Talk:Priyanka Chopra/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Apuroopam

Dear friends, Apuroopam is not her debut film. If it was then Chopra must have said about it. She says her only first film released was Thamizhan. Apuroopam was actual a 2003 film, but you will find 2002 or even 2001 in many fancruft sites. Here is link which says, it was delayed and was a 2003 film, means after Thamizhan, so it's not her debut.

http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/telugu/article/12528.html
http://www.radiokhushi.com/music/telugu_songs.cgi?lang=t&movie=apuroopam&rtype=actress&name=Priyanka%20Chopra .Pks1142 (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to the India Glitz site, the film was not released as of 2005. Maybe that's why there is so little info on it. I knew it was suspicious. BollyJeff | talk 04:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1But if you go by the times of India source in her article, then I don't know. But it doesn't say much about her debut, it say she also made her debut down south, but the film was delayed. YES, Apuroopam may have been her first movie, she have shot but the real debut is when a film is released.If we go by reports, her first movie she signed was EK HASSENA EK DEEWANA whose name was changed to DEEWANA MAIN DEEWANA, which hadn't even seen the light of release.Pks1142 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes Bollyjeff, that is my thought, its not her debut film. If you go around web, you'll find all fancruft sites saying 2002,2003 but, you can check album details of film in allnusic, it says 2003. Music was released in2003 but film was delayed, much like Ishq In Paris whose music was released but now it seems forgettable.You got my point what I'm saying.Pks1142 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

this source also says 2005. I think maybe we just say she acted in Telugu film called Apoorupam around this time, but the release status is unclear. BollyJeff | talk 04:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

yeah I did read that source but not read that text, we have a good source and yes I was right the film wasn't released in 2002 ,it was delayed until 2005. Yes we should call she acted in a Telugu movie, that's it. I also had read somewhere ,it was a cameo size role.well we did a good job .Pks1142 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Movies are sorted by their release year, so even if this Apuuropam movie was shot before Tamizhan it won't be her debut film. Only the first commercially released film would be her debut. So yeah, Taminzhan still rocks in that respect. Excuse my spellings of these movies. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes IndianBio, I agree and thanks for supporting me.I think we should check every thing twice before adding to it. We also have regret for the readers who read false details. Pks1142 (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job, Pks. Good research.Green Parakeet (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Priyankachopramusic.com: Another official site

Hey guys, I and GleekVampire wants a discussion regarding chopra's other website that is priyankachopramusic.com and we want to discuss, is it good to include this in the article.Fire your comments away.Pks1142 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems like the website for Chopra's music etc. so its an official website affiliated with Interscope. It can surely be placed in the External links section. But I don't see anything extra in it that can be included in the article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ya but , we can't deny that it's her official website of music and is attached to iampriyankachopra as well as interscope. What say?Pks1142 (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I already said, it can be used in the EL section. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

what about adding it to infobox.Pks1142 (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Not needed there since her main official website is already there, and the second link is just for her musical endeavors—I see it kinda like a subsidikary of the main website. Hence the main link in infobox, the subordinate links in the EL section. That way there is also a clear demarcation of which is of more importance than the other. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I got it and as per discussion I had added the music site only in External links in the the name official music site.Thanks.Pks1142 (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Section headings

I think the sections of Chopra's article confuses the user as it says

debut and early work----- It confuses a lot bcoz debut she has breakthrough with Andaaz, Aitraaz, and success like MSK.

i think it should be changed to debut and breakthrough.

breakthrough and setbacks---- if you look to the sources, all most all films except few have worked well at box office till don. If you search the internet you'll find,she was the most successful actress of 2006 with two blockbusters.

this section should be named success

i think setback section is more appropriate for 2007-08 bcoz all most all her film failed.

That's all.Pks1142 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

you mean, she hasn't any success credits to her. Umm I don't think so, look at Vidya Balan's article , how smoothly the editors has described her success. In saying coz nowhere her success is shown in the article.Pks1142 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good thought though, but flop films are parts of industry, if you see kareena kapoor page, you LL find, jab we met-commercial success but she also gave duds like Tashan, Main Aur Mrs. Khanna etc. If you see Zinta's article she also has a section saying sucess2003-07 but in between she had flops like Jhoom...., so, its not that. I think

Debut and breakthrough2002-04
success and setbacks 2005-06

.Pks1142 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The headings are named based on her personal critical success, not necessarily that of the films. It takes a bunch of people to make a film successful, not just her. Based on what you said, there would only be one paragraph for debut in '02, one paragraph for setback in '07 and half of '08, and the rest all success? Come on! She doesn't need us to make her look good, so lets's not exaggerate things. A hundred people could come with a hundred ways to group the info and title it. You want to start a big debate? BollyJeff | talk 19:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How about beginning up to before MSK is 'Debut and breakthrough', current 'Breakthrough and setbacks' minus 04 failures becomes 'Success and setbacks'? That little section in 07-08 is too small for a section, and some of the films in 04-06 were stinkers, you cannot sat all were good or successful. BollyJeff | talk 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I put a compromise; have a look. I think there were too many failures in 07-08 to say just 'success', but too small to have its own section. BollyJeff | talk 20:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The previous sections were better. Now it just looks like we're trying way too hard to make her look like some sort of Goddess. Just my opinion! GleekVampire (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, "Ups and Downs" is good! Very neutral.. Me likey!! GleekVampire (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for implementation my thoughts to the chopra's article and hey you did so wonderfully thanks.But' I think that section can be created like LS2050 was cited as India's first futuristic film, Chopra even colored her hair red.......then her delayed film god tus.... released....drona was cited as India's next superhero flick but failed, she took training in Punjabi martial arts Gatka.....she was started written off. Like this what's say From salaam e ishq to drona, I think it will give more edge to the article.she was replaced with other actresses in many films.how it sounds.ill give the sources think again, section will be more dramatic.Pks1142 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think GV, as nowhere in her page says about her success .go through net and check articles of 2006, she was the box office queen of that year and think it's necessary to add commercial aspects as well. See upper discussions as well. Pks1142 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

see this first

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061221/asp/calcutta/story_7166561.asp

