Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:49, 16 November 2007

Shahid is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Zinta

Rewrote? Major neutrality?? I lost all the hopes I had. See the diff. It says it all. All the copyedits I have made, are now reverted by you, except that "infrequent visits". Anyways, good luck. Thanks, - KNM 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxoffice

Sorry, was tied down with work. Yes, the Boxoffice.com address can be considered to be reliable. Create a Wikiarticle on the website. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question?

Lets go question FA Lage Raho Munnabhai for its refs. Apparently its refs are non-RS sources. What say? xC | ☎ 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is something fatally wrong with this "wiki system of hierarchy" if an article can pass GA and even A with flying colours and be approved by many who regularly view such articles and have significant experience in this area and the article winning some 25 supports even at FA for it to then suddenly go back to a B class after weeks of effort in the GA process. A clear waste of time and I fear the article will now degrade considerably if quotes and whatever else are removed just to hide her success. All it may need is a few negative quotes added and slight rediting to sustain its posiition which if they did rather than plotting around at wiki councils would be done quite easily . I've told it how it is on the "reassessment" page but I really have had quite enough of this as I'm sure you have ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see how they might feel it is written in Zinta's best interest and they have aright to try to demote it but I would rather they put the effort at trying to demote into correcting whatever is wrong with the article. I do think perhaps there are too many positice quotes when I am sure there are negative quotes which could balance the situation. No we shouldn't try to hide her success but I think there are ways of re writing some of the quotes into text so it doesn't sound gushing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at X centaur here for trying to demote both the FA and A class articles. The only problem with a lot of quotes from selective people is that it can be perceived as POV from one person's view rather than fact. I strongly suggest you remove some of the positive quotes which don't make her appear any more successful than she is. Such as Zinta is bubbly etc

I'm not doubting for a second that Zinta has not been praised highly for her work. Its just if you quickly scan the quotes in the article it can appear as POV. I'd recommend removing some of the quotes but writing it into text to provide the same information but not make it appear as POV ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It has become apparent that any work I have ever tried to do for Indian film is under threat. Now this same person is trying to delete all Bollywood images. This indeed is disruption at its worst ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I don't want to ruin an article just for the sake of POV. And now that my image license is up for the axe I feel like all my hard work over the last few weeks is delibrately being slapped right back at me. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC) If most of these sources are considered unreliable and POV then I think the task of writing a neutral and rich professional article with many different sources is impossible, chiefly because most online information is from fan-oriented sites. I do think it is important not to rely on fan sites but I feel if we purposefully try to remove these we are left with a sparse number of sources and a basic article. I don't feel I can do anything further to improve it if I haven't got any neutral and professional sources to write it to begin with particularly as I only know of some of her films not anything about her reception. Great articles or FA articles always appear to have an abundance of good sources that can be used -this is what makes them easier to write. The less sources available which fit the "reliable" criteria the increasingly difficult it is to attempt to write one. I don't know if I can do anything else to help you regarding this, I;ve tried to tone it down but it probably makes the article seem worse to you. Each time I go to move on with my work, I hear the news that something worse has happened time and time again and that it not only failed FA but is to be demoted back to B and that the image license is also now being questioned. I was thinking that sources like Times of India are reliable and these are the type of references needed but if this is not regarded as trustworthy then the article cannot develop ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the Indian critics who are commenting on these films haven't any assertion of who they are or their credentials which argue that it is a reliable quote even if they are professional or notable -this is what is being questioned . I believe that some of them are adequate, but it certainly is unfair that there seem to be more prominent American films critics and newspapers which review films and actresses than Indian which makes writing the Jolie article ten times easier. If we could assert that they are equally adequate sources and also prominent professional critics and add some negative reviews to balance it , it could be fixed. I've tried to attempt to save it . Wow this is a stalemate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think the best thing to do now is to create a list of sources which can be used without question in the article and make a list of Indian film critics who indeed are professional and work for professional bodies and can be cited in the article and attempt to find sources which are balanced around that. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I don't see any problems with things such as citing Taran Adarsh from indiaFM.com -I would look at this and think it was fine. This has been made so much more difficult than it has to be!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I am finding it a little peculiar that all of the strong objections on this are from Indian wikipedians only. Do they know something about these sources and her reviews that I don't? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I would suggest you to remove references to her entire interview, unless you can come up with other third-party sources that say the same, because self opinions will always be biased. I am saying this because if I do not question it, some other editor will question it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you are quoting the Jolie article quite often, if you look at the quotations in Jolie they are from reputed newspapers like Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and by Pulitzer Prize-winning critic, Roger Ebert which provide weight to the quotations. Whereas, I am not sure what standing Anish Khanna of the site Planet Bollywood, Akash Gandhi from Planet-Bollywood, Ashok Nayak and others have and whether their comments are notable and whether they should be taken at face-value. -- ¿Amar៛ 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am responding since you requested me to respond. For the nth and final time, ApunKaChoice, Lakes paradise, IndiaFm and others should go and only then I am open to discussion. Until then, I will find it futile to discuss anything. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A mention in Rediff, does not make a source as reliable. Even the rediff link that you have provided is a net guide. It does not mean anything and does not add a stamp of reliability on those sites. -- ¿Amar៛ 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

