This is an archive of past discussions about Deepika Padukone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
She is fluent in English, Hindi, Kannada, and mother tongue Konkani[1].
Devanagari script for Konkani
Deepika Padukone is a Chitrapur Saraswat which is a community of Konkani speaking Brahmins. They adhere to the Chitrapur Math in Shirali, Uttar Kanara district. All of the Math's publications use the devanagari script for Konkani. The Chitrapur Math's Swamiji's pravachans and ashirvachans are also written in Konkani using the Devanagari script. As a Chitrapur Saraswat myself, I can vouch for the fact that we do not use Kannada script to write Konkani. While it is true that other Konkani speakers around Mangalore and the Udipi district write Konkani in the Kannda script, the Chitrapur Saraswat community does not. Please read our Swamiji's Ashirvachans on the site. http://www.chitrapurmath.net/ashirvachans/ashirvachans.asp It is written in Konkani using the Devanagari script. --Bhanap1708 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the category I see that it doesn't claim to be about nationality, but in any case she doesn't fit it. Apparently it is for it is for Indian people living in Denmark or People of Indian Origin in Denmark. Deepak doesn't live in Denmark. I think it was a case of someone being over enthusiastic with categorization. -- SiobhanHansa14:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Personal life section
This was removed as being undue weight and out of step with our biographies of living people policy. Not for "no apparent reason" as was claimed when it was restored. The idea from that edit summary that "as an encyclopedia we have to mention who she was dating" absolutely astounds me. What encyclopedias have you been reading? This does not appear to be a long established relationship and the section is encouraging BLP violations all the time. I would add WP:RECENT and WP:NOT#NEWS to reasons against including it. There are plenty of sites people can go to if they want the latest gossip. Is it necessary for us to go running after trivia too? -- SiobhanHansa12:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Deepika Pradukone broke up with Ranbir Kapoor on October 2009 not Novemeber 2009.
Since no one has objected to this reasoning I've removed the section again. If you think it should be reinserted please explain here. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa11:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
World's sexiest woman
This claim:
She is also known to be the most Sexiest and the most BeautifulActress alive. uses a Times of India source. The wording isn't clear on who exactly has declared her the sexiest Woman. The source states she's on the Maxim Hot 100 but the Maxim Hot 100 that I know of [2] doesn't mention her. Does anyone have a better source for this claim so we can include it accurately in the article? -- SiobhanHansa18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The Maxim Hot 100 you know of and linked to is the American version of the magazine. Deepika was #1 on Maxim's Hot 100 in the Indian version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.166.238 (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Kundapur
Some peoples are mistaken saying she is from mangalore, but its not true.
Deepika's father is from Padukone village in Kundapura Taluk of Udupi District
Deepika Padukone is an ethnic Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin who are a Konkani speaking community. They had settled in coastal villages of Karnataka after they migrated from Goa in the early 16th century. Most (if not all) Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmins bear surnames that can traced to a village in coastal Karnataka. The reason CSB's have surnames like these is because most of their forefathers worked as administrators in various villages in coastal Karnataka back in the 18th century. The ruling King in those days declared that all CSB's need to bear last names that reflect the village they administer. That's how 99% of CSB last names are names of villages found in coastal Karnataka. Now, this does not mean that Deepika hails from Padukone village in Karnataka because her last name is Padukone. What it means is that one of her ancestors held an administrative position under the royal court and was assigned for duty in the Padukone village. It is not uncommon to find Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmins bearing a surname that points to village XYZ, but having nothing to do with that village in terms of a house or lineage. My very own surname points to a certain village in the Udipi district of Karnataka, but my forefathers claim lineage from a whole different village. --Bhanap1708 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I motion that this article be placed into protective or semi protective status due to the high rise in ip address vandalism.永 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I would say when there is a film article available to link to (not a red link), and that film article is also abiding by WP:NFF. Or if there is a reliable source saying that filming has begun it can be added without an article link.BollyJeff||talk18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Pronounication of Padukone
Padukone is wrongly pronounced.its पडूकोने not पादुकोण.
