Talk:Shreya Ghoshal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Because Rydia was chemicalling I fixed this from the copyvio it was and made it into life, citing the copyvioed page as a reference. gren グレン 03:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

National award details

National award announced just now is not for 2009 , it is for 2008. Isnt it?

Name spelling

The article spells her last name as Ghosal123, but its more commonly spelled as Ghoshal:

Almost all song credits also spell it with the h. So, I think the article should be moved to Shreya Ghoshal --soumtalk 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Surely there isn't a need to have her name spelt in 'every' Indian language either - Bangla and Hindi should suffice.

NPOV

The article contains many PoV phrases and Weasel words, some of which I am pointing out:

  • "In Tamil, she has sung many songs. Her pronunciation is her greatest strength - her pronunciation of the zh syllable which is unique to Tamil is flawless" - (Tamil)
  • "Then she sang 2 great melodies in Balumahendra's Julie Ganapathy" - (Tamil)
  • "Some of her mesmerizing tracks in Kannada include" - (Kannada)

I still maintain, a near-complete rewrite would be the way to go. --soumtalk 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree big time with User:Soumyasch. This article needs a complete rewrite. Anyone up for it? Barathvk 00:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made an attempt, anyone else want to make a second pass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mskadu (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of NPOV and weasel wording. Supertigerman (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


  • Shreya Ghosal → Shreya Ghoshal … Rationale: Her lastname is more commonly spelt as Ghoshal, not Ghosal (see above). As per, WP:Name, the most common usage is to be used as article title. --soumtalk 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oops, it turns out that I made the initial move. Sorry about that. What was I thinking! Damn! Anyways, that move was wrong. --soumtalk 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. IMDB entry says "Shreya Ghoshal" and Google results also indicate that the "Shreya Ghoshal" is more commonly used. utcursch | talk 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Shreya Ghosal to Shreya Ghoshal as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards

I suggest the awards list to be arranged in some standard orders, preferrabily in alphabetic order. Currently it has been arranged in a random order or according to some editors's wish. Filmfare has no special importance in comparison with IIFA or Zee Cine awards. If the most important awards are listed ahead, then State Film Awards should have priority after National Awards as they both are the government awards. The rest including Filmfare are just popular awards. -- Arfaz (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is it written that Government awards have more importance than other awards? Actually you yourself said "popular" awards. Popularity is importance and Filmfare has been one of the most prominent functions for years (having the most media coverage, the most discussed events, etc.), so as far as notability is concerned, Filmfare is more important than State awards. Having said that, this remains vague and now everybody will be giving his own rationale about every function, so alphabetical order for all the awards seems to be a fine solution. Shahid • Talk2me 22:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Alphabetical order for all the awards seems fine for me too. Thats what I actually suggested and my only concern was whether National Awards should be given priority. -- Arfaz (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the order is, the present one looks fair. No issues! But should we have a separate article page for that? Its long enough now itself & also has scope for getting lengthy. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is already dominating the article at this point. BollyJeff || talk 12:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Majority portions of this article are filled up only by awards. There is nothing gretat mentioned about her singing career. --Commander (Ping Me) 13:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest, its better to create another article for the awards, considering future expansion. Moreover, alphabetical order is a pratical solution to avoid edit warring to have individual's preference over the awards. Its again a debatable question whether NFAs should be given a preference over FF or otherwise, as both started almost at the same time. Thanks. - VivvtTalk 13:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Most of the awards pages follow alphabetical order. So it's good to go with them. NFA are the most prominent than any other awards in India. --Commander (Ping Me) 13:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I too agree with the suggestion of creating another article for the Awards, the list would keep on increasing as she is one of the talented singers in the country ^[Citation needed?] DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Not a good idea. The article is only filled up by the awards. If we move that to a new page, the main article would become too small. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is fine as a standalone list. IT just needs modifications and the basic table structure and infobox we expect it to have. Lemme see if I can work some magic :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary?.