At first glance when I'd seen Zinta, I was glad at how the article shaped up, how the content was massively added to, and simply overjoyed at it clearing GA! But I still had some doubts, which I had raised earlier on the talk pages -

• I've never supported random critics' quotes in the article anyway. Non-notable, as well as possible bias.
• I am strongly against sites which have random critics throwing their own half-baked random ideas, as well as which carry gossip, related to films or the actors in it. This belief of mine was in the background earlier, but I've always shown it - its just gotten stronger due to this FAC.
• I still strongly support sites such as askmen, etc which are known to an international audience, which possibly sees the fact that these are reliable reputed sources.
• I am strongly against quoting too much from self-interviews. For example, some interview (it was Mukerji) said,"(laughing) yes, perhaps I am the best actress today" and the interviewer notes that finally so-and-so admits "she is the Rani of todays actresses". and that whole "i am the best actress" was quoted in the article. Personal biases do exist. You might just be sitting there saying "Its mukerji, what do I care?" but I'll say tjat whether it is Mukerji or Zinta, we must keep self-quotes to a minimum, or we fail FAC again.
• Again, like I'd said earlier, I was reading up on the FA criteria and going through previous FACs but hadn't really got the time to get to it myself. And one of the first things that we should have done was, yes, made sure the article got a thorough copyedit. It was our (the editors) fault that we didn't have that fixed.

I don't really have much to say. I'm going to continue working on this article, alongwith Mukerji, and hope that both these articles hit legitimate FA in a few months.xC | ☎ 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at X centaur here for trying to demote both the FA and A class articles.

I did not mean to support their demotion. But theres no other way to clear FA. Is there?xC | ☎ 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity

Yeah, I will write a message. Also please keep the discussions on editing in article talk page. This will help other editors in following the discussions being made. Also it will keep all discussions at one place. Gnanapiti 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary quotes in the middle of a paragraph hinder the flow of the article. I'll rewrite the quoted sentence to include her terrible experience but will not bring back quotes. As I've said before, I'm not interested in what some other article looks like. It's the responsibility of those editors to make the article readable. I'm only interested in this article and will make whatever I can to make it a better one. Gnanapiti 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Hello Shahid
Can you please provide more useful edit summaries than just a plus symbol (+) ? That way it would help other editors, also serves the purpose of having edit summary feature. Thanks, KNM 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, well done. I usually write (+)es when I mak minor edits. Shahid • 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to keep going

Hi! The very act of editing in wikipedia sometimes leads to immense stress. I can well understand that. I have seen several instances and myself suffered from a few minor instances. Especially FACs sometimes prove to be very stressful. I have one medicine :) Just step back for a while. Give it a short break. Do other staffs, your real life, or, maybe some other articles/random articles in wikipedia. Meanwhile, let the article evolve, let it take a new shape whatsoever. However, do not forget to save the present format of the article (or a version that you like) in your user subpage (or anywhere else).

After a few days, return to the article. See what are the changes, if at all. Compare with your stored version. Then, again keep going. During this break, just do not revert anything in the article (except blatant vandalism or typos). Even better, you can collect some sources which will not be contested for reliability (newspapers etc).

Listen, I have experience of a few FACs. Usually, all the comments are very healthy for the article. And regarding GA review, personally I don't pay any heed to the GA staffs. My recommendation would be not to get worried over the GA review. If it fails GA review, so be it. The article will soon be ready for FAC again. GA is not a necessary prerequisite for FAC.

So, just keep going. And have good faith that all the comments are meant for improving the article, notwithstanding whatever personal reasons you believe may be involved. Believe me, the article is in pretty good shape. I can predict a succesful FAC soon :)

Due to extremely busy schedule, I am unable to edit the article frequently. I shall try my best. Keep it rolling, man...Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta gadbad

In "Early life and background", it says Zinta took admission in St Bede's College in Shimla, opting for English Honours. In the next paragraph, it says, Zinta completed school at the age of eighteen and enrolled at the University of Mumbai. She initially planned to study for an English honours major, but later decided to pursue psychology.