I think the present sections are nice and GV is behaving like we had added about her winning Academy awards.nevertheless pls don't get me into biasness as your edit summary says so. I'm trying to be neutral and I removed his view of negative reviews of barsaat coz he didn't provide source that time.c U.Pks1142 (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

sorry but UPS and downs is not good section try to create new section with setbacks, you are saying that she gave flops then why the section of Kareena Kapoor has a section called jab we met- success as she had flops like main..., tashan, milenge ....,agent vinod,heroine coz she has only two body,3..Pks1142 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Early success and setbacks looks great and its go with the section very well, bcoz if we see career wise, she got success in early films like films from 2003-06, and then setbacks.si I think it is more appropriate. What do you think.?Pks1142 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am okay with that. BollyJeff | talk 00:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

still some unsuported claims in here

I see a lot of text in here saying "film x was a critical and commercial failure/success", and the only source is BoxOfficeIndia. That covers the commercial part, but not the critical part. Prove it or remove it... BollyJeff | talk

About to add the sources. Don't worry! GleekVampire (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review?

Does anyone think this should go to a peer review before FAC? We are still waiting for the expert copy edit. BollyJeff | talk 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, does PR work faster than GOCE? If so then this can easily go through a PR. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We should wait for GOCE and then, conduct a PR. It would help because the article is near the copy /edit spot. We would wait as it would help only after complete c/e.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I recommend seeking a Peer Review since GOCE copy-edits don't come with a cast-iron guarantee of a pass for FA. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra peer review

Priyanka Chopra peer review underway here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Want to apply for FAC soon. BollyJeff | talk 17:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed text

~~This text is not supported by the sources given, so I removed it and placed it here so as not to lose the existing refs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)~~

~~Chopra's parents, who exposed her to musicians including Mohammad Rafi, The Beatles, Metallica, The Doors, and 50 Cent, had significant influences on her childhood.^[1]~~ In her teen years, Chopra was highly influenced by The Fugees, Biggie and Tupac. According to Chopra, she wore black to school for ten days after Tupac passed away.

There are multiple pages in that source. Some of the later pages do support at least some of this. BollyJeff | talk 21:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you're correct; I didn't see that at first. I'll return the text to the article and use the full version of the source to reference. Unstruck text remains unreferenced atm. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is another factoid not supported by the source and I cannot find another good source. Maybe it is not really needed:

While shooting for the Holi song "Do Me a Favour", Chopra was drenched in water and went to her van to change. She stepped on a loose, live electrical wire and was almost electrocuted, but she recovered and resumed shooting the next day.^[2] BollyJeff | talk 01:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the article I get from that url is "Maoists will destroy arms if republican set-up agreed on" dated AUGUST 6, Mon Aug 07 2006! I searched that website for "Priyanka Chopra, electrocuted" and came to the same url with the correct story showing as a search result... so it's been redirected for some reason! here's one you might be able to use: http://www.sify.com/movies/bollywood/interview.php?id=13721203&cid=2398&page=3 and the Google cache is: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en-GB&q=cache:SektZnrUKM8J:http://www.screenindia.com/news/Holi-hai/10081/ I tried to archive it but webcite.org is being screwy too! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Early life

Becoming an aeronautical engineer was her dream according to an interview with lee hawkins in WSJ live, so why you all are removing it? User:Bollyjeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.agrawal92 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says "engineering or psychology" because there are several normally reliable sources that have mentioned both of these. There are also sources that have specified which types, such as xx engineering and xx psychology. Therefore, it has been kept generic. Since she did not finish her degree, it doesn't really matter. BollyJeff | talk 15:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

I suggest we provide page protection to this article at least till the FA review.persistent vandalism could affect the article from getting Fa status --Naveed (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protection are not provided for reasons such as FAC. Please see the request list at WP:RFP. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I Agree with Naveed, Yes the page should be semi protected till the flc. The article should be Protected seeing so many vandalisms by IP users in the past and present also. It would be the best solution.Prashant ✉ 12:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest to read the policy at WP:SEMI. And if you still feel it is needed, please apply at WP:RFP. My cents say its not needed as there's no vandalism in general. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think Page protection is necessary . There hasn't been any vandalism for the past 2 days. Thanks User:Pks1142 and User:IndianBio for your thoughts. Naveed (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why constantly changing picture of Priyanka Chopra Alf5435334 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It happens on a lot of articles, I don't know why; but this one has been stable for several months, so I am not sure what the problem is. BollyJeff | talk 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fancruft

A sentence like "she is noted for her versatility in challenging, character-driven and unconventional roles in several critically acclaimed films" in the first paragraph of the lead is pure fancruft. Apart from that, the tone of the entire article is skewed to praising Chopra (not to mention the terrible grammar); we must remember that our aim is not to promote Chopra or prove that she is the best actress in the world. I hope that someone has the good sense to remove such atrocious claims before the next FAC. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 03:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think whole article praises her. By the way, she is definitely noted for her versatility in portraying character types and unconventional roles. We have even used criticism for her debut film (which you'll not see in other pages).Prashant talk 03:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Terrible grammar"? The thing was just copy edited again by the GOCE! BollyJeff | talk 03:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was. But large changes took place after the GOCE! Anyway, I am trying to make some changes to the article. Please take a look. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 03:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not fancruft: See below sources

