Talk:Shahid Kapoor/Archive 1

Archive 1

New Pic?

Can we please get another picture of him? Maybe one from Vivah or Chup chup ke? and jab we met —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.173.79 (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers 'free use' images rather than 'fair use' images. Images from movies are more than likely 'fair use' and would not be allowed because we have this 'free use' image. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling?

it's kapoor, it's actually Kapur

There is an issue here - in the info box he is listed as having been born "Kapur" but all throughout the article it is spelled "Kapoor" with no indication that the spelling changed at some point. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Headings

I think we have already discussed this on the Hrithik Roshan talk page. If the user who removed descriptions claiming they're POV with no reason thinks they're unnecessary, he can come and discuss it again (this time it's better to find some noticeboard which will give you a broader number of users' opinions) and then remove them allb from all the many GAs and FAs which use such titles. The user must understand that if we have two separate sections it's not done without a reason. These sections exist for a reason: to split the career per phases and determined periods. Just like we have to summarise the entire article in the lead, we have to summarise a section. If saying that in 2006 an actor had his first commercial success and since then has had a number of box office successes, it clearly means it is his breakthrough, and every source cited there is a testimony of this. I think it was clear enough. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, your logic sounds like synthesis, the shortened header does the job as is, without the interpretation. Alastairward (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The same discussion applies here: objective summaries are OK (work with such and such studio, first lead role, work in the 1990's), however subjective interpretive summaries (breakthrough, golden years, underperforming) are violations of WP:NPOV / WP:OR and have no place in encyclopedia articles, section headings included. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like this at all. As long as info is sourced properly and we can prove that aome period was considered an actor's breakthrough, it is OK. "Breakthrough" is not a peacock, "success" is not a peacock. "Legendary" is a peacock because it adds no value. Summaries are always acceptable, whatever they are - whether they're positive or negative - as long as they're correct, representative of the section content, and properly sourced in the text body. Just like you see "Proessional setbacks" on the Bette Davis article, which is definitely an objective title, or "Breakthrough" on the Jolie article, there shouldn't be a reason to ommit such facts from this article. Shahid Kapoor was still through years of commercial decline until "Vivah" came in 2006 and was a success and in 2007 "Jab We Met" was also a major success, in addition to giving him nominations for Best Actor. This is a "breakthrough", and it is not POV, it's a summary created by common sense. We should respect the intelligence of our editors (it was not my idea to name it this way). If you have a different title for this section, rename it. The article clearly shows by the turning point of the reviews and the actor's sudden successes that this is a breakthrough. I did add sources to the previous article we discussed this issue on, and I'm willing to do the same here if necessary. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We should have this conversation in a centralized location, but just to point out that "successful" is specifically called out in WP:PEACOCK as a frequently misused word. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Many words are presented in WP:PEACOCK. "Successful" should not be thrown without a reason. It should come in the right place, with sources and specific references as to why a subject is called "successful". Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

There should be a Biography section like the Shah Rukh Khan page. That page is much bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.137.68 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The SRK article is not a template for other articles. This page has less info and therefore a "Personal life" section is fine until more notable and properly sourced info is added. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

please change the picture

this picture is really very old.....change it to some latest one — Preceding unsigned comment added by S4shahidahmad (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a fine picture, IMO. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

its fine but outdated S4shahidahmad (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Shahid12.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shahid12.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Shahid kapoor.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shahid kapoor.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Shahid kapoor.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonam Bhardwaj

Sonam Bhardwaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.215.86 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what about her? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

please add

Please add his upcoming projects updated list. ThinkingYouth (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Shahid Khattar