Once she opted for English honours in Shimla. Again she took admission in univ of Mumbai, and discarded English honours. There is something gadbad either in timeline, or, the construction of the sentences. Please attend to it.

Meanwhile, I am doing moderate-to-harsh copyedit of the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know if apunkachoice or planet bollywood are reliable. Yes, we may need to add/remove several things afterwards. Let me first have a full go at the article today (I have some time today). I will notify you when I will be done for today. Then you can modify. But again, it is better to dig up better (the reliability of which will be less disputed) sources, such as filmfare, stardust, rediff, Indiafm, TimesofIndia or other newspapers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am probably done for the day. And as KNM told beneath, now on the discussion related to teh article will be on the articles's talk page. It seems to be directed towards a successful FAC soon. Cheers :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Shahid,
Can we please discuss the article related issues in the article-talk page. So that, other editors can also add value to the discussion. Thanks, - KNM 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I advised you earlier, step back for a while. Do no edits except typos etc in the article. Indeed you may have violated 3rr by now. So, just let the article take its own shape. And search google news (not just google) to come up with non-debatable sources.

And yes, assume good faith. I have not looked at the edits made by Sarvagnya, but the edits by KNM seemed perfect to me.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed that tag for dubiousness from teh prominent leading sentence. provided ref from the Hindu and rediff. Just be cool, and provide good references that cannot be debated. Even if someone challenges the rediff source (because it was based on user vote), the hindu article is there to anshttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestampwer. So, try to come up with newspaper articles as much as possible, try google news.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'Prominent" - probably not needed. It will be an unnecessary addition. Leading is perfect.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

More on Zinta

Need a source for her byuing a house and/or moving there. This " Preity Zinta Up Close And Personal. FemaleFirst.co.uk (11 February 2006)." citation does not look to be reliable, and I could not find any info on the house in teh article on a quick glance.

There was a MMS controversy that involved some fake nude picture. It's notable. Add that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sad!?

Hi Shahid: Sorry to hear you are sad! Hope it is general seasonal blues and not really bad event! Please let me know if I can help in some way?

"It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: And this, too, shall pass away." - Abraham Lincoln

I did have a request regarding the Shaktism article, where you kindly requested a peer review. I fear the review process has gone adrift. Someone promoted it to an A; Redtigerxyz (who somehow seems to have self-appointed himself as guardian of this article's progress or otherwise) is saying a demotion to B will somehow accelerate its evolution to FA status. I cannot argue with him because I do not know much about the whole process anyway; maybe he is right, but sounds pretty iffy to me. So if you feel like doing a good deed, maybe you can swoop in over there and save the day! :-) Thanks, and please do let me know if I can help in the cheering-up dept. With all best wishes (Devi bhakta 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Re:

Hello, Shahid, I read some of the other comments on your talk page and of course the one you left on mine. I'm really sorry that you're going through such a hard time at the Zinta article. Some of the other editors may be a bit rough, but you're holding up very well and doing exceptionally great work, over there. I wish I had a little more time to help you, but college is taking it's toll on me. I'm very sorry. However, to cheer you up, there's a little something on your user page. Best regards, --Plumcouch 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta update

Hi! I have created a daughter article Personal life of Preity Zinta. Add whatever you want to add there. But do not add anything in teh Preity Zinta article now. Let it rest for some days. I will drop by whenever I can get some time, and try to improve, and, more importantly, shorten the article.

One thing I should tell you, brevity is a very necessary element for good articles. Although large size (within a limit) is not a hurdle for FAC, I can tell you from my brief experience in Misplaced Pages, brevity is a major plus for FACs. As I earlier adviced you, please do not do any major edit in the article now. Please, this is a sincere request. No addition of quotes, or, anything else, for some days to come. If you find any good material, add that to the daughter article, and can be added later on in teh main article, with discretion. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all telling that the way I am editing is final. I will take like 2-3 days. Then the merits and demerits of all the quotations/ length of controversies can be discussed. Indded, all these controversies staffs (except the Bharat Shah case in case of Preity Zinta) have very less weight. For example, her quote about Marc Robinson affair. That is hardly notable. "So what if she said???" - would be my reaction. Because similar quotes people give after many such break-ups (take, for example, the recent Shaheed-Kareena break up). It hardly matters.

On the other hand, her standing in Bharat Shah case is really commendable, since it was against the trend, and on a relatively much more important topic. However, the way I have cut down the Bharat Shah episode does not de-highlight her courage, my edits only cut down the details (who Nazim rizmi, Preity's confidng in him etc, that's better dealt with in the daughter article. Readers can always go to teh daughter article to have a detailed look).