I think these sources are enough to prove that these are not fancruft.Prashant talk 04:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was drastically changed after GOCE, the same lines were at that time.Prashant talk 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't change the lead: I would kindly request mot to change the lead. Even Dwai himself liked the new lead. Moeover, the lead includes overall description of th body. If there is any fancruft (which is not), then this would fail this time again. We all know that, I would request some veterans to take a look and pls, don't start an edit war. Favoritism should not affect any article (which is affecting;playing favorites) on the Wikipedia.Prashant talk 04:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen Prashant, I don't know what your problem is, but please try to maintain some good faith. I am tired of dealing with you and your hypocritical edits. And frankly, this article will never pass if you go on editing it! --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You know what guys, the GOCE actually harms the article more than it does good for it. My experience says so. And guys, lets calm down and work this out. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not that.... I mean I added the new lead after much discussion. The GoCe stuff was the same. First, your objest was for the line "She was noted for her versatility...." I tweaked that, but why the whole lead was changed. Even Dwai liked my version. Please, be cool and dont harm my mind (which is bursting) after it failed facs. Also, some veterans have said to look at the article. Till then please be calm and let the article be stable.Prashant talk 05:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I give up!! I was trying to help the article's chance at FAC, but I wonder why I even bothered to do that. Thank you very much Prashant. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 07:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As I told in Prashant's talk page, the version of lead by Smarojit was the best we ever had. Yes, I overall liked Prashant's version (before Smarojit's edits) after a casual read, but Smarojit's version is definitely superior. It contained all the salient features of the previous versions, plus had better wordings; of course it had a better flow pattern. I'd highly recommend that.

If Prashant, you really want to see any better outcome in FAC, I'd suggest remain passive for a few days while others (like Smarojit, who has extremely good writing skill) work on it. After that is done, if you have any objection, state that in talk page. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not thrilled to see him making such drastic changes, but after waiting a day and going back to read it, Smarojit's version of the lead flows quite well, except maybe for the placement of the "established herself" part. There is also the bit about the song getting negative reviews which was not in the article, and some un-needed wikilinks. But overall it looked good, and I would support it with the tweaks that I just mentioned. BollyJeff | talk 13:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have used Smarojit's edits with my version and ended up with another interesting lead and added to the article. Also, I removed some unwanted awards mention (which was used two times). The lead is the mix of my and Smaro's version. I know his intention was to help but, Krrish is her only film to get blockbuster status (which means one of her biggest successes till date). I also think using negative comment over her song (which he replaced as album) was unfair. See, other recording artists biopage, they only mention the success and not the reviews. That should be in the body. But, Negative? Really the song received "mixed" reviews not negative. That's all, nothing more. Please, could we work on the body now coz the lead has turned in good shape. Prashant talk 17:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No you have done nothing of that sort. I am reverting to a good version; if you have to make any changes you can post your comments here. But for the betterment of the article, please do not edit anymore. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm, Prashant, what exactly in User:Pks1142/sandbox2 doesn't sound Peacocky and fancrufty to you? You are taking this article to FA where teh mere use of words like blockbuster etc will be frowned upon, leaving the general non-neutral tone of the lead. Can you please explain? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if the "negative" (or mixed) review of song is not needed in the lead, that is an acceptable point. And the inclusion of Kkrish may be considerable as well. These two points by Prashant are definitely worth considering. Otherwise, the version by Smarojit has definitely better flow. Again, no changes are permanent, and after all these edits by principal contributors, let a new pair of eyes (Smarojit) have a go at the article (I may chip in once in a while, but not so sure). After he finishes (or even while he is working) let's put comments here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, he has gone ahead and reverted it again. Anyone? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why my points were overlooked? I made those points but were deleted. Also, describing 3 films in one Para is not a good thing. Also, her personal and professional life has received substantial media attention. Why that was removed. Also, she is not cited as a sex symbol but "Sexiest Asian". Why? I think it's too much. No one is ready to listen me. Why?Prashant talk 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You have crossed 3Revert rule, I may report but I will not. I'm not going to edit this article again, if my points were not resolved. You seemed to have agenda on bettering Balan's and ruining chopra's. Thanks Dwai and Bollyjeff for making my contribution just mere disasters and my hard work into a failed one.Prashant talk 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying that nobody listens to you. Please listen carefully. Let Smarojit work on it. And make your points here in the talk page. For example, in my last post, I acknowledged that your concerns on review of the song, and inclusion of Kkrish are considerable. On the other hand, the point you mentioned just above (3 films in one para) is weak. There is a term in linguistics (I forgot the term now, I read it in a creative writing book) which says that saying three (not two or four) related things at one go emphasizes a point, and is a known tactic used by good orators. For example, in Gettysburg Address, Lincoln used the tactic.

Let Smaro work on this, and discuss your points here. Indeed I also have an objection in a certain point on Smarojit's version, which I will discuss here. Please cool down.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Balan is a female hero?? And Chopra is a mere Sex Symbol? You hypocrat. You started this debate for just one line and ended up ruining whole article. Please, edit that she has no talent and is a mere showpiece. If I would have interstate with Balan's what would have been your reaction. You seemed to have an agenda in bettering Balan's (the female hero). I gave my blood and sweat to the article which has gone into vain now.Prashant talk 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I have nothing to say after this. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Vidya Balan has nothing to do with this, man; I wonder if Chopra and Balan see this discussion, they will be greatly amused!