@ Neal007 - The 'e' in Padukone is silent. The correct pronunciation of Padukone is पडुकोण ( IPA pəɖʊkoːɳ] ). Deepika Padukone is an ethnic Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin (CSB), who are Konkani-speaking people settled on the coastal belt of Karnataka. 'Padukone' is pronounced as पडुकोण ( IPA pəɖʊkoːɳ] ) in Konkani (specifically the Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin dialect of Konkani). The actual village of Padukone may be pronounced as 'padu-ko-nay' today, but CSB's with the Padukone surname pronounce it as 'padu-cone'. The way CSB's pronounce it today most accurately reflects the pronunciation that was in use 250 years ago. Deepika's surname indicates that one of her forefathers worked as an administrator of the Padukone village or that they were at one time settled in that village. It doesn't necessarily mean that her family hails from the Padukone village. Deepika herself confirms that the 'e' in Padukone is silent. Please see this link http://www.missmalini.com/2009/07/13/deepika-does-good/. The very first line confirms this. --Bhanap1708 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I vouch for Bhanap1708 's correctness in this regard being the correct pronunciation of this surname in the Chitrapur Saraswat community to which Deepika belongs. AshLin (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I amended the Kannada script a few days ago to reflect the correct pronunciation (padu-cone as opposed to padu-ko-nay). Since my knowledge of the Kannada script is negligible, native Kannada speakers are encouraged to double check. --Bhanap1708 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Irrespective of what her village's name is, the important thing is the way in which people commonly use it (WP:COMMONNAME) and the way in which the subject herself pronounces it. As I saw, an article mentions that the 'e' is silent in 'Padukone' (the article, which, isn't very reliable by the way). Wikipedia isn't very clear on this as a policy, so, for now, I'll leave this status quo. But, to be very very clear, it does not matter whatsoever whether she is a Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin or not as far as pronunciation of the name is concerned. MikeLynch (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
MikeLynch - Feel free to correct the Kannada script to reflect Padukone (e silent). My knowledge of the Kannada script is NIL, so I assumed that removing the 'e' vowel from the script would do it. Seems like that wasn't right either. As far as the correct pronunciation is concerned, the link provided may be a blog post, but it seems to be a genuine media blog where the blog operator is involved with interviewing Bollywood personalities(http://www.missmalini.com/about-2/). Besides, there is no other place (that I know of) where Deepika Padukone or her father clarify how the surname is actually pronounced. Also, as rightly pointed out by AshLin, WP::COMMONNAME does not appear to apply to pronunciation. It applies to cases like Dilip Kumar / Yusuf Khan. --Bhanap1708 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess i'm having a problem with Google Transliterate, so I can't currently correct it. Anyway, yes, you are right about WP:COMMONNAME, but I don't think a blog post is admissible as a source, because it is self-published. (See WP:SPS). Yes, this name pronunciation may be difficult to verify, but for the record, it does not matter whatsoever what lineage she is from or whatever. MikeLynch (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
For very, very small communities of 200,000 strength or so? Of course, every famous name matters to their identity and miniscule footprint. :-) AshLin (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
MikeLynch - You're absolutely right about self published sources. Anyway... I do think lineage matters when random individuals make various claims about how 'Padukone' should be pronounced. Being a Chitrapur Saraswat myself, I find it horrid that someone would tweak the pronunciation of a person from my close-knit community (a community so very small in numbers, but yet large in terms of contribution to cinema) Either way, I found a video of Prakash Padukone introducing himself. See how he pronounces his surname here. Also found a video of Deepika Padukone introducing herself... watch how she pronounces her surname here. After watching this, I sincerely hope the whole debate about pronunciation comes to rest.. and that the media will finally learn how to pronounce Deepika's surname correctly (with the 'e' silent).--Bhanap1708 (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