Same as popularity is school quote. Almost everyone are popular among their own set of friend. In fact, even if she were the most-beloved monitor in the school, that's hardly mentionable in this encyclopedia article.

I have a in-between stand in case of the ness wadia and Krishnamurthy case. In both of the instances, I have given brevity an upper hand compared to detailing. however, in these two cases, some more detail may be necessary. We'll decide that later.

Regarding the character names, yes I was probably a bit more harsh in deleting most of those. However, all character names have been listed at the end in the filmography table.

yes I have noted the delisting. That's better, because it is technically bad to have an article both in GA review and FAC :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But one thing remains pivotal. Is boxofficeindia reliable? Is ibosnetwork reliable? Because the article uses numerical data from these sources, their reliability is vital. Other debatable sources (apunkachoice etc) may be easily replaced. But numerical data replacing is tough. ibos seems RS to me. I will write that in the talk page. But, not sure about boxofficeindia.

You may try to gather the revenue data for the films from other reliable sources (newspaper, indiafm etc). I am also trying. Unless, the numerical data are reliably sourced, we cannot go for an FAC. If such reliable source are not available, we even may have to remove those numerics.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp supports the reliability of Boxofficeindia? Where did he tell that? If so, I would believe it is RS. However, what I believe is not the question. What can be proved is RS.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was checking figures for Koi Mil Gaya. IMDb and IBOS figures tallied. IMDb is RS. Besides, the exact trade verdict (hit, semi hit etc) although absolutely helpful, is not necessary always, it the figures that tells the audience (both income and expenditure). If IBOS turns out to be a more reliable source than boxofficeindia, IBOS needs to be used. In addition, another supporting citation from a newspaper/magazine won't be bad.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I left Nichalp a note. His advice is great, please try to start two new articles, on boxofficeindia, and, ibos. Indeed, indiafm also lacks an article.

Multiple citing for box office figures/data won't hurt. So far, it seems the RS-ness of ibosnetwork is more than boxofficeindia.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because BoI does not clealry state their way of working, their source of data etc. IBOS does.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Much depends on teh reliability of sources such as BoI and IBOS now. If at least one of them are proved to be RS, the data will be fine. Otherwise, we'll have to find out more number of RS citations for figures (which will be tough). After that, I will go through the article once again. And will have to check all the citations also ( a really pain-in-the-ass job). Then only, FAC. I have shifted the debate on RS to the India project notice board. Let's see the response.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Yes, sticking to chronological order is best. I quickly glanced over the changes. It seems perfect. Will take closer look when i again have some time. Nice going. But the vital point next is the reliability issue. Let's see what is the response in the India notice board. Your suggestions on teh controversy etc is in my mind. First, let's try to get over with the RS issue, because without that, FAC is not possible. Then we'll discuss more about the controversy staffs. Meanwhile, let it be on the version it is now. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's great. I am going through some hard time here in NY. Did not see any movie in hall in last 4 months :( not even Chak De...only saw some films online and cd/dvd. Enjoy OSO. It's hard core masala masti...as I read the reviews. And after Zinta is over, get some work done on Shahrukh !--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

• Cheers for the Barnstar =]

• AND HAPPY DIWALI :]

• Have you been able to catch Om Shanti Om, or Saawariya yet, (It's taking some time to update the whole cast of the previous one's - considering almost 50 played Cameos!) Universal Hero 19:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cinema was closed? Which part of the world do you live in..........? OSO or Saawariya? Universal Hero 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Long Time

Shahid long time haven't heard from you. Although, it was only five days back, it feels like ages since I have been on Misplaced Pages. LOL. In these days, so many BAD things have happened and I didn't even know about it. I just found out that BLOFELD left Misplaced Pages. OMG! what happened? It's so sad because he has contributed so much to Misplaced Pages. I bet it was probably due to the non-rs sources vs. rs sources. This issue is bringing in a lot of trouble for us. I also couldn't believe that Zinta's article has been delisted as a Good Article. What more can they do now?? Seriously, Misplaced Pages can become so stressful sometimes. I know it's late but I just wanted to wish you a HAPPY BE-LATED DIWALI!! University life has been so hectic and time-consuming that I hardly have the time to come on Misplaced Pages. Just to let you know that Preity Zinta's article is looking better day by day. Keep up the good work. BTW, I so wanna watch Saawariya but judging by critics' as well as peoples' comments, the film SUCKS!! LOL. I was looking forward to it. Many like OSO better!! BTW have you seen any of them. I wish I had the time to go to a cinema to watch them. Best Regards --Bollywood Dreamz 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Contributor Barnstar
		For being one of the most helpful and kindest Wikipedians as well as contributing so much to Preity Zinta's article and many other Bollywood related articles and never giving up hope. Keep up the good work my friend. --Bollywood Dreamz 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Shahid, could you change the title of Zinta's film, Mera Bharat Mahan to Heroes. I was able to move the page but when I tried changing the title, it won't let me. Also if you could, could you changed the release date from Jan 25/08 to May 1/08. I have included the ref. in the production section. If you can't find it, here it is . Thanks. --Bollywood Dreamz 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the same for me as well!! --Bollywood Dreamz 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For a Resilient Editor