Ok, it seems the term "sex symbol" is not palatable here. Ok. We acknowledge that. You are perhaps true. But do not get agitated. again, this is not the final version. So, we will continue to mold this. If she has not been called a sex symbol in many reliable sources, we will remove that. Please give some time!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I am sure they will be very amused, especially since they are good friends. Anyway Dwai, please let me know if you have any comments on the current version of the lead. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooooo great now, "Chopra established herself as a leading actress in Bollywood with starring roles in Krrish and Don" and not in Hindi cinema? Okay......and continued working in failed films and ended up being a mere sex symbol right? Add this she is regarded as talentless girl who is getting films for just her looks. Add this also.Prashant talk 18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Pks, please stop with these snarky remarks and snide comments. Have you seen anyone else here behaving like this with you? Please calm down and discuss the changes that you feel are needed in the current lead. If you behave like this, no-one would be interested. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay....let me edit the balan page, would you accept my version of the lead? I'm again telling you that he is not any contributor to the article. Why he not participated in any fac? On behalf of articles contributor, I have every right to mould the lead the way I want. I don't want to take it to FA, alright. Please, revert back to previous revision. Its killing me now.......Prashant talk 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I DO want to take it to FA. You do not own the article; please stop your nonsense, put the keyboard down, and go take a walk or something. BollyJeff | talk 19:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues in lead

The first point I had, Smaro has already handled that. I was concerned about the juxtaposition of series of successful films, and series of failures in consecutive sentences (though in separate paragraphs). But, that is taken care of now.
"Sex symbol": Will need citation. Also, is it mentioned in the text?

Yes, the very first line of the "public image and personal life section" says "Chopra is described as a sex symbol and a style icon". --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see it is mentioned in the article. Moreover, a plethora of references are there using the term "sex symbol" for her (in google search). Indeed earlier in her career, I found in a new report, she did not like the tag.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"In 2006, Chopra established herself as a leading actress ..." Does "By 2006, Chopra had herself as a leading actress..." sound better?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dwai, implemented. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You all are ruining the article. Leave the article in its position, it doesn't need to be an FA. I'm begging you.Prashant talk 18:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

One DNA source says she is hero. Have you mentioned it. Hyporacy huh?Prashant talk 18:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Prashant. It's great that you are discussing here. But please do not revert in article. I also conveyed my concerns here. And will do so as I read it further.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Two sources say she is the "Sexiest Asian", one mentions her "hero". Then you should mention in the article tight. Do right away. You are playing very wisely Smaro, God will never leave you. You seem to have an agenda against me. You have ruined the article. Why you didn't help the article in its worst condition. You saw it in better condition and started editing just to show that you have contributed to a future fac. Okay. Why you didn't edited Kapoors lead which is in question (how it passed fa) You are playing favorites. Please, understand this is Wikipedia not Facebook

Prashant talk 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please understand Dwaipayan, I don't want to take it to FA. I don't want your help. You have helped me by hurting my mind and more my fingers. Please, I don't want to talk to anyone. Let the article be GA forever. It doesn't required FA status. Prashant talk 19:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you do not want FA status. But others want. At the first FAC, prose was the reason for failure. Smarojit has started work on it. If you do not want another FAC, that is ok, indeed, might prove to be beneficial for the article. Since you do not want another FAC, please passively watch (if you wish) the changes, and do not disrupt other's edits. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell him to improve Balan's page not Chopra's. I have hurted myself to the core. I'm not ready to watch anything now. I fmdont know if I will be back on Wikipedia. The lead itself is a disaster and ...........it is way dull than the time it failed fac.Prashant talk 19:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Artistry section

I read the "Performance and analysis" subsection. Most of this subsection is like a quick repeat of her film career. This subsection looks unneeded. Additionally, it is full of quotes, many of which can easily be paraphrased to text (if at all needed). The last sentence (her featuring in top actress list etc) can be included in "Public image" or in "Awards and honours". Otherwise, the rest of the subsection can mostly be deleted, and some portions (if needed) can be incorporated within the film career.

If we have to keep this subsection, it should hardly be a paragraph long. The paragraph may begin with her initial bad films and her being used for glamour quotient, and the transformation to take on unconventional roles later.

Even the influence subsection is largely ornamental. The reader won't miss anything if that is completely removed.(I like bla bla... I imbibe from bla bla... all kind of empty comments). Well, only the influence of the father can be noted, in song career section, if needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much how the article was before. If kept, the section should be more about her initial castings, and her later role selections, while removing the "best actress ever" stuff. If we remove too much though, I am afraid that readers will again say that the article is not interesting. We need to avoid having only "she did this... she did that" and done. Also, to address your issue on the tattoo, it seems out of place in the current sentence, but I would like to keep it somewhere to show her strong family ties. Not a lot of Indian actresses have one right? BollyJeff | talk 23:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you work up a new version in your sandbox first? BollyJeff | talk 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not against the artistry section per se; indeed, such a section is usually good for generating interest, and removing blandness. But we might need to clean up quite a bit here, particularly quotes. I again propose to let Smarojit work here, and Bollyjeff would be the guiding person.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay ....Dwaipayan, stop behaving like a Priyanka Chopra hater. It is showing how you are bias on Wikipedia. Bollywood Dreamz is collecting sources for Rani Mukerji's Artistry section. And, Kapoor has one you are saying to remove from here. Who is your favorite? Vidya as well ..Ya ya I got it "the female hero". Shame on you Bollyjeff, you will never got this article to FA. You don't have your brain to how to mould the article. You only depend on others. Be headstrong Jeff. And for, the disaster lead : she is not a female hero. Also, it shows how hypocrat the people could be on this Wikipedia. Have some good faith.Prashant talk 02:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not saying to remove :) It's actually a good section to keep to generate interest. But quotes should be less.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm ready to accept Smaro's new lead but will have some changes. Will you accept mine.