The name on a passport cannot be assumed to be the birth name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And the fact that it is Kapoor, cannot be assumed as his birth name either. Atleast, there is some definite proof that his passport mentions his last name as Khattar. --smarojit ^HD 02:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The article does not state that it's his birth name, only his WP:COMMONNAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, so you can change it to say that Shahid Khattar is his common name, instead of blindly reverting and putting up warnings on my talk page. Seriously?!--smarojit ^HD 02:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read the policy: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Googling "Shahid Khattar" gives about a thousand hits. "Shahid Kapoor" over six million. --NeilN^{talk to me} 02:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, and did you see me changing the article's title to Shahid Khattar? No? Then don't you think that a mention of Shahid Khattar is necessary in the article? --smarojit ^HD 02:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can put it under "also known as". But not as his birth name unless you provide sources specifically stating that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Couldn't you have possibly said that earlier instead of blindly reverting?! Please try to maintain some WP:Good faith from a fellow editor on Wikipedia. We can all make mistakes, it is for our fellow editors to point those out, and not maintain bad faith while doing so!--smarojit ^HD 03:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thank you very much for your co-operation! --smarojit ^HD 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

please i want to add more details about his career 120.62.204.84 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You need to write out the exact sentences you want to add along with sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Attention

Hello, who is the top contributor of this article ? Thanks ! --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Bollywood Dreamz. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

original reaserch

Where is the source that describes 2010-2012 as "commercial struggles"? (actually there should be several so that we know it is the common viewpoint and not just one guys opinion) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It's in the article. Look for it. Be constructive for a change. You can't order me to show things to you! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

that you are linking content from multiple sources to make a claim that is not specifically in any of them WP:SYN .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Read what I said. No synthesis, the title is well-sourced.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV UNDUE weight to celebrity gossip

the personal life section gives UNDUE weight to trivial celebrity gossip about passing relationships. Per BLP and NOT we are not a celebrity gossip tabloid and merely being sourced is not justification for mandatory inclusion, it is merely the minimal requirement.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Kareena Kapoor article, a brilliant FA-class article, mentions the same relationship. If that can, and not be challenged in an extensive FAC review, then this one should too. All other FA-class articles about actors, including Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie mention important relationships. Don't cherry-pick! Also, a five-year old relationship that has garnered substantial media coverage is not a "passing relationship". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote on relationship with family

TheRedPenofDoom please discuss your specific problems with the quote here before abusing in edit summaries. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE weight to self serving pull quote - Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip mag exposing the inner family secrets of who loved who best

If we were writing a celebrity gossip mag, one would expect scandalous family secrets in bright blue pull quotes. [1]. however, we are not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We are an encylopedia and we are comprehensive. Also, this is not a dictatorship that we must follow your every whim. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We must, however, follow policy. WP:NOT / WP:UNDUE are policy. We are not a celebrity gossip mag, we dont give undue emphasis to self serving family gossip. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a neutrality issue, but an issue of you not liking something, so the neutrality tag in the article is nothing but yet another bad faith edit from you. Discuss "nicely" what specifically you don't like about it, and if convinced I'll remove the quote. Isn't that how this encylopedia works? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, UNDUE issues are NPOV issues. scroll up from WP:UNDUE and you will see that UNDUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV. 02:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom It broke my heart to remove the quote, but I'm nothing but your slave so I have to follow your command. Thanks for showing the way to the less enlightened. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shahid Kapoor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll finish this review by tomorrow, if that's OK JAGUAR  16:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks Jaguar. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "In 2014, Kapoor portrayed the Hamlet character in Bhardwaj's critically acclaimed drama Haider" - I would cut "In 2014" and put the year in brackets beside Haider, so it reads "Haider (2014)", for the sake of consistency
• "and Kapoor lived in New Delhi with his mother and maternal grandparents" - the lead says Delhi, so is New Delhi more accurate?
• "When Kapoor was 10, his mother, who was working as a dancer, shifted to Mumbai to work as an actress" - shifted? How about moved?
• "Kapoor performed on the songs "Vogue" and "GoldenEye"" - in the songs
• "The year 2006 saw Kapoor play opposite Kareena Kapoor in two films" - I'd rephrase this to In 2007, Kapoor played opposite Kareena Kapoor in two films
• "Kapoor next appeared in his father's directorial Mausam (2011); co-starring Sonam Kapoor," - is Shahid related to Sonam? May be worth mentioning

