This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shrenu Parikh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In this edit I removed the Star Parivaar Awards. Seems totally questionable that we're highlighting an award the subject received for being on a show that was on the Star network. It's total self-aggrandisement. If this had been a popular choice award where people get to nominate their favorites, then maybe, but a network congratulating itself is not particularly noteworthy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, why are you constantly removing valubale edits? Edits I am making is to provide more information and slightly re-wording the text to improve it. Please stop reverting edits without any accurate edit summary. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F857:7200:39CC:F6AD:7E6A:3991 (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
In this edit I deleted the following:
The content is super vague and fully promotional. Who crowned her "Miss University"? Is this a notable, known organisation like Miss Universe? Or did she just win a prize at whatever university she attended? This requires sufficient sourcing to show notability per WP:FILMCRITICLIST, because otherwise, it's WP:PUFFERY. All I can find in support of this claim are what look to be press releases and press release sites. Same with "Miss Vadodara". Vadodara appears to be a populous city with 2+ million residents, but what entity issued this prize? Was either win the first step into a national beauty award? For instance, in the U.S., they might have Miss [CITY], who could become Miss [STATE], and who could become Miss America. Without those details, and without those accolades being attributed to reputable award outlets, this all reeks of trying to make a fledgling actor look more important, and Wikipedia is not part of Parikh's PR team. (And for whatever it's worth, note that IWMBuzz.com says that Parikh was runner-up as Miss Vadodara. So, even if it were a notable win, did she even win it?
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, which means that just because some Indian trades have picked up on the PR fluff doesn't mean that it's worthy of inclusion in our global encylopedia. We are able to be discriminate, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Re: the cleanup note I recently added to the Career section, Section basically repeats content found in her filmography, perhaps minus a few details. Subjects are not notable for the people they appeared with, so those details might be cut if not bolstered with significant context for readers to understand why they might be relevant.
Looking at quality GA-rated articles for guidance, I notice ones like Katrina Kaif, Benedict Cumberbatch and Kajol. In the career-centred sections of those articles, we find narratives that do more than repeat information found in the subjects' filmographies. We learn that Cumberbatch did lots of theatre, we learn where he did the theatre. We learn what his first main role was and what major awards he won. We learn that Kaif's first big role, Boom was screened at Cannes, that it performed poorly, and that she was heavily criticised for her lack of Hindi mastery, which also led to her losing a role to Tara Sharma. We learn that Udhaar Ki Zindagi was emotionally draining for Kajol but that Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge was a film she was emotionally invested in.
So, career sections have ambitions, and currently, Parikh's tells exactly what is in the filmography table, with the addition of co-star content. This feels like article padding—trying to make the article look beefier by duplicating content. Who an actor appeared opposite is not terribly relevant without context, and tends to look like we are using the names of other actors to make Parikh seem more notable. We don't, for instance, typically include co-stars in filmographies, (note examples at WP:FILMOGRAPHY) as articles should be about the article subject, not the tangential people they've worked with.
So, either the career section should be improved, or tossed until someone interested enough can build something of substance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The Times of India article currently being used to support the Miss Vadodara and Miss University pageant wins/runner-up-ships does not appear to support the claims, but it is entirely unclear who issued these titles. Most of the sources I can find about this appear to be regurgitations of press releases and flimsy slide shows, which would imply that the claims originated from Parikh's PR team.
This is in part why I am asking for clarification on what organisations issued these awards, because they seem unprovable, and that's problematic, especially considering how many award mills there are in India. There are probably as many pageant mills as well.