She is not cited as a sex symbol. Only one source says, as I told you earlier one source says "she acts like a hero". So will smaro will add it. I have a source which says Balan is also a sex symbol; should I add to Balan's page. She has been cited as "Sexiest Asian" in the world. Not, sex symbol. Grow up.
why her life receiving substantial media attention was removed, if she is popular actress, its natural.
I don't think by Don and krissh she established herself as contemporary leading actress, she did that after Fashion.
Also, why the lead has no mention of Kaminey (one of her finest works; if smaro treats her as an actress)
why linking her reality show, she did only reality show? She has hosted awards shows on tv as well, its confusing

That's all I want only these changes. Please, if I can pass the olive branch then, you should also.Prashant talk 03:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If your comments are meaningful, we will incorporate that in the article. So stop editing before that, because your edits will be reverted. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Do yo own the article? I don't have to ask you (I don't need) to edit the article. But, only for the article I will discuss here. Your hypocrat thoughts are very much visible in your edits. She only established as a leading actress by starring in economic success and not acclaims? She is not actress and not even a commercial actress an d Balan is a best actress as well as female hero? She is a sex symbol, I have a source which says same for balan, I may add to her article. You don't own any article. You seems to have an agenda against me.Prashant talk 05:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Prashant, you did the same tone of editing in "In My City" article also, resulting in bullshit. You have to stop editing and discuss it here and then achieve consensus and add it. There are more than one editor who has asked you not to add anything. Your edits are the root cause of problem, along with the foul way you are treating others. As I said in Smarojit's talk page, cool down and edit collaboratively, else leve. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As you can see my upper post, I said I'm ready to discuss, but here you go Smarijit reported to the administrators forum. Yes, I'm ready to discuss. You didn't saw my points above. Again, all this happened because Smarojit overlooked my comments in "In lead" section discussion above. He implemented Dwai's thoughts but he didn't mine. I'm now ready to discuss but, with a neutral approach and within the scope of Indian actresses facs.Prashant talk 07:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, Chopra received public recognition for aitraaz and Balan received the tag of "hero". Next,.......Will anyone discuss the changes.....Despite, being the contributor of the article, I have to Begg like a beggar. Making me eager to start abusing that "hypocrat" in pure Hindi language. Now, its enough. Is someonehere to discuss the change. ........IM THE ONE OF THE MAIN CONTRIBUTOR.Prashant talk 08:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratultions' Smaroji, it is your article completely and I'm handing this to you. This is your fortune. I'm not going to edit this article again. This article has ruined my life and this is the best I could do. Do what you want.Prashant talk 08:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bye bye then. Waste of everyone's time. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussing important things related to the article only

With the large amount of puffery that was present in the artistry section, I have considerably trimmed down the section to include only the essential points. I still wonder if we need that section after all; if we do, we need to include more relevant, and important information. Kareena Kapoor's article is an excellent reference point for this section.--smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 08:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And I agree with Dwai, the entire "influences" sub-section is very much ornamental. FAC reviewers will cry havoc if they see this. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 08:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that you have reduced the fluff, there is nothing substantial in the performance analysis section. I would suggest a merge since its not bulky enough to merit a section on its own, and kinda seems unnecessary. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I propose the same. Let's see what Bollyjeff, Dwai and others have to say about it. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 09:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should retain this section. There may be other articles that would supply more info. Bollyjeff knows the article best, he might be able to guide.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Meera Chopra cousin of PC?

According to this source, this Meera Chopra is her cousin? Here she (PC) confirms (in twitter) that Meera is her cousin. Can someone verify this? Tolly 4 bolly 08:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fairly reliable: There is Meera Chopra here, and there's Barbie Handa in the India Today link you provided above. BollyJeff | talk 13:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So, this should be added to article then? Tolly 4 bolly 14:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done BollyJeff | talk 14:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

OK here's the before and after. I spot the toning down of some of the more flowery words and the removal of "one of the most versatile actresses" which does seem like it is trying to emulate the Zinta article. What exactly is disputed?

Priyanka Chopra (pronounced [prɪˈjəŋkaː ˈtʃoːpɽaː]; born 18 July 1982) is an Indian film actress, singer and songwriter. She was crowned Miss India and Miss World in 2000 before making her screen debut in 2002 in the Tamil film, Thamizhan. The following year she starred in The Hero, her first Bollywood release, and followed it with the box-office hit Andaaz. She earned critical acclaim for her portrayal of a seductress in the 2004 thriller Aitraaz and appeared in the blockbuster superhero film Krrish (2006), one of her biggest commercial successes to date. She subsequently played the lead female role in several other commercially successful films.

After starring in several critical and commercial failures, Chopra earned wide critical acclaim for her portrayal of a troubled model in the 2008 drama Fashion, which proved to be a major turning point in her career. She received further critical acclaim for her performances in films such as Kaminey (2009), 7 Khoon Maaf (2011) and Barfi! (2012). Chopra has received a number of awards for her film roles, including a National Film Award (for Fashion) and four Filmfare Awards. She is noted for her versatility in playing challenging and unconventional roles in several critically acclaimed films and has established herself as a leading contemporary actress in Hindi cinema.