They aren't related. There are a bit too many Kapoors in Bollywood. Hehe. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Kapoor began 2015 by featuring" - would sound better as In 2015, Kapoor began...
• "For his role as an air force pilot in it" - no need for "in it"
• "He is filming Udta Punjab, a thriller on drug abuse" - might be worth changing this to He is currently filming, if this is the case

Instead of saying WP:CURRENTLY, I've used "as of", at the beginning of the paragraph. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Following the success Jab We Met (2007) and Kaminey (2009)" - success of
• "Kapoor is considered one of the most-attractive male celebrities in India" - no need for hyphen

References

• Ref 75 is dead

On hold

This is a very well written article, overall very comprehensive and enjoyable to read. The majority of the references all appear reliable and should be fine. Once those minor prose issues are addressed then this should have no problem passing! JAGUAR  21:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar All done. Thanks for the review. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimuk! Upon a second look this now meets the GA criteria and should be good to go. Well done on all the work JAGUAR  14:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jaguar for such a positive review. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Krish!:, @Krimuk90:. There seems to be a dispute here over Kapoor being in a relationship with Chopra. The source I believe does actually state that Kapoor dated Chopra. Can we establish whether this was a proper relationship or just a brief fling? If their relationship is cited in several sources then we should include it. But if it was only a veyr brief fling and only Kapoor has claimed it then i'd be more dubious about including, Can we stop edit warring for the time being and discuss this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you Doctor for coming up with this discussion. This was never mentioned in the article's lead, but Krimuk had added this just a while ago (maybe he is preparing to nominate it for FAC). Kapoor has been linked to almost every co-star of his including Amrita Rao, Vidya Balan, Sonakshi Sinha, and Sania Mirza. But, this article doesn't even talk about his first notable girlfriend Hrishita Bhatt look here. Chopra and Kapoor on the other hand never accepted their relationship, which according to the media started during Kaminey shoot. Even media address their relationship as as rumoured girlfriend and boyfriend. After the release it was reported that they have parted ways. Then again when they started filming Teri Meri Kahaani, media started speculating about their relationship to which Kapoor replied that she was only a friend. Chopra and Kapoor are neighbours, who lives on the same floor of the same building. Chopra has also denied several times. Also, If even they were dating, it can't be compared with Kapoor's relationship with Kareena Kapoor because Shahid and Kareena had accepted their relationship immediately after their meeting, acknowledged their relationship, even their break-up was high-publicised. However, on the other hand Chopra ad Kapoor's was never confirmed.Krish | Talk 15:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally I'm all for mentioning relationships, but they do have to be notable ones and not rumoured flings. If Kapoor and Chopra had a very well publicized long term relationship it would be fine to mention, but if she denied it that makes it difficult. Perhaps in the article body just state there was press speculation about them being romantically linked, which she denied. I'm saying all this of course but Krimuk might offer a different perspective which also needs to be respected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is already mentioned in the article's body that Kapoor had been linked to his co-stars. I was against adding in the lead, since this was not notable enough like his relationship with Kareena Kapoor. Chopra has never accepted, and has always denied. So adding it in the lead doesn't make sense. When I corrected him that she has denied it everytime, and it is too much for the lead, he said She doesn't have to. it's not her biography. So judge yourself.Krish | Talk 16:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in editing this article anymore. I'm sure Mr. Krish can do a much better job at this than a fucking retard like me! Good luck. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No one can do a better job than you Krimuk. I didn't mean to upset you and as you can see I didn't say a bad thing about you, then why are you shouting at me?Krish | Talk 09:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Shahid waits his first child .. Maybe

There were rumours says that Shahid and his wife Mira are waiting their first child , I do not know .. Hind Jaabit (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

123.252.133.165 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No request made. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2018

Ricafaiqah (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2018

106.78.20.120 (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please be specific what you want us to change. Tolly4bolly 13:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)