Talk:Amrita Rao/Archive 1

Fansites

Wikipedia policy on fansites is that they should be included only if they provide additional useful material. I think that www.amritaworld.com satisfies this criterion, and so, should be included.Gamesmaster G-9 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What kind of information has Amritaworld, that couldn't be included into the article? Add content instead of links. If people want to learn about gossip or other news, they can visit one of the various news sites. If they want pics or videos, they can google for them. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your points one at a time - firstly, you yourself admit that the fansites contain gossip/news about her. It is also extremely likely that people want to know that, and hence there is no harm in linking to them. Again, as you would agree, it is unfeasible to list all news about her on this page - it has to be a concise encyclopaedia entry. We all agree that links to external websites should be provided if they contain information. Lets not be judgemental about what constitutes "good" information. Finally, I will reiterate my point that fansites ARE acceptable according to WP policy.Gamesmaster G-9 00:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

News about any actor/actress can be included into the article (like new movie projects or something). Linking to pages just for the sake of gossip isn't exactly encyclopaedic.

See here: [1]: Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I think that covers gossip.

If people visit Wikipedia to get links for gossip, we're doing something wrong. As for fansites being acceptable: besides them violating copyrights, I guess according to the rules, *one* fansite could be approriate (got the info here: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." [2])

I suggest "AmritaRaoOnline", since it has more content than the first one. Still, I think, news could be included into the article, picture can be googled for and gossip is not encyclopaedic.

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Plumcouch. You say that whatever content and images AmritaWorld contains can be googled for. I agree with that. But please tell me, is there anything in AmritaRaoOnline(ARO) that cannot be googled. What makes you think that ARO site is the major Amrita Rao Site? Agreed that since it is a part of "Hollywood Fansites" (http://fansites.hollywood.com) and its 2-3 years old but that does not mean that it is the major one. My site is less than a year old and is growing at a rapid pace. There are no annoying pop-up ads or commercial links which forces user to click on them! Not boasting, but my site was voted as the "Celebrity site of the Day" at Celebrity Link (see: http://www.celebrity-link.com/c108/showcelebrity_categoryid-10858.html). Also at StarPages (http://starpages.net/sites/amrita_rao/index1.html), my site is ranked ahead of ARO. Its also listed at imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1182255/miscsites). When searched for "Amrita rao", it comes as the 1st result at Yahoo and Rediff and on page 1 of MSN results.

And if you still think that "news could be included into the article, picture can be googled for and gossip is not encyclopaedic", then I would request you to please take down ARO site also? And please throw some light on what a fansite should contain, if not information, news articles and images of the celebrity?

I get a feeling that you are in someway connected to the ARO site-owner?

p.s: The indiaTarget link in the Footnote section seems to be dead. I dont know the rules to remove links from a wiki article. Regards, Astro ubz 03:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, User:Astro ubz,

problem with your site is this besides having the usual ads from Google and violating copyrights:

"A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Since you are the owner of that website ... well, you get it.

"Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." You have several links to commercial sites on your site and more ads than the other site.

"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." aka Gossip. (Policy for external links here at WP:[3])

Also, don't ask *me* if I'm affiliated to the ARO site-owner; I wanted to remove both of the links. Gamemaster added the links, I don't know about him.

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Plumcouch - while I still have some differences of opinion regarding your views on "gossip", I think your compromise formula is perfectly acceptable. And you are right, there must be some way of preventing a proliferation of fansites, many of which may not be relevant. Sorry, User:Astro ubz, but we need to follow some kind of policy.

I also believe that there is a better solution - take a look at Lindsay Lohan - there is a link to a single Yahoo directory of fansite listings. I checked, and many Bollywood stars have listings, though Amrita Rao isn't one of them. I think it would be a good idea to encourage people who run fansites to have them listed and then link to that directory. Since links are sorted there by popularity, it would avoid the problem of having to decide between two sites. What do you think?Gamesmaster G-9 17:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I never thought that having the "usual google ads" on a website will be a problem. If you think, that the ads are making me millions, then well! By the way, have you visited, indiafm.com, indiatimes.com, mid-day.com and other sich big sites? They are all full of google ads and commercial links which you think are a problem and so any links pointing to them must be removed from the WikiPedia. No? Anyways, a link from wikipedia is not what I was looking for. I always thought of Wikipedia as an Open Encyclopedia, and I thought my site was providing some additional information about Amrita Rao so added the link so that her fans may have more sites to go after reading the information over here (and i dont think anybody else except her fans would visit the Amrita Rao wiki). But was I wrong! There are self-style neutral Editors at Wiki who decide which site is good and which is not. Why not just completely ban the fansites from wiki? Like I saw in the Vidya Balan Page. That will make all of us satisfied.Astro ubz 03:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, there have been some problems over and Balan's article. I'm not quite up-to-date, but you can check the history. Concerning the fansites: as you can see, several editors have different opinions on fansites (like Gamemaster and I - he thinks, a fansite is okay, I want to crop them). Yet, we agreed on a compromise. I'm sorry that we decided to list the other site and not yours (and I *know* you don't get rich by Google ads), but the other site *is* older, has more hits, more content, no commercial links and has less ads than yours. There's no reason why your site shouldn't be listed somewhen in the future, replacing the other one, since it is, as you say, a fast growing place. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 11:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this is not fair because my site Vidya-Balan.com has absolutely no adverts what so ever, and it has a LOT of contents, and yet you all remove it from the page and the VidyaBalanOnline one is always there, even though that site is full of ads and has less content than mine. Why is that? --82.37.25.233 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't remove the site, User:Deepujoseph did it the last time ([4]). Second of all, Balan's article is watched over by several editors and, as there has never been any discussion over the issue, all of them felt that fan sites are simply not appropriate (copyright violations, "Add content instead of link"-issue, POV etc.). On this article, I compromised with Gamemaster, on the other article, there was no need to compromise as the editors who work on Balan's article all had the same opinion. If you wish to discuss the matter, I suggest you do it on Vidya Balan's discussion page. Still, it is against the rules to add your *own* website, according to WP policy:

"A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Since you are the owner of that website ... well, you get it. (Policy for external links here at WP:[5])

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 01:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tum Hi Tho Ho??

Any reliable source which says this film was announced?Astro ubz 03:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Checked the history and found an anon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amrita_Rao&diff=48521695&oldid=48066393) adding it. Google says nothing about it, as does IMDb, IndiaFM.com, Bollywooddatabase, Rediff or any of the other more or less reliable sources. Gets deleted until someone provides a proper reference. Thanks for the heads, up. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 11:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING

I've seen a bit of concern, recently, over unsourced claims of a romance -- all editors involved would do well to have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If these claims can't be verified by reliable sources, then they very probably constitute original research, and aren't fit for inclusion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a rumor mill or crystal ball -- these guidelines and policies are especially important when it comes to articles about real, living people with real, important reputations. So please do consider this. Thanks to all. Luna Santin 06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon just added site claiming to be Amrita's own -- is this legit?

I left the ref, but after looking at the site, I'm really not sure if it is her own site, or if it is a fansite pretending to be her site. Opinions from other editors needed! Zora 23:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Its her official site. Referenced by herself in many articles/interviews - http://www.rediff.com/netguide/2003/may/27amrita.htm Astro ubz 05:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Zora 07:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

She has an identical twin sister has been added by User:Jayant speaks. However, I do not think it should be present here; primarily because it is unsourced. If it is put along with a proper source, I dont have any objection. But as the previous version of the edit stated, its a rumor. As Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, I strongly object to it being here. --soum (0_o) 12:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing it. Please have a discussion before re-inserting it with a cite. --soum (0_o) 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is too funny. She does have an identical twin sister Preeta and I know this because I have met them. They are my distant cousins. But I don't have a "published source" so I'm not going to add it in and get flamed. How people get so obsessed about facts regarding people they don't know is beyond me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.104.220 (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Well done Soumya !! But i saw that information on the IMDB profile itself. It might be added by one of the user. Check out her biography there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.110.243.21 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Why dumping Here ?

Why everyone is dumping stuffs in Amrita Rao pages only? Jayanta 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

sister

she has a sister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.190.70 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bollywoodhungama.com Picture?

There's a picture from BollywoodHungama being used. Is that allowed? I've noticed photos from that site being used on Wiki pages of other Hindi movie actors. AyanP (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Ayan

Mentioning Caste

Dear Editors!
There has been a discussion on India Portal related to mentioning of caste of subjects. The point is that mentioning caste of people, who have nothing to do with their caste, is found to be unnecessary by few editors. Hence the caste of the subject person needs to be deleted from the biography. I am not deleting the caste as of now but am only posting this here so that the regular editors of this article are well aware of it beforehand and no edit-wars take place. For details of discussion held on the portal please refer Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. Your views if any are welcome there or even here.
And.... as the reasons of exclusion of caste pointed out were "irrelavant to notability of subject person", "privacy of the subject person", "inclusion of caste is like branding individuals", etc. other information included in the article which also fall under these cases will also be removed after discussions. Examples of it included religion, non-notable spouse's and children's and parents' information, previous occupation, lived in places, non-notability related educational qualification, etc.
Your views on this are also welcome here or at the India portal. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Amrita Rao still3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Amrita Rao still3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Amrita Rao still3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Amrita Rao/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Well, the article is better than a stub :) It contains good quality prose, but lacks in quantity. More detailed prose is required, combined with references. The lead should be expanded as per WP:LEAD. The Career section should list her modelling as well as acting, with clear separation (subsections, anyone?). It should include some prose regarding mass as well as critical reception of both her acting as well as films (with references). The filmography et al lists can be condensed better (with the promo poster of her films, may be?) Wish you all the best. --soumসৌমোyasch 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)