  • To much large list of the awards is not necessary in the article,I see only the list that exceeding the lenght of article, which can be reduced with writing few words?.Please comment about it. I have removed the nominated awards list which is neither important nor necessary. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The work is done,but list of award still needs cleanup?.Please comment on it.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note about Awards

  • I have removed all details from the awards section, that was going larger and larger every day.In my veiw the details are not necessary, awards names are importent which have been mentioned. Two much awards details, in my opinion falls under WP: promotional. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Rather than simply deleting other people's work, how about creating a sub article with the details? BollyJeff | talk 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Current format is absolutely waste of time for the readers. We dont expect readers to go and read each and every article to know which all song won her an award or nominations. I would prefer if the original format is reverted. Please discuss BEFORE doing any major changes than putting it on talk page AFTER!!! - VivvtTalk 02:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Unnecessary?? How do we know that she received a particular award (say National Award) for a particular song for a particular movie. "Two much awards details falls under WP: promotional" !?!, ok, c`mon lets delete 97 awards and 217 nominations of Meryl Streep, we`ll just list only 7 major awards. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 02:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC).
Strong oppose – Doesn't look like a good faith revert for me. I am not sure about whether you have completely read the WP:Promotional policy or not. On what basis do you say that listing a complete set of major awards is not needed. Also creating a sub article for awards would be meaningless as the parent article would become much smaller. It is advised to revert back to the original version. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok guys, no any problem in this regard,and my apologize, I have reverted my edits.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Why have you guys removed all the nominations from this list? If the list is too long, then start a new article but why remove such details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.77.240.110 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Not required to merge the awards to this article, I have noticed that the awards are spun off into a separate page when it is large like in the case of Ghoshal. See eg List of awards and nominations received by The Daily Show. I am removing the tag placed on that page.--PremKudvaTalk 05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision

I made a few edits to the page which were reverted by User:Justice007 saying the edits fall under WP:I don't like it. I believe my edits were constructive and followed the Wikipedia policies. I added some details about the awards she has received and about her discography and replaced an image (which is now deleted from Commons) with another Free Image. Will this come under WP:I don't like it? Also news articles are not supposed to be listed in the External links, but rather be used as references. So a link from radioandmusic.com (the site itself cannot be considered reliable) was removed. Also, a link from IBN Live was moved to the References section while two dead links from Times of India were removed. Will any of these fall under WP:I don't like it? 112.79.41.202 (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

user:vensatry believe that any image, like this File:Shreya ghoshal song saali khushi.jpg, which has high resolution or fat size is good image and want it for infobox. Unfortunately fat size is criteria for 'most valued image' on Commons and many bad images are promoted ONLY because of this criteria. User is trying to link such image which is 'promoted' by only one user on Commons.

It is not that I want 'my image' in infobox. But unfortunately almost nobody takes efforts to search good images on bollywoodhungama. BH search criteria is tricky and it takes hours-days to find good image. Some users just upload whatever they see and want that image in infobox. If other users are supporting image of user:vensatry, I have no objection. neo (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by fat image? Everything runs here on consensus and it's not because of one user it's been promoted as a VI. We normally prefer HR images for infobox in WP. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No such criteria exists otherwise I would take high resolution images by mobile and upload it for respective articles. Let consensus build. Until then please wait. neo (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
HR images by mobile? Carry on! —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop trolling. There are far superior mobiles in market which gives high resolution images. But even my nokia 7230 can take HR images like File:Hut In India.jpg. I feel weird while typing such obvious fact. neo (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, there is no rule that the subject should look beautiful/slim in infoboxes. Don't know how do you get such crap ideas. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 500K bytes is way too much; pretty sure there are guidelines on picture file size. Even this one File:Shreya Ghoshal 1.jpg may or may not be too big, but I think it is the best picture of her on commons, from a beauty standpoint. BollyJeff | talk 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the previous image to maintain the status quo. User:Neo. seems to have added this image without any discussion. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL. And now this image was ever discussed? Link any image you want but it should be better. I don't think this one is better but no objection. Few days ago I had seen one more better pic on BH. You can upload and link it. neo (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I said "status quo", no matter whether it was discussed earlier. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shreya Ghoshal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 09:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