Chopra is regarded as one of the most popular, attractive and fashionable celebrities in India. She has often been cited as the world's "Sexiest Asian" woman and her personal and professional life has received substantial media attention. In addition to film acting, Chopra has performed in television and stage shows, has written columns in India's national newspapers, is active in charity work and endorses a number of products. In 2011, she signed a worldwide recording contract with Universal Music Group and DesiHits to record and release her first studio album. Her debut single, "In My City", was released in September 2012 and was a commercial success in India.

Priyanka Chopra (pronounced [prɪˈjəŋkaː ˈtʃoːpɽaː]; born 18 July 1982) is an Indian film actress, singer, and songwriter. She won the Miss India and Miss World pageants of 2000 before making her acting debut in the Tamil film Thamizhan (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 wide public recognition for the role of a seductress in the 2004 thriller Aitraaz.

By 2006, Chopra had established herself as a leading actress in Bollywood with starring roles in Krrish and Don, major economic successes in India and abroad. She then featured in a series of unsuccessful films before receiving critical acclaim for portraying a range of unconventional characters; she played a troubled model in the 2008 drama Fashion, a serial killer in the 2011 neo-noir 7 Khoon Maaf, and an autistic woman in the 2012 romantic comedy Barfi!. Chopra has won a National Film Award for Best Actress and Filmfare Awards in four categories.

Chopra is regarded as one of the most popular celebrities in India and is often cited as a sex symbol. In addition to acting in films, she has participated in stage shows, hosted a reality show on television, written columns for India's national newspapers, performed philanthropic activities, and served as an ambassador for a number of brands. In 2012, she released her first single "In My City", which was met with mixed comments from the critics, but proved a commercial success in India.

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the intro isn't informative enough. As a reader I would expect the intro to be an effective summary of the article so would expect it to tell me what award she won for certain films rather than just winning the four awards.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Previous lead is far better, but I would suggest to see My version which was liked by Dwaipayan and Bollyjeff. It has neutral approach and even talks about her critical and commercial failures. Later one tags her as sex symbol and fades her actress status which is unfair. I mean she is definitely noted for her versatility in unconventional roles.Prashant talk 13:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've read the article and I've got to say that several of the lower sections come across as magazine material. It reads more as a magazine, I'm not sure some of the sections like "artistry" are really adequate, I mean U2 and Beatles, really? I don't think it is that necessary in all honesty. Some of the quotes I think are unnecessary. Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute. Pks is just blindly reverting all the edits. All I did was try to tone done the fancruft from his version which is this. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 14:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the article needs a lot of work from an encyclopedic viewpoint. A lot of it does read as cruft and like a magazine. I think we can make it more "traditional" if you know what I mean by reducing some of the quotes and trivia in the lower sections.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Infact I removed almost two paragraphs of "fluff" from the artistry section today. With Pks crying havoc on one end. Phew!! --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with you Dr(TW).Prashant talk 14:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm off now, but if anybody is here over the next 8 hours work on building up the award section with a comprehensive coverage of awards written in prose.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, take rest. You have worked like a mad man! No hurry, we'll await your return :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what an exhibition he put on! I don't understand the need for all the awards in prose though. The majors are already covered, and the others are in the sub-article. Therefore I will also wait. I will make a suggestion about the early life section, since we are in another expansion phase. I was fascinated to hear that she was bullied as a teen in the US for her looks (a future Miss World). That was in there but removed by someone. BollyJeff | talk 23:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Dwaipayan is right. Let him work (he is working right now) and then, it would be decided how to mould it. I think, it is getting better and better. The way is correct (her criticism are also described very well) which is a good sign of a neutral article.:)Prashant talk 00:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Blah blah blah... You are happy now because he is only adding stuff. Let's see what happens when the deletions start coming. BollyJeff | talk 01:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Prashant, stfu. The article looks wowzy now :) My only qualm would be the Awards section as part of the main bio. Wouldn't it be better like the separate section it was previously? And the choice of some of those images are not exactly that flattering. Images should be placed on a left-right sequence and also facing towards the article. If Blofeld is done with his work, I can help with the image positions and alternate texts. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, I know why you are fire at me? I don't care. Also, I know this is a draft and Dr. Will remove what he will think is right. What do you mean by "happy coz of stuff addition"? I'm happy bcoz it is neutral...there is praises and there is criticisms. The page is more encyclopedic now (prior it was like not do encyclopedic).