Hi Shahid. I'll return Monday , I'm not going to let a situation like that get to me and be a reason for me to leave - this project needs me!! - but I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay away from the Zinta article and is has caused me too much grief!! - I felt I did a great deal to help it and I wasn't going to sit around and fuss over an article which many others clearly agreed was good. Here's an award which is well deserved. I hope you don't blame me for walking out but I felt I was getting in too deep and having to spend hours wasting my time justifying it to people when I felt I was getting side tracked from my other work. Meanwhile check out British Indian hottie Laila Rouass. Byeee! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 23:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: My take

Hi! First, the most important thing, the way I am editing the article at present is not final, and I will again look to all your/others' concern once the my initial go is finished (which is almost done, the most vital remaining concern being the reliability of sources supporting the numerical figures),

Now, let's discuss at length. No I am not angry!! Why should I be angry? I respect all the concerns/point of views of your (and everybody else). No one WP:OWN the article, neither you, nor me, nor anyone else.

I have not read the Jolie article. I will, and then express my views on a comparative note. regarding the daughter article, it is a good plan per Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Let's suppose one reader who does not know anything about Zinta bumps into the article (and let's hope that this hope that this happens on the day the article is on main page as FA :) ). The chance that he will have the patience to read the full article is very low. Most stray readers read only the lead. So, lead is the most important part of the article. We'll improve that/seek improvement from others as/if needed. And, it is better to cater the usual reader first, and then leave option for a more dedicated reader who can look up the daughter article, if s/he feels to.

Next, this is an article about an actress, and so the most important facet of her life is her acting career. I think, at present, the acting career is ok. Anything else in her life is secondary to the acting career. Jolie is a personality whose extra-acting life generates more interest that Zinta's extra-acting life , for several reasons. So I think, Zinta's extra-acting life, especially early life, is best kept as brief as possible. We are not writing the "explain the character" type of a question in a literature exam here (in which case, literary prowess along with flowery examples of personal life/accomplishments would have been handy in characterising the persona).

Daughter articles are always encouraged when dealing with a longish article. The article, at present, is not really long. But even then, I personally would favour even more shorter length. One thing I can predict is if we add more of personal life/extra-acting life, the article would go on to look more of fan-cruft.

Going through the comments in the previous FAC, the major points are (a) reliable sourcing (b) fan-cruft and flowery look. Let's decide one thing. We are trying to go for a successful FAC (I am trying, not because I am a great fan of Zinta, but because I get excited about any India-related FAC), and for that IMO the present status is better than the previous FAC version (this I tell not only because of whatever FAC-experience I have, but also the mood of the comments in the previous FAC). Please continue the trust on me, the article is taking a better shape, and the only major concern for me is the reliable source thing.

Do not think that many editors were disliking the article because they have some personal grunt against you/ disliking against Zinta. People here in general have good sense of how wikipedia works/how FAs should look like,. And I personally respect the edotors who constructively commented in the previous FAC. Nichalp and Tony are the most efficient copy-editors I have seen (and learnt from) in wikipedia. Let's give the article a better try in FAC. The less incorporation of extra-acting life, the better the chance would be. Also, teh more incorporation of extra-acting life, the harder it would be to keep the tone down.

Anyway. right now, I am not editing the article. Will have more looks later. I am enjoying beer and Bhool Bhulaiya in computer, How was OSO? All the critics seem to be dumping Saawariya.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick reply (have to sleep now). There is no fundamental problem in having a daughter article, and adding staffs to the main article. There is no need to remove the daughter article right away. Having a daughter article is not going to harm the main article anyway. Even if teh daughter article is a copy of a part of the main article, it will not going to harm the FAC (although in that scenraio the daughter article might face AFD). So, no need to worry about the existence of the daughter article.