MikeLynch - I added a virama (it's called a 'virama' in devanagari, not sure what it is called in Kannada) to the Kannada script so that the default vowel sound of the 'n' consonant in 'Padukone' is suppressed. You might wanna check it for accuracy. Google Transliterate is useless. I had to look up a Kannada script tutorial to get it ;) --Bhanap1708 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah I know how it feels when a name is improperly pronounced. Personally, I believe that we should maintain a status quo on this. But again, very sorry to say that Youtube videos are not usually accepted as references. However, the video does prove the name correction, and I agree that it should be Padukone without the 'e' pronounced. So I guess we should just leave it at that :) MikeLynch (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I never said YouTube videos are to be used as references. You don't see a citation on the article's pronunciation section linking to YouTube videos, do you? ;-) I don't think a matter as trivial as pronunciation (which is unfortunately being made out to be an issue of conflicting views) is a topic of scholarly debate that demands a citation. No one is going to come up with an official press release clarifying the pronunciation ;-) But I'm sure there is no better 'reference' other than the subject themselves pronouncing their name. --Bhanap1708 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I really feel that Padukone is pronounced the way sreerajarasa has changed it on this article. Cheers! But there are some morons who say they have reached some concensus and decided that Padukone is pronounced as ಪಡುಕೊಣ್. This bhanap17 claims that just because Deepika said in a press conference that Padukone is pronounced as ಪಡುಕೊಣ್ and not ಪಡುಕೊಣೆ, it should be mentioned as ಪಡುಕೊಣ್ in the article. I know it is pronounced as ಪಡುಕೊಣೆ and these people are shying away from the actual facts.
--Gamblatt (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay this is going in the wrong direction. Until we see some Reliable evidence that the name is pronounced either way, I think this article should be status quo. Gamblatt, I request you not to use objectionable language. I must say that neither of the parties have any verifiable sources to support their arguments. I also have a suggestion: Instead of just squabbling, why don't we include both pronunciations until someone finds a source reliable enough? Please post comments here. Regards. MikeLynch (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, after having read all the comments, I seriously fail to understand the squabble. Since I am Konkani, I can attest to the fact that ಪಡುಕೊಣ್/पडुकोण is the correct pronunciation. However, my claim is based on my own 'insider' knowledge, which means it has no justification to Wikipedia. On a similar note, I'd like to remind the protagonists of ಪಡುಕೊಣೆ/पडुकोणे that their claim is based on their own 'insider' knowledge which too has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on reliable evidence and not any random individual's claim to be the guardian of 'truth'. I happened to watch those video links posted above and I do think they suffice to clear up the matter. Prakash and Deepika would obviously know how to pronounce their last name perfectly (as opposed to any of us). The media pronounces Padukone in a variety of ways; doesn't mean we entertain all those myriad incorrect pronunciations. I don't agree with Mike's suggestion at all. Putting both pronunciations gives the reader WRONG information that either pronunciation is acceptable. At least the ಪಡುಕೊಣ್/पडुकोण protagonists have videos to rely on. What does the ಪಡುಕೊಣೆ/पडुकोणे camp have? Nothing. All they have is a claim to 'know the truth'. So, I fail to see the justification behind Mike's recommendation. If the squabble gets out of hand, you might be better off not having any transliteration/pronunciation at all.
Doesn't anybody have another picture of this gorgeous woman. in this picture she looks like older than she really is. besides this picture sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torebay (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Not done: I assume you are proposing a change of article name. This is the English Wikipedia, and thus we write everything in English characters. Thanks, Stickee(talk)12:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: This image seems to be copyrighted. Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted images. However, if you own the copyright to this image and you wish to release it on Wikipedia under an appropriate license, please wait for a few days (until your user account becomes auto-confirmed), and then you can upload that image yourself.
{{edit semi-protected}}
She was daing a guy named Tamaghna in her early career.
