Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:27, 28 June 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Priyanka Chopra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Priyanka Chopra has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 26, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed October 25, 2012 Good article nominee Listed February 8, 2013 Peer review Reviewed March 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 21, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Cinema Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in October 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Electronic music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Beauty Pageants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of beauty pageants, their contestants and winners on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Beauty PageantsWikipedia:WikiProject Beauty PageantsTemplate:WikiProject Beauty PageantsBeauty Pageants Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 18 March 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Priyanka Chopra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Matthew Phiong (August 30, 2006). "WikiCharts Top 100 most viewed Wikipedian pages". "Blog is Everything".

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 (Template:IPA-hns; 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 (Template:IPA-hns; 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 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 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 · 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 · 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

FAC reopening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 :

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 :

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:

1. Ask yourselves whether or not it's important enough to add; if not, ignore it.
2. 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. 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)

• 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)

Prashant by reverting (an FAC opposer) you're basically a] Asking for her to retain her oppose when it reopens b] You're jeopardizing the reopening and success of the FAC reopening because the article has to have long been stable and not subject to dispute. Victoria is an experienced editor with a good number of FA articles under her belt and I think this article needs a pair of non Bollywood eyes looking over it. Feel free to edit as you wish Victoria, I trust your judgement. Prashant if you do something again which threatens the prospect of this article passing FAC I have no alternative but to request that you are topic banned from not only editing this but any article involving Chopra. Enough is enough.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As for your edit Victoria in which you wrote " However, her pageant commitments (Chopra was competing in the Miss World contest) came in the way; and though the Humraaz producers were willing to delay the production for her, Chopra showed interest in other films, and the role went to Ameesha Patel." I don't think your wording improved it and that looks rather awkward with so many ands and a colon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Blofeld, Bollyjeff and Victoria, how about sandboxing this untill all issues are resolved and working there? Enough nuisance from one user and time to get serious for pushing this to FA. —Indian:BIO · 08:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, Victoria please work on it in User:Victoriaearle/Priyanka Chopra.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Now, everybody is happy that I'm supposed to be topic band. Party all those invisible editors. Your tricks of adding fuel to fire is working and how! Enjoy this moment. I'll be topic band.—Prashant 10:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(stalker comment) It's "banned". Not 'band' (like Band Baaja Baaraat). :-) --smarojit 11:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• GA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• GA-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• GA-Class Indian cinema articles
• High-importance Indian cinema articles
• GA-Class Indian cinema articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Indian cinema articles
• WikiProject India articles
• GA-Class electronic music articles
• Low-importance electronic music articles
• WikiProject Electronic music articles
• GA-Class Beauty Pageants articles
• Mid-importance Beauty Pageants articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press