindu paper (5 Oct 2013) [7] where he talks about Sholay and few other films. If anything is worth adding to the article, else never mind. Thanks. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 05:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

MeA dispute

Urgh. FACs are supposed to be stable before nomming. I'd have thought you and the others would be closely monitoring what he did. Makes it very difficult to assess what has changed now..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems Kailash reverted him so it should still be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you've seen the nonsense with Prashant which has got him indefinitely blocked. Sorry for the delay, I've begun watching the film with English subtitles, took a while to find it. Hopefully it has the full film. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, perhaps move the source up below to cover it in the middle? They're quite strong facts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah in colour with subtitles. I'm almost 2/3 the way through now. I like the look of the film; I spot so many sets which closely resemble 50s Hollywood epics like Ten Commandments, The Conqueror, Princess of the Nile, Ben Hur, The Robe etc but just Indianized! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bear with me on this, I need a few days solid editing on it I think. Now that several of my other projects are sorted I'll try to get cracking again within the next few days. I'll go through the sources and try to find extra material, copyedit it further and will check the colorization info if I can access the sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the colorization info, fine but for inaccuracies at the beginning, Hollywood were approached first according to the Hindu.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've ransacked google books now and found all I could find. I might have a look in highbeam tomorrow but I think it's pretty comprehensive now. I'll try to improve the prose if I can over the next few days but I think it is approaching a standard which is good enough for running for FAC as a lot of issues tend to get identified during the process. Somebody mentioned something about adding more on historical inaccuracies but I don't think the article should have too much bloat on it unless anything important is still missing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Still want to give it a final read and copyedit, I've been tied the last few days. If we nom say on Wednesday that'll give me a few days to get to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy for you to nom the Mughal article as a join effort for FA tomorrow. I anticipate a lot of work ahead from FAC reviewers, but I'm convinced that it has the necessary content and quality overall to now be ready for FAC at least and with a lot of minor editing I think we stand a good chance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing major you or I can really do now in advance, I made some changes yesterday to improve the prose but the article overall is really very good. Fresh and experienced eyes at FAC has a tendency to identify a ton of issues we can't immediately spot, so I'd say it would be the most constructive way forward. Let's roll with it. Nom now if you feel like it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You will try your luck, assembled in front of Wikipedia - only one click away, you will follow this spectacle ;) Hekerui (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Was meant to be a little joke on teri mehfil mein, sorry :( Hekerui (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Retirement

Hey Jeff, hope you are alright. Anyways, I will retire on Thursday, because I don't have time to edit Wikipedia and also greatly lost interest. But don't worry, I will return, but don't know when. Thanks for being such a great and kind friend.--Jionpedia ✉ 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good news!

Good news! Monsters University has passed the GA review!--Jionpedia ✉ 20:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif

Heyyy, thanks for letting me know about that ^^ :-) I see that it's failed; just as well...it's nowhere near GA status yet! I actually didn't know that anybody was allowed to nominate articles for GA (the nominator only has 15 edits on Katrina's page) :/ AB01 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bollyjeff. You have new messages at LogX's talk page.
Message added 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--    L o g  X   19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
......and again --    L o g  X   19:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Singh article lead

Hi Bolly, I have a small favor to ask of you. Would you help me by drafting a lead for the Ranveer Singh article here Talk:Ranveer Singh/lead? The present lead has been removed for being "fancrufty" for including about the actor's early life section. So I'm asking your opinion what can be concluded as a proper lead? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

MeA review concerns

Hi! I have not been able to catch up yet. However, it is quite unlikely that delegates will archive it when active comments are being made.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking

Ultimately I think we need to serve the reader. Overlinking can be distracting to the reader, hence the guideline at WP:OVERLINK. However, if you think something needs linking more than twice (the lead and then the body) to provide a better reader experience, I wouldn't argue too vehemently against it. --Laser brain (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:FYI

Mate, its an essay not a WP:POLICY. But since you say I changed it. Soham 13:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

More Mughal

Thanks for correcting my error although I really don't like "former" and "latter". Perhaps you can do something about it. I am also unhappy about all the instances of "at that time" although I have deleted some of them and changed others to "at the time", "of the period", or something. Maybe they are all superfluous? I also think it would be useful to add something more about the fact that there has never been a version of the film in English although subtitled versions are available. Maybe this is also of interest. You've been doing a great job on the article and I sincerely hope it makes FA. I think this must be the third time I have been through the prose. I hope that this time I have managed to tidy it all up.--Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Great!

Jeez, finally! Congrats for MeA.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done! I suppose the 1994 Khan film will be next if you're still interested in FA! It can be pretty gruelling at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your tireless work to get Mughal-e-Azam to FA. Congratulations!! —Prashant 06:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your persistent efforts to take India's presumably greatest film (Mughal-e-Azam) to FA status. Your efforts paid off, and are indeed honoured! -- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sholay

Hey Jeff, I got two images for the article regarding the the 3D-re-release section and I am a bit confused as to which one to add or whether to add or not? Can you please take a look and reply?

1. difference after and before rematering.
2. New 3D effects, there are more.

Which one should I choose? Soham 08:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I knew that the bar would be very, even more 'cause its an FA! So I consulted you first because I don't want any orphaned non-free file messages on my talk. Thanks though. Good job on MeA as well. Soham 12:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For MeA mate. Nice work. Soham 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, bro!

--Jionpedia ✉ 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

2013 was one hell of a year. While it gave us some great movies (The Lunchbox, Kai Po Che!, Lootera, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag etc.) and some record-breaking blockbusters (Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, Chennai Express, Dhoom 3), it also gave us some really sad moments (the deaths of Pran, Paul Walker, Nelson Mandela, Farooque Sheikh, re-crimilisation of homosexuality, typhoons and cycolones like Phailin and Haiyan). Nevertheless, I ain't gonna miss 2013, so have a happy 2014 ahead! Yours truly, --Jionpedia ✉ 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)