IndianBio, what do you mean by STFU (abuse)? Or what? I don't understand your words here. Also, Dr. Has just created a draft and will work later.....the pictures? He is smart enough to mould the way an FA article should (he is a veteran and has several FA). So, pls don't start again. ThanksPrashant talk 04:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't pay attention to Dr. Blofeld being a veteran, doesn't hold a candle for me if I see something which doesn't stick with MOS, or which I feel is not upto the mark. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the smell of candles, I'll hold the candle if you like. Ahem. I've moved the awards section to the bottom. it doesn't have to recite every award but a sizeable paragraph with her more notable ones beyond Filmfare will be fine. I still want to work on 2005-present and give an overall copyedit, but not today, feel free to edit it. I'll probably work again on it on Monday. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually count me out, Dharmadhyaksha will only list the article for FAR once it reaches FA anyway. This ill feeling between you all is bitterly disappointing. Editors of the same project should not be listing articles for GAR but should be constructively working together to improve perceived inferior quality articles which have been listed. I'll return to working on promoting Indian articles once this rift between Prashant and other editors here has diminished. I have no desire to work with editors in such a hostile environment.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's just ducky! I guess I should have know better than to get so involved on this one. I don't see how the rift will diminish, maybe you know how it will play out from your experience. I wish that you would finish what you started just so that we all can learn how to do it right. Just give it another "once over", and I will go about the promotion work. BollyJeff | talk 16:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not having this Dharma fellow gate crash the FAC and trying to cause trouble. I'll try to look at 2005-2010 this week and I think it should be ready then. But I really dislike the way this group has been divided, and am surprised Smajorit really seems to have gone.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I will engage him to have a good long look at it before it goes there. BollyJeff | talk 13:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the major issues for me was the generic "critical and commercial success, performance well-received" for virtually every film. You don't need to state how every film fared at the box office. A lot of the quotes are "nutritionally empty" if you know what I mean and contribute little to the article. A lot of them should be put into prose or even removed I think as it comes across to me as fluff. I've changed a bit from 2006-2008 but I intend going through and changing this. It affects readability and makes the article much less pleasurable to read, in fact the starred in, commercial success, well received combo actually affects the flow of the article.By 2008 the reader will become sick to the core of seeing "commercial and critical success" and "praised". I'd rather more information was given about her roles and production and the occasional quotes rather than generically for almost every film. Quotes for me must always try to provide encyclopedic value by offering information on the nature of a role and acting, rather than the same old "She look's hot" type of thing. I know this is difficult for articles on Indian actresses but still..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed much of it and it reads better now I think, although still too much "major commercial success" for me, especially 2010-present. Can somebody check that the quoting is consistent, ". incide full-stop is British, outside is American I think, I spotted a few quotes outside, please address Prashant as I think we use Indian/British English for Indian subjects.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, please tell where you found those certain things. We use Indian/British English. I really don't know who added those Amercian English as I always intend to add British English. Most of article published in Indian media use British. Maybe those editors have added who add sources from International media.Prashant 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Putting punctuation inside or outside of quotes was done by me in accordance with this link: Wikipedia:Quotation_marks#Punctuation_inside_or_outside. Let's not change all that without good reason. BollyJeff | talk 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Would be good for one or two to go over this, but I think its near FA standard now. It has almost twice the number of sources as the Zinta article. I think we should nom it soon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should nominate it ASAP. The article is very interesting and has shaped up very well.Prashant 16:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, this needs further scrutiny. For example, in the lead, there is a comma after Chopra in the first sentence of the second paragraph (Chora, was born in Jamshedpur...). This comma is not needed. Even such small things in fac could be bad.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

that was a typo!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

".. Followed by admirers, and her family installed bars in their home" very difficult to understand what is exactly meant by that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
an warrant was issues... Ashok Chopra... That's sort of incomplete. What happened? Was he arrested? Acquitted? Jailed?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why Blofeld said to go over it. I think Dwai, you are very good at pointing out mistakes. It would be very helpful, if you could just go over it and give it a tight checkup.Prashant 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please go through Dwai and anybody else interested.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First actress in textbook sentence

The sentence now says, "Chopra became the first actress to feature in school text books". That is very unlikely. At best, she could be the first Indian actress to feature in Indian school texts. Then, this Filmfare page says "one of the first actress to be honoured in a different way". This and some other sources mention a certain school named Springdale School that features her in their text book, while other sources do not mention the name of the school, but just says CBSE textbook. So, is she featured on a particular school's textbook, or, all schools' (CBSE board) text book? (I have no idea whether all schools in CBSE have to follow the same text or individual schools have their own text books)

The ToI source says, "After Rajinikanth, Priyanka Chopra too will feature in school text books here after" This does not mention she is the first actress ever. I understand that this could be very difficult to dig; but at least the "indian" actress part should be mentioned, because there might have been other actresses from other countries who were featured in school texts.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I would support removing all of this. Why was this nominated before your screening was finished? BollyJeff | talk 21:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OMG! I can't believe, this could be the topic of a debate. Well, see this source from iDiva (A branch of The Times of India). It clearly says about the eight celebrities who are featured in textbooks, two of which are female. If I'm not wrong then, Sania Mirza isn't a Bollywood actress right. I hope you got your answer.Prashant 21:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

idiva.com is a reliable source? Also, we do not know when her album will come out, but presumably it will someday. How to word it properly in the article? BollyJeff | talk 22:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See my talk page Bollyjeff... Dwai said he was busy and to nominate it... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, iDiva is a reliable source. It is the divided publisher of The Times of India for Fashion and Lifestyle. See those TNN tag. Go and add it and for her album, call it in late 2013 as the second single is still to be released and then, I think it may release.Prashant 22:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This source may help regarding the release date of her album. It say sometime after the release of her second single. That means second half of 2013.Prashant 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The future album release date is not needed, but the date of the news needs to be given. Example, In May 2012, XYZ company announced they would release the album in early 2013.
The school book thing is not a debate; it's a question of precise language. As I told before, other actresses in other countries (say, Hollywood actresses like Katherine Hepburn) might have been in text books also.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, we should say she is the first actress to feature in Indian textbooks. That would be alright.Prashant 00:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, it is mentioned right there "In August 2011, Universal Music Group signed Chopra to a worldwide recording agreement with DesiHits. Troy Carter, CEO of Atom Factory (which also manages Lady Gaga), was signed by Chopra to manage her music career. Her first studio album will be released by Interscope Records in North America and by Island Records elsewhere." Look carefully before pointing unwanted issues. First of all we can't mention same thing (release of her album) two times. As you questioned by using "When" tag is really unwanted.Prashant 00:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Humraaz

The sources are contradictory in regards to this, so that needs to be mentioned somehow. I've reverted my edits, because they were done in a hurry and caused a greater problem. Rediff says [1]:

Originally, Amisha Patel's role had been offered to Priyanka Chopra (before she was crowned Miss World). "We had a mutual agreement with Priyanka that if she was crowned, she would first finish all her social work and promotional campaigns and then immediately begin working for Humraaz," says Abbas. "We wanted to launch her. But she signed on some other films instead. So we offered it to Amisha and she was very excited.