The similarity in name to the various well-established Miss ___ pageants (Miss India/Miss World/Miss Universe, etc), certainly makes the subject sound like she won significant competitions, and without knowing who issued the award, it is impossible to provide context, and Wikipedia becomes a potential shill for the subject's public relations campaign. I'll also note that typically when including awards, we should be sure they are notable, and without knowing what the awards are or what organisation issued them, it is impossible to determine if they are notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, @Cyphoidbomb: ready for another? Regarding your your most recent edit on Shrenu Parikh I cannot identify your ultimate stand here. At times you say Wikipedia provides academic information and at times you say Wikipedia is not a coatrack. Your unusual comparisons are confusing me and mask what your trying to get at. You reverted my edit and provided me with a features articles list. Please clue me in as to what that has to do with anything regarding the revereted edit. Am I violating a guideline set out by Wikipedia that you're trying to inform me? Is that for me to look at it as a reference? I assume that was for me to look at reference. Although these are labeled as featured articles, is there a guideline I am breaking that it says channels inclusions are prohibited? If Wikipedia is not a coatrack, then why do I see channels whom actors and actresses have worked for almost on almost every indian actor/actress? Your statement, I don't find many, if any, attempts to catalogue every company that these actors worked for.
, is adding a channel on which the actors/actresses worked covered a "coatrack" of information that simply aims to inform readers on which channel they worked for? The comparison of using the word "coatrack" and the actual removal of the edit seem inaccurate. The addition of adding these channels provide 2 pieces information at the same time:
Your respected claim that the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to provide academic information
found here is certainly right. So, considering the above information, can I get an explanation as to why you view the addition of the channel seem practical and problematic in which you perceive that for no inclusion because apparently it's a "loadful" of information? I and many other editors do not see this as a cluster of information. Regards, RYLELT7 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A) It's StarPlus, not Star Plus. Check official logo and more branding. B) We add the show's genre to be informative as we should in the lead. Fizconiz (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Fizconiz, Ok but why do you revert every edit on this page behaving like you own the page when you don’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.41 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Fizconiz Stop reverting edits for no reason if someone has edited the page is for a good reason. All the time I have seen you willing to not understand anything.
Yes ,Fizconiz you don't own the page. You are biased and fan of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4C95:9DFC:6531:523B:9213:D9B9 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Look you reverted my edits i didn't and when you don't get what you want then you are threatening me. This is not harassment all i am saying is only revert those edits which are vandalism not just general edits which are not bad like my one's were. I did not say anything wrong but was calling you out for doing so. And for every edit you don't need to come on talk page for a consesuns only come if it is needed not if its good edits like I did. And when did i create edit wars you started reverting my edits.
All i am also saying is to let other users edit on the page that's all if they are good edits don't revert because then people will think you own it. Only revert if its vandalism. mine were not vandalism User:Fizconiz. You need to understand what others are saying don't get me wrong.
Also if you are reffering to many other artciles like Bigg Boss 14 i only reverted when there was vandalism in a page.
Then tell me why do you revert every edit on the page. If you do this and everyone will think you do.
Ok but please tell me why you are reverting every edit on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.41 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m ending it here as it seems like you don’t want to understand what I’m saying. If you want to keep reverting then it’s your wish. And I won’t ask you for help in the future I will ask an admin who is more experience. Have a nice day bye User:Fizconiz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.41 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Also User:Fixconiz because you don’t want me editing on Parikhs or Sachdevs pages I won’t touch them. Nor will anyone else. Ok you can only edit on there as you wanted and and are not willing to understand anything I say. (Not saying you own them) just saying my point that you don’t want anyone editing those pages hence I won’t edit on them). User:Fizconiz you win you can just edit the pages no one will and ever will edit those pages because you don’t want anyone to edit them. User:Fizconiz
User:Fizconiz can you tell me don’t you like anyone editing in Shrenu Parikhs page??? Just a question don’t get rude. Please reply me User:Fizconiz because if you do that’s really bad as you are stopping people from editing her page.
So the Times of India is reporting that the Times of India is giving her these awards? This is a marginally reliable source for entertainment news anyway, and now we're using them to source their own awards? I'm going to remove this. If anyone objects, let's discuss. —valereee (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that the ToI is reliable except for entertainment news, which is basically paid advertising content. I'm going to suggest we try to replace the ToI sources; anything that isn't covered anywhere else may not be noteworthy. —valereee (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)