Regarding teh content of the Zinta article (controversy and early life), I will comment later. I will read the Jolie article first.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld is back

This is what I figured. An article on a personal life of an actor is actually a target for AFD - I've moved it to the name "Background and personal life of Preity Zinta" to try to make it look more encyclopedic. It would be a shame to loose all that info. The situation of whether an article is "B-class" or A class or FA -class is POV anyway and a decision made by a tiny amount of people, however much they try to brandish the "top criteria". Its funny how an article can be considered FA class by many people and not be only a few. I also find it double standards that in an FA nomination it isn't a vote with a clear win 25-6, yet was rejected but in the GA reassessment it was taken out on grounds that it was nominated to be removed 8-2, again by the same tiny group of people. People reading the article can make their own minds up whether it is a great article or not. You can't please everybody, which was clearly the case here. I'm glad Dwaipayanc is taking the initative to copy edit and address tone and references which I suggested so many times previously but it was too little too late. Heads up the both of you anyway, I know it will reach FA eventually after an immense amount of effort. Good luck. Somebody might want to start an article on Marc Robinson - this sounds like a welsh name! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As for article length Dwaipayanc see Che Guevara an FA article which is 121kb!!! over 4 times the recommended length. i think this article is fantastic ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks amigo. I've been away 5 days and that is costly - I can't stay away on grounds that this site has a couple of unreasonable editors , so back to work. Best of luck and although I won't be editing the Zinta article -I will continue to improve the majority of the Bollywood articles over time as before with minor edits such as adding cast sections/ posters amd templates etc, and I always welcome you to talk to me, i find it easier to work if I don't feel completely alone. Best regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Phew I'm knackered now. I've just started about 40 years of Hong Kong cinema!! Its starting to look much better now but it will take ages to complete every year fully and rid of the red links. Getting it up and running is the most important I think - look how British films of the 1970s has developed for example. Eventually it will be complete by country, and hopefully India too if Pa will kindly return and complete it!! Yes sometimes she edits every day and then you don't hear from her for ages. I was debating whether to split the Bollywood films by year. If all the titles are added I don't know but the pages may become oversized. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oww my head!! I'm done. I need to get some air now and then lie down!! ouch that was a marathon - but I've got a task which I though would take over a week to do done. Heeee!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all I'm out of context. What do you mean by ToI can use BOI ? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC) BOI = Box Office India I gathered this. Whats Tol? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Ah I'm with you - Times of India. Ah technically this should be absolutely fine - but it is concnerning that there is no home page on the BOI website. If there was I could contact them. Ths is a concern I think ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

When I meant I was out of context, I mean I haven't been on wiki much today, my head is full of online business jargon -I begun looking at setting up an online business where I can buy from wholesale sellers and make big profits and hopefully watch money flow into my bank account while I sit back and relax and edit wikipedia!! I have been attempting to join a stock seller site and am looking at selling in a range of fields notably electornics - buying like 500 camera accessories for £90 and then sellinh them off individually for around £10 each - now thats a potential £5000 from that alone. Once my funds becomehigher I will start to invest in stocks and shares and stuff.

I wasn't disappointed about the Zinta article so much as the actions of the people who brought it down anwhere they also contacted admin to try to get the Bollywood image agreement ruined also. For me this clearly isn't trying to help wikipedia and is delibrately destructive, including wiping out the BOI site as a source also. This user appears very difficult indeed - it makes me wonder what his intentions really are. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found a site called http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/india/ but this is probably likely to be even more questionable even though an email address is there to ask how the statistics are made and compiled by who . The BOI thing should be sorted out asap to prevent further grief. I also think it might be better to start an article on the Indian fm.com as well -it is certainly notable enough ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Yes a nasty business indeed. but the situation told me what is classified as a GA or FA really isn't all that important particularly when it causes so much grief making minor edits to try to please pickers. Sure its nice to have the article imprinted with an FA but the previous nomination told me an FA is one particular users interpretation of it, e.g how can experienced administrators regard it as a clear FA and others consider it a "pile of garbage". Something is wrong somewhere particularly as it passed a GA and A relatively quickly but was snatched by the same people. Articles are subject to different perspectives. For me content and actual information provided is so much more important. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I've contacted the Box Office India site requesting for details on the publisher and to assert reliability of the statistics ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Me personally I prefer detailed articles which provide an abundance of knowledge but are still written conciselyand in a structured way. If editors can't read 30kb + articles as they might start to yawn then I would propose they use simple english wikipedia for kiddies. For me the Jake Gyllenhaal isn't up to FA quality and I'm from that wikiproject.Yet I have seen many B class articles notably some hurricane and military history related articles which are stunning, and appear to be well referenced yet have been continuously been rejected in the hands of a few and remain a "B". ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm glad you see exactly what I had a problem with . How can the system be taken seriously when it is plagued by the POV of editors who influence the outcome of things. Whether they dislike her or not any FA approval is going to be decided by a tiny group of people anyway however much they try to brandish a "set FA criteria". How can this possibly reflect the views of everybody - the thousands who read it and use it?? This is partly why wikipedia has been heavily criticized for making its major decisions by such a limited consensus rather than actual credentials. What surprised me is that they were all Indian, were they part of the Anti-Zinta Terrorist Group or something? I respect people for identifying and suggesting improvement that could be made to the article but it was the disparaging way in which it was conducted that appalled me that seemed to intentionally disrupt things. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate your email address. Feel free to email me. I have my address on here -just go to my user page and click "email this user". Sometimes I feel that many people are watching ever word said on our user talk pages. Mine for sure is watched by tons of people. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said my email address is there. Saludos!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I use yahoo. Try yahoo. Thats a good one. Wow I'm surprised you haven't got one, you often need to state your email address for most sites these days ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Try http://www.yahoo.com/ ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes!!! I've been accepted by http://www.stockauctions.co.uk/sauctions/ as a member. I see gold! Now I just await the box office reply ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Could you start an article from this link please? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta update