I'll have this to you soon JAGUAR  09:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it does have a good context, but still needs to be shaped in more accurate format. DerevationGive Me Five 05:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Derevation: Are you the reviewer here? Few days back you nominated a film article for GA which did not even have the plot section. See Talk:Singh_Is_Bliing#GA_nom_reverted. I do not consider you competent enough to review another article for GA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: at least i am reviewing not vandalising. Plus i m working on such articles to match G.A. Its not any stub article. Foremost its sort of a defamation. DerevationGive Me Five 11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If User:Jaguar is reviewing it, you are not needed here unless you think they are not doing a good job. So just stay out. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. But stay away from Qubool Hai at least though i reviewed that! DerevationGive Me Five 11:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't bring discussions of other pages elsewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

  • " She is the recipient of four National Film Awards, five" - this needs a semi-colon
Done
  • I feel that the lead could be expanded slightly in order to summarise the article better - a requirement for the GA criteria. Some mentions of her early career might be useful
Done Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • My biggest concern is that there is some serious WP:OVERLINK in the Music career section. I'd strongly advise cutting down on a few links, so that the article concentrates more on prose and less on list-y subjects
Unlike west, India doesn't really have album culture. Singer's sing song's in movies. I can't find any other way to write about her career without mentioning her movie names. Article's that are overlinked are the film's in which she has given her voice. Should I delink them? Any suggestion on what should be done? Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That's OK. I should have taken in mind that the album culture was slightly different from what I've seen on Wikipedia. I think de-linking or cutting at least a few wouldn't hurt, see what you would like to keep? JAGUAR  19:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Removed some non-notable films. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "she participated in the 75th Children's Special episode" - does Children and Special have to be capitalised?
Done
  • "According to him, Ghoshal's voice" - I got lost here, according to who?
Mentioned
  • "with established singers like" - such as
Done
  • "She was only 16 when she recorded the first song" - I'd remove "only", as it sounds a tad informal
Removed
  • "Ghoshal was a playback singer many times in 2003" - might sound better as Ghoshal was performed as a playback singer numerous times in 2003 or something similar?
Done
  • "The year 2007 started for Ghoshal with "Barso Re"" - this opening sounds a bit informal
Rephrased
  • "After singing for films like" - such as
Done
  • I would consider losing or doing something else with the second paragraph in the 2008–present section. It is unsourced and presents itself as just a list of people she worked with! Although it's not a serious problem for GA, I would recommend cutting at least half of the names (the least known ones, as you see fit) and putting some more prose in there, if possible
Removed
  • "In 2012, she broke into Forbes Celebrity 100" - broke into?
Rephrased Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar:, I think i have resolved all comment of yours. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

