Talk:Shrenu Parikh

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in February 2015. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In this edit I deleted the following:

In 2007, Parikh was crowned Miss University which was followed by the title of Miss Vadodara in 2008.[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb Firsty, I appreciate the examples you provided. However, let compare apples to apples. A film actor will have more editors contributing to make the article reach Wikipedia's guidelines. Hence, let alone the career, their early life, education, personal life, and so on would be much more detailed. It would be absurd to compare how the Grand Theft Auto article is presented compared to Modnation Racers. Anyways, I have updated the career section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RYLELT7 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern was valid as it did simple repeat the filmography. (still not made how the film actor/actresses are, though.) But now this now be acceptable.RYLELT7 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I lot of you can you tell me beautiful raz 182.191.6.152 (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1 - on which channel this show airs on. (which is important since it informs what channel is broadcast on) Indian television has reached a point in where there are several broadcast companies out there)

2 - it informs the readers where the actor/actresses have worked for (For example, are they typically seen being offered by channel X or are they typically seen being offered roles by channel Y).

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)[reply]

Going a bit off topic here but I am sure this is valid to some extent: You labelled the addition of the channels as "coatrack" of information. Ok. But recall the edits with Anupama. Weekly ratings update that will for sure, visually alone, be a huge cluster of information since it's already intended to take that path with your refusal of exclusion. I am so confused as to why you thought the addition of broadcasting company seemed a "coatrack" of information and the 100 long feet of ratings did not. By, RYLELT7 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RYLELT7: I'll remind you that when you are reverted, your recourse is to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus for the change, not to restore it, as the status quo typically remains. As for the rest of the above, I'll just direct you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Thoughts on including channels in TV filmographies?, where I've opened a discussion for you to get a greater community input. After all, this is a community project. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love you lot of 182.191.6.152 (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't behave like I own the page. You're new here and you probably don't know Wikipedia's norms and stuff and that's totally fine. Neither do I. We all learn with time. But reverting edits on any article isn't claiming ownership. There are numerous reasons for reverting edits and it can be because of disruptive editing, unsourced/poorly sourced content, not writing in a neutral tone or in a proper encyclopedic tone, just to name a few. There are guidelines and policies here and if an editor doesn't adhere to it while contributing, whether it's in good-faith or not, it gets reverted. So, it's not only if there is vandalism we revert. Provide good edits, it'll stay. Provide poor edits, it'll be reverted. Even if I don't revert, someone else will revert it and that doesn't mean they are now claiming ownership. Since you may be confused about what ownership is, see WP:OWN. Fizconiz (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The next time you use an accusatory tone in the edit summaries and accusing others of ownership, I will report you. That is considered harassment so I would suggest you refrain from doing so if you want to keep editing here. You're also reverting edits here, so according to you, should I report you for giving the impression that you're here to own this article? Because your edit summaries are confirming my slowly growing belief that you are as with your demands to tell me to stop changing the article. Stop engaging in edit wars as it's disruption. You need to discuss your changes on the talk page once your edits are opposed. You also need to reach consesuns to make changes once your edits have been reverted, which you evidently don't have. Reaching consensus here is a must and refusing to collaborate on an encyclopedia that requires collaboration, and going about your meaningless reverts each time, is also considered disruptive. Exactly where are you getting the information that dates aren't supposed to be in the lead? Are you looking at other articles and comparing it to this one? Because if you are, I'll tell you right now, that's isn't going to justify your removal. Also, stop getting whoever IP 2409.. is of yours, to back you up. It isn't going to make you look right and neither will help you. The type of actions you're doing here, will get you blocked for breaching policies on Wikipedia. Fizconiz (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Not a valid response. I'm not threatening you, that's just what happens here. I don't randomly pull this out of my head and make it up. So whether you want to take that as a threat or not, it's reality and you can't avoid it. It is clear harassment when you constantly accuse others of owning an article when I'm actually here to improve sloppy edits. It is harassment and get that through your head and understand. Consistent false accusations, even after someone explains, it is harassment. Did you read what I mentioned regarding reversions in my previous response yesterday? Reverting edits are not only for vandalism. Addressing your last point for "don't come to talk page for every edit", too bad. Because the way it actually works is that if someone opposes an edit, regardless if it's good or bad, you need to reach a consensus. It is mandatory and I can't stress that enough. Why? Because I may feel that information should or shouldn't stay, you might feel different. So now what's the next step? Discuss, as I told you multiple times. Refusing to talk and reverting edits each time and talking in edit summaries, becomes edit-warring. Edit-warring is disruption. And FYI, for clear vandalism, you don't need consensus, you revert it without any discussion. Like I said before, Wikipedia articles are built off collaboration so you need to talk about it when your edits are reverted. Lastly, assume good-faith. This is a core policy and a common practice everyone should exercise when editing. Not everyone here is to harm. You didn't provide any reason for your edits to stay, so if you can't do so in a timely manner, I will restore the revision. Tip: Going forward, it'll greatly aid others to understand what you're saying if you put punctuations in your comments. Trust me, it makes a huge difference and will waste less time because then I don't have to make sense of your response by reading it several times, it's annoying. Fizconiz (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your, "i know you don't own the page". Well ya, that's great. I don't. I'm glad you know that. So don't make irrelevant claims. Fizconiz (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me why do you revert every edit on the page. If you do this and everyone will think you do.

Really? I don't think so. Because you're the only one and everyone who is familiar with what ownership actually is, won't "think" that. It will only be you and random IPs. Oh well, let them "think". I can't stop them from thinking, right? That would be the only thing they can do against me ---- to think. Fizconiz (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That was explained in my response. But if you can't address the disupte and/or manage to read the entirely of my response, you shouldn't be editing. Fizconiz (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bye. Glad this didn't end up in ANI. Have a great rest of your day, anon. Fizconiz (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]