Well, I could not manage to read the Zolie article. Am slowly adding some more stuffs in personal life. Will take some time.

As Blofeld has pointed out, there are several FAs with much more length than the prescribed optimal length. Even then, the goal should be to keep it as brief as possible. Indeed, I see a comment in the previous FAC where the length was questioned, and creation of daughter article(s) was suggested.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure so sure about the is/were etc. The sentence is in past tense, so IMO, it should be maintained in past tense (like we learned in childhood days that unless some universal truth is being spoken of, all the verbs should conform to the same tense).

Also, the finding of the women is a speculation/possibility. That's why I did "were" (although I am not sure if that is the rule). Am still not sure if it would be "is".--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Bharat Shah episode is defintely looking more informative now. I will touch that portion, if at all, only during the last copyedit.

The RS is going to be a tough issue. Even IBOS, as expressed by Sarvagnya in the talk page, may be only borderline RS, unless the authors behind the site can be established. So, my advice, start looking for numerical figures in established RS (newspapers etc). Don't magazines like Stardust and Filmfare give box office data?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I have a personal observation. DCH does depict the routine life of Indian youth. At best, it depicts the usual life of Indian "affluent" or "upper class" youth. It is not the life of average Indian youth to be sent to Australia on a few day's notice. rather, RDB depicts an usual life of Indian student youth.