On hold

Sorry for the late review, I admit I've had to rush this as I'm meant to be going out within a few minutes as I type this, but once all of the above are addressed then this should be good to go. It is comprehensive and well written, but I did notice that there one section has a long list of people which should really be altered. Other than that, nice work with this! JAGUAR  15:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing them, and again I apologise for my short delay in reviewing this (it won't happen again). This article now meets the GA criteria, well done! JAGUAR  18:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No, thank you for a comprehensive review, :) and you don't need to apologise for the delay. Yashthepunisher (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge: Shreya Ghoshal on Forbes to this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Redirect Shreya Ghoshal on Forbes to Shreya Ghoshal. Consensus is that an article solely about the subject's rankings in one particular magazine is not needed. There is also no extra content to merge here. As the information about the Forbes rankings is already present in Shreya Ghoshal, a redirect will suffice. I will create the redirect after this close.(non-admin closure) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why Zafar24 thought it necessary to create Shreya Ghoshal on Forbes, but it's simply not a useful article. The bulk of it could be summarized in one sentence at Shreya Ghoshal, "Ghoshal has made Forbes Celebrity 100 list four times, placing 42nd in both 2012 and 2013, placing 28th in 2014, and 33rd in 2015. Why do we need a unique article for this, and what is the precedent for tracking a person's appearances in a single magazine list? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Dear I have already mentioned that the list will expand in upcoming years like 2016, 2017 and so on. And the Celebrity is still alive that`s why Shreya Ghoshal on Forbes will expand on upcoming years. It is way better than article written on Shreya Ghoshal page and that also doesn't describe her income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafar24 (talk • contribs)
Zafar24 You're making an assumption that the content will expand, but regardless, there's no valid need for a unique article right now. Note also that we are not Forbes. There's no need to track a celebrity's year-by-year estimated income. Please feel free to bring some examples of precedent for this level of detail. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Does it qualify as an award? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Um... probably not, you're right. Striking out that part of my last comment. --Thnidu (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not a good idea to write her income on her Main Page so keeping this Shreya Ghoshal on Forbes page doesn't harm Wikipedia. Zafar24 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Zafar24 nobody's used "harm" as an argument, so it's unclear what your rebuttal is referring to. The issue is about whether or not the data in Shreya Ghoshal on Forbes deserves a standalone article. There's no harm to Wikipedia if I create an article about my grandfather, but that doesn't mean the encyclopedia needs an article about my grandfather. Additionally, what is your objection specifically to including her income in the main article? Isn't that why Template:Infobox person contains a |salary= parameter? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb:, If your grandfather is a celebrity then you must create a page (everyone knows that!). She is a celebrity so keeping separate page showing year, place and income in a table is good because in salary parameter it will show current year income. Zafar24 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Zafar24 Please do not strikethrough other editors' comments as you did here, and please indent your replies so that the discussion can be followed. Lastly, you have clearly misunderstood the point of my grandfather analogy, so I'll just point you to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CONTENTFORK where you can read all about what does and does not warrant a unique article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge - Useless article —Vensatry (Talk) 08:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge The Shreya Ghoshal on Forbes article is just peacockery and containers no information that can't be better addressed on the main Shreya Ghoshal page, if it even needs to be addressed. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sonu Nigam link issue

Yashthepunisher, Hi dear, the name of "Sonu Nigam" comes "5 times" in "Shreya Ghoshal" page but what is important is that when to add link of Sonu Nigam. So the best place at the beginning of the article and Shreya Ghoshal's popularity section. You know the reason to add link in the beginning of the article BUT in popularity section because people will likely to hit that link and "curious to know (and they will likely wants to read more) about the people who said great things about Shreya Ghoshal", and it is better, people see their names written in blue ink in popularity of Shreya Ghoshal. So now Link of Sonu Nigam just comes in 2 times. Zafar24Talk 22:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Quoting WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Your reason's regarding "when to add link of Sonu Nigam" are strictly your POV and doesn't adhere the policies. Also, "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention." It's not up to the individuals to decide when to link someone and where not to. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is helpful link because people will likely to hit that link and curious to know (and they will likely wants to read more) about the people who said great things about Shreya Ghoshal. And that link comes just second time not hundred times. Zafar24Talk 05:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Cyphoidbomb to provide some help here. Despite an explanation, this user continues to push his POV on this article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Giving Sonu Nigam link in early life section is not so important, so Wikipedia policy says that link is allowed once, then popularity section is important for Sonu Nigam link. Zafar24Talk 19:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher:, It seems that deleting Sonu Nigam link giving more importants to other two. So there should be two ways to solve this dispute. 1. Keeping all three links. 2. Deleting all three links.