Chopra herself says in an interview [2]:

Abbas-Mustan offered you Humraaz too, but you didn't take it up…: Not really. I was under the Miss World contract that doesn't let you take up any new ventures. The film had to go on floors immediately and I couldn't commit dates.

The problem here is that in the two sources the production team and Chopra are giving contradictory information, which really isn't unusual in the film business since they are creating a public relations story of sorts. There are a few solutions:

Ask yourselves whether or not it's important enough to add; if not, ignore it.
Tell the reader both sides of the story: a better sentence than the one I had would be something like: "After winning Miss India World, Chopra had signed Abbas-Mustan's romantic thriller Humraaz (2002), in which she was to make her film debut.[29] However, this fell through for various reasons: she stated the production conflicted with her schedule, while the producers stated they re-cast because Chopra took on various other commitments." Add both cites at the end of the sentence and be done with it.

The worst-case scenario is to edit war because it affects the article's stability, which is a big consideration when submitting for FAC. Try to work out the details here, calmly. It is important to use the talk page to work out these issues: that's what the talkpage is for. I was posting to this thread last night (actually this long post), but couldn't save because it had been deleted, which is a violation of refactoring. It's okay to strike posts, but once someone has answered, the thread should stand. Anyway, good luck with all of this. I look forward to seeing it back at FAC. Victoria (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To me it is important because it is the beginning of her story, and for comprehensiveness. So I am okay with option number 2. Anyone else? BollyJeff | talk 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The production team's statement are very contradictory. They said:

"Humraaz, which took a year to be made, was delayed by three months as the filmmakers could not get permission to shoot on the cruise liner".
We had a mutual agreement with Priyanka that if she was crowned, she would first finish all her social work and promotional campaigns and then immediately begin working for Humraaz,"

Okay, so they had agreement that Chopra should first finish her pageantry commitments, which nearly takes one year to complete, until new miss world is announced. But, According to Directors film took one year to complete. Chopra won in December 2000, her commitments ended in December 2001 (after 1 year). Film released in July 2002. But, here we go contradiction: If Chopra showed interest to complete other films, then how the film released in July2002?, which took one year to complete. Means filming, post production was done from July 2001 (A complete one year). So, how early directors thought she showed interest in other film.

Chopra said she had to turn it down as it came in way of pageantary commitments and the film had to go on floors immediately. Which seems true to the the film release and working process. What's say?—Prashant 14:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh??? Original research much? BollyJeff | talk 14:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What huh?? I always try to read whole text from sources. Rather than in parts. It's natural, if you look at any source.—Prashant 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Prashant, please stick exactly to what the sources say above. We can't infer a single thing. This is why I've taken the time to paste them in here. Think of it as a very small box - no one can go beyond the boundaries of the box. Victoria (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Try to learn the whole situation. If the directors were waiting for her, then it was upto December 2001 then how film got release after 6 months, if chopra signed other films? Noting that the directors claimed that the film took 12 months to be made. Where, Chopra said she could not do that film because it had to go on floors immediately, which fits perfect. By the way, why there is a need to know the name of the other actress. See Kareena Kapoor, she had the same case (was replaced and too with Patel again). It's fine that we mention that she could not do that because of date conflicts or work commitment.—Prashant 15:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No learning the whole situation is not for me: it's for the primary editors here to hash out. I would ask that you bring forward sources re the dates, but really, it's absolutely not necessary to go into that amount of detail. She was offered; she couldn't - we don't know exactly why. The sources tell two different stories: that's what we have to say here. Then move on the next point. And so on. Victoria (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My God! I can't believe, a small thing like this is taking so much time. This information was added by me and By the way, When Bollyjeff was unaware of this fact, so at that time, the article was interesting? That's why no one likes to work on Indian articles because of these things. It is tiring me. I have lot of work to do. For Bollyjeff, if you aims to make an article interesting, then you should know the whole thing about the subject and don't use others research to show your and later, critcize him (which is me). I prefer the first one and going to add the first one. No more discussion please!—Prashant 15:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You see how this editor is? Incapable of working in a co-operative environment! BollyJeff | talk 15:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't have any idea about my capabilities. Don't move into small arguments, my point is that it is very tiring. I would suggest the previous edit by Victoria was far better, which combines both the sources for an interesting tale. Re-add your precious version Victoria.—Prashant 16:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Prashant you reverted my edit here after I took a long time and clearly explained the reason I'd taken it down. One more time: 1., it's not well written; 2., it's causing edit warring; and 3., give time to establish consensus. Please. I won't revert; am working on my own article at the moment, but I am unwatching here. Regardless, as written it will not get through FAC (it is a snake) and the situation needs to be resolved while keeping this article stable. That means not a single revert - ever again. Victoria (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)