Personal opinion apart, the two links do seem to be ok for a sentence like that (considering rediff is a RS). Still, the characters in DCH were from a class distinctly different from middle class of India. So, I have reservation here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Because Bollywood alone doesn't produce 1000 movies annually. Total number of movies released in 2005 were 240, that too only 181 movies being released in Hindi. Gnanapiti 06:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes a shame about the posters -again it is open to debate and indeed it does seem strange that some articles have an abundance of non free images such as cartoons etc but this one can't even when it is used to illustrate the object in question. I'd imagine images pre 1947 are public domain but a major thing about Bollywood is visual and I agree it looks bare without it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OH my god. Sarvagna has slyly found out who authorized the Bollywood blog and has got hold of Riana in the commons and is trying to delete all the images -|Zinta has gone first -isn't that strange. Check out This. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Things continue to get worse. Now see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Bollywood film clans. I am gobsmacked by this. You can he possibly justify his chain of actions as contructive and in good faith? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This guy is a fricking joke See this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him anway. I'm tired of wasting time on his related actions but when he systematically attempts to delete content or portray things in a bad light , and indeed cross my path then he needs to be sorted. He is not worth it, but the content that he is attempting to ruin is -a clear problem but what can you do? Nobody is gonna see what he is doing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not great, and it is certainly not something I or wikipedia should have to tolerate. I can't imagine what his goal is ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous was deleted . The one with the source is there now temporaily to show User:Riana or whoever initally deleted it that is owned by the site. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See this. Would you rather no image at all ? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely what I am annoyed with - as it looks like he has nearly persuaded Riana to drop the agreement which I spent weeks sorting. This on top of the wasted nomination time is the icing on the cake/ ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Look its there temporarily to show Riana that is one of the images which have been validated and the site has added the label to it to confirm its ownership. Once it is settled then the label can be removed. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Once agian I've gone out my way to explain and try to make everything all right. I'm sick of it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe how much time I've had to waste on trying to protect it. All I want is for articles and images to be secure and not under attack so that I can continue editing productively in peace. It just isn't worth the bother with them. If this gang of editors concentrated on rewriting articles and treated other people outside there group with an ounce of respect it would make a huge difference don't you think ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well its up to them if they want to degrade "their" own articles. If they really think it helps wikipedia by removing them all whatever. Just because they use a few screenshots or promophotos which can be excluded and the amateur ones used this of course means every image on the site is "stolen" (of course) and is a reason to ruin the whole agreement because this of course really helps educate people huh? . I tried to help give this something that would benefit people long term and make the world able to visually recognize these people and I end up looking like the bad guy. Its there problem not mine -Devendra also said he has tried to help wikipedia and can't do anything if these people want to be cynical and reject it. I doubt now anybody will ever be able to get free images of all the actors as it is clear what the goals of these people are to block them and claim they are all copywrighted -to get this kind of deletionist response from Indian editors not only on this but these articles is rather surprising to say the least. I really don't know what their intentions are. Again it shows that sources are so much important to them than educating people. Don't expect me to waste any more heavy time on Bollywood again, they are the ones missing out on my contributions here. I must have wasted four weeks and it appears it is back to square zero (aside from your great improvements and the few others only!!) because of these people. PLease keep in contact with me though. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this beautiful? Ah the tranquility of wikipedia. How are you anyway you've been rather quiet of late? Have you seen Bhool yet? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(In my english gentleman voice): Thats "spiffing young chap". Would you care for a bottle of chardonay and a pallet of oysters?? Lolyloly. Vidya Balan has a lovely face doesn't she "una cara muy bonita". So beautiful and clear -she's great to look at. Kumar looks quite different in it that what he did in the 90s -he looks quite geeky there!! That film has had some advertising hasn't it!!!! Although as you can imagine nobody has heard about it over here except a few. Someday perhaps Her Majesty's Government will pay for some world cinemas around the country to start opening up people to other films and cultures. Saludos !!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow I've had a great day of editing on here today, the best in a long time - I'm feeling better than I have in ages. I feel so much better when I stay away from those people and don't feel stressed with them!!! I can get so much more done. I understand now why you weren't too moved by the zinta nomination as the same group of editors turn up every time, who turn up at every nomaintion or event to influence it!!!! Looks like the images will have to go now. Seems nobody around here wants to accept a present of 20,000 + free images!!! Crazy. There is one last chance to keep it which I've asked Riana to look into ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep I know. I've done pretty much all I can to make admin aware of his actions and that they are a potential threat to the fair running of wikipedia in the future. I have seen many exmaples of where they have combined to almost bully people and get there own way. I've also tried to highlight that some of their policies on their own articles are often misguided and missing the most important purpose of them. As John Carter said the report has made people more aware of him and them as a group than before and if other editors come across him in the future and report him again, sooner or later something is going to twig with admin. This could be months even years and it is clear not for me to personally waste any more time against them. If they really want the articles to improve I'd like to see them do a hell of a lot more about it. Hope you are well amigo!!!!!Saludos!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Some good edits he has done seem to bale him out of the vandal status but the evidence of his misconduct and misguided actions is overwhelming. He is a threat particularly as he is backed up by a handful of experienced editors on here which have gained a lot of respect from building content and new article. If you weight the ratio of good and bad edits I'm pretty certain it isn't 50 50. It is the attitude of them I find offensive and disregard for other "mindless trolls" ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you've been told about it -see Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Preity Zinta. Hopefully it can be improved through a rationale discussion to prepare it again ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Haaaa!!!! I am amazed by this. I have just been browsing through many articles and I came across Kaveri River linked in one of the Hindu articles just at random. The edit history is dominated by aggression and guess who by??? I'm amazed at the extent of it!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes. I am very busy. Was traveling for the last two days. Probably won't be able to come here before the weekend. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's put the article for a peer review. The daughter article issue can be addressed then. Also, the RS issue. Community input is needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You told me Nichalp and spartaz opined that those sites are RS in the context of Bollywood. You can request them to write their rationale in the WP:INB, or talk page of Preity Zinta, or in the PR. Nichalp seems to be busy. Anyway, they may be able ti pot forward good points in favour. Then the case will be easier.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb. So, IMDb is not RS for trivia, unreleased films etc. But it is RS for many other purpose.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

Hey Shahid! Thanks for letting me know. I was going to do what you mentioned but was too busy with university. Exams are beginning soon and I am very stressed out these days. I plan to change the refs from non-RS to RS little by little. I might not even get to start until the weekend but I'll see what I can do. Is it that only reviews from non-RS sites are not allowed? From what I can see on Zinta's page, I've noticed that only RS sites like indiafm, bollyvista, etc. are used for reviews whereas for other info, such as D.O.B. or media app., sites like the one I mentioned at the top and sites like apunkachoice, indiainfo, etc. are used. Is that the case now? Regards --Bollywood Dreamz 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)