Both of them are irrelvent and borders over your POV towards the subject. You comment "deleting Sonu Nigam link giving more importants to other two" is just borderline silly, you need to follow the guidelines and edit accordingly. I have fixed this issue. Please stop edit warring over such small issues in the near future. As you have a history of doing so on this article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Shreya Ghoshal voice in Tarang ad (Help me to find reliable reference)

Shreya Ghoshal did ad for Pakistani milk brand Tarang. She sung a song in that ad. Please can someone find me good reference for that. Zafar24Talk 22:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you thought of using Google? Searching for "Shreya Ghoshal Tarang" only throws up 47,000 odd hits. --Elektrik Fanne 13:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I found a video on YouTube but it is not reliable reference and I also did Google Search, so far, not found any reliable reference . Zafar24Talk 01:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Music Career

What has happened to the editors of this page ? It is a good article. Yet the "Music career" section of this article is incomplete. It mentions about the songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal until 2013 (even excluding many notable songs she sung during this time) and doesn't mention anything about the songs recorded by her thereafter. See the article of Sunidhi Chauhan; of course it is exaggerated but it is perfectly updated. Shreya is a far more successful and acclaimed singer, her article must be better than that of Sunidhi. Please help in updating this section. Vibhss (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Vibhss: So fix it. Wikipedia is run by volunteers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Vibhss: For the record, and with all due respect, the notion that "her article must be better than that of Sunidhi" is misguided. That is not how an encyclopedia works. Ideally, they'll both be good articles. It is not a competition between them. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, 100%. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Fine. I should not have been biased. I am just working to make this article more and more better. By saying "her article must be better than that of Sunidhi", I mean to say that the article of Shreya Ghoshal has been labelled a "good" article by administrators whereas that of Sunidhi Chauhan is not. Don't you think a good article must be better than a normal article ? (That's why it is labelled "good") How is my notion misguided ? Vibhss (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, when you said "her article must be better than that of Sunidhi", you didn't say, "Because the Shreya article is ranked as a good article and the Sunidhi article isn't". You said, and I'm quoting, "Shreya is a far more successful and acclaimed singer, her article must be better than that of Sunidhi." So, it seemed clear to me that you were saying that the Shreya article must be better because Shreya is the more successful singer. I found this position misguided. Also, please add new comments in a new paragraph rather than editing them into your previous comments, which distorts people's understanding of the order and chronology of the comments. Most of your latest comment was added on 2 July, but the timestamp could lead people to believe it was from 26 June. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tigercompanion25: I thought I had clarified my lot. OK, I forgot to mention about it in my first comment and that's my fault and that led to your wrong perception of my first comment. That's how you misunderstood it. I just wanted to say that an article labelled "good" by administrators (that of Shreya Ghoshal) must be better than a normal article (Sunidhi Chauhan here) and must be better detailed and better sourced. (At that time Shreya Ghoshal's article was so under-detailed and needed expansion) Only that was my point. I was not referring to any sort of competition between them. (Except that my statement "Shreya is a far more successful and acclaimed singer" was only based on acclaim, multilingualism, number of awards and number of songs; I know I must not have said this). All noteworthy Wikipedia articles must be good and precisely detailed. I think I clarified everything I needed. By the way, I want to ask whether it would be better to create a sub-section in "Music Career" section named "Work in regional cinema" (in which details regarding her contribution to cinemas of Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu etc. are mentioned) or not ? Vibhss (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shreya Ghoshal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article almost entirely lacks any focus on her Bolywood playback career. Plus, it is mostly sometimes-pointless lists. No significant references. PoV. Though the information here is meaningful and should not be removed (which prompted me to give a Start rating), the tone is not at all suitable. A major shakeup is needed. The article holds much potential. --soumtalk 14:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Active year issue

Dear @Suvajit Das: Please see reference link: http://www.allmusic.com/album/release/balgopalancha-ganapati-mr0003111977 the song, "Ganaraj Rangi Nachato" you are talking about was released in 2008. Ghoshal active year is 1998 and reference is present in article. Zafar24Talk 09:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Labels

Can we right T-Series in infobox of Shreya Ghoshal? Because she did the Mixtape in T-Series where she performed in two songs. Zafar24Talk 19:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I rather expect listing every label Shreya Ghoshal has ever used to publish a song or two would overburden the infobox. Is there any indication her work for T-Series is more significant than just having published two out of scores of songs suggests? Huon (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Community Reassessment

Shreya Ghoshal

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Issues addressed during the review. AIRcorn (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please take some time and read this article it fails Neutral point of view and has a lot of bias in writing, was really surprised to see this fansite been listed as good article, No offence to any major contributor i respect their work, but still couldn't digest the fact that this article is listed as good article Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: Do you have specific areas you think are biased and fan-centric? Maybe noting some of these things would make it easier for community reviewers. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I respect ghoshal like any other musician as I am a music lover, I also value her contributions to Indian music but this article especially Popularity, Impact & Recognition section appears to be written by Ardent fan of ghoshal. 2 years before when this article passed good article status, I assume these might not be there, I was going to contact the reviewer who gave good article status but unfortunately the reviewer had declared retirement on their user page. Regards, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 23:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment: the article has nearly quadrupled in size since it was made a Good Article in October 2015, so it seems likely that the new material may not meet GA standards, though there may have been some problems even back in 2015. However, a fair amount of material has been deleted from the 2015 version, which may also be a contributing factor to the current issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment. @Anoptimistix: I am one of the major contributor of this page. The section that you have pointed out as "fansite" was probably not that exaggeratedly written when it was passed two years ago. I was not active on WP for nearly a year when it was, and still is, extensively edited by User:Zafar24 who has been adding a lot of non-POV, fanboy fluffs into the article. I will try to give this article an overall copyedit. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: Is it okay now? I have chopped down almost half of the fluff in the impact and recognition section and the rest of the article seems fine to me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment : Yashthepunisher; Thank you Brother for all your hardwork done till now. I myself admire a lot of musicians and also acknowledge Ghoshal's contributions to the Indian music. Yes, I understand as a significant contributor you have worked very hard on this so I am Withdrawing this reassessment request as you have almost fixed this one. Anoptimistix (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. If there are any other issues with the article, you can address them at the talk page and I'll be happy to fix them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Legacy Section

Ok I agree that some of the edits was not suitable. But @Yashthepunisher: you removel all content in Legacy Section which was not right. Zafar24Talk 18:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Have a look here. The article will loose its GA status if you continue to add your "fanboy" stuffs on it. I have merged the small legacy section into popularity section. I have also removed the prose supported by non-RS. Please don't add her pregnancy rumors to the article, this is encylclopedia. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Please tell me that adding Legacy section is a fanboy stuff?Zafar24Talk 13:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the Impact and recognition section here. Majority of the prose has been edited by you. I feel you have simply ignored of what happened at the articles reassessment page. lease refrain from adding pregnancy rumors or gossipy stuffs and creating a 3-liner legacy section that should be included in the popularity section. For getting a better understanding of RS, have a look at WP:RS. Such edit wars should be solved peacefully, and we all should work towards inproving articles without showcasing our ego's. I hope you understand now @Zafar24:. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Okay I understood my edits on pregnancy rumors or gossipy.Zafar24Talk 14:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Even Mohammed Rafi have a Legacy section.Zafar24Talk 14:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but his career is more gargantuan than hers. The things you want to write on 'her' legacy section fits better in the popularity one. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi dear @Yashthepunisher: You said,"... we all should work towards improving articles without showcasing our ego's". I always believe in talk and I am always ready to talk. I added Sub-section in the popularity section because you said that information on that section is small.Zafar24Talk 06:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zafar24: Please refrain from using non-RS like 'radioandmusic.com' or 'thequint'. Also try to understand the redundancy of the legacy section that you have created. It only has several singers praising Ghoshal, which is the same content of 'popularity'. This the nth time I'm trying to explain you that we need to be conscious while adding content to good or featured level articles. Don't restore them again. It will only make things worse. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Shreya Ghoshal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Achievement

Became first female singer to be given an honour of Sumit 5103 (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shreya_Ghoshal/Archive_1&oldid=1090579253"