144.36.70.77 (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done: Even if you proved that with a reliable source, we don't list everyone that a person has dated in their wikipage--only those that have a very high connection to the person's notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit request fron 216.165.60.16, 19 January 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Should Housefull 2 be included in filmography? She hasn't officially been signed. But she's confirmed to be in Race 2 as well as Homi Adajania's next, both with Saif Ali Khan
Not done:Provide a source, and we can see about inclusion. I guess it is unsourced. Will try and source it. And try providing a source for Race 2 TheMike •Wassup doc?17:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been wondering about the relevance of scripts on BLPs. The idea is to include a transliterated version of a script which is the native language of an industry because of which the subject is notable. In the case of Deepika, it is the Hindi film industry. Technically, the transliterated script and language should be Hindi. Why are we including Konkani and Kannada? Thoughts would be welcome. Signed | Aoghac2z |23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Since this is the English Wikipedia, ideally we should never use non-Roman scripts here in this Wiki. However, there are exceptions. Well, I think the native script of a person is is included because the Roman Script alone is insufficent for pronouncing the name. In many cases, the way people pronounce the name in the Roman script is a lot different from the actual name how it is pronounced. Romanization is never cent percent accurate, but is very close to the orginal pronounciation. दीपिका पडुकोण is 100% accurate, but Deepika Padukone may not be and will definitely vary from how people to people pronounce it. That's the reason to maintain the accuracy of the article and pronounciation, native scripts are always used. Xavier449 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
We also have several Konkani Roman Catholic articles like George Fernandes, Freida Pinto, and Genelia D'Souza. But we will never use Devanagari or Kannada script there. Those names are English and surnames Portuguese. Only and only Roman script can be used to represent the names there. No Indian script can be used to represent them as that may lead to inaccuracy. Hope that makes sense. Xavier449 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that was User:Aoghac2z's point. I think the point was that Deepika is active in the Hindi Film Industry, and hence, the Hindi transliteration should be provided. That is a nice point actually. Will comment on it after I look through other articles. TheMike •Wassup doc?15:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that point for me, Mike. Well, I've come across several BLPs where the language of notability is mentioned. One such example is Rajnikanth who is Marathi by ethnicity. His page has a mention of the Tamil script alone, which makes sense because it is the Tamil language (and the Tamil film industry) because of which he is notable. Take other examples :
* Sonam Kapoor - Born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, but it doesn't have a Marathi transliteration. Has only Hindi.
* Abhishek Bachchan - Born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, but it doesn't have a Marathi transliteration. Has only Hindi.
The idea is not to inundate the first line with multiple scripts and transliterations, but to simply include ONE (could be more than one in rare cases) script that has made the person in question NOTABLE. Signed | Aoghac2z |22:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I get the point. I think it has to be changed. But then, you can't give examples of Sonam Kapoor and Amitabh, as they are from North India. Anyway, I feel it has to be changed. TheMike •Wassup doc?09:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Right! Their ethnic and ancestral origins may be from North India, but they're associated with Mumbai in terms of domicile, identity and birth. Anyway, changing it on the article per consensus. Signed | Aoghac2z |19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Logically if a script has to be used; then the transliteration must be in Konkani. She is a Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin after all. So, Konkani is her native language. The Hindi transliteration shouldn't be used, because even though she is mostly associated with Bollywood, her mother tongue isn't Hindi. The Rajnikanth article might currently hold GA status, but let's not make that the reference for what example must be followed in every BLP article of an actor. Joyson Noel Holla at me!20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Logically speaking, mother tongue scripts must be used. Rajinikanth's article has a Tamil script as it's a screen name (Rajinikanth is not his real name) given by a Tamil director to act in Tamil movies, although a Marathi (His mother tongue) transliteration of his original name is also there in te article. —Commander(Ping me)20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Editors! There has been a discussion on India Portal related to mentioning of caste of subjects. The point is that mentioning caste of people, who have nothing to do with their caste, is found to be unnecessary by few editors. Hence the caste of the subject person needs to be deleted from the biography. I am not deleting the caste as of now but am only posting this here so that the regular editors of this article are well aware of it beforehand and no edit-wars take place. For details of discussion held on the portal please refer Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. Your views if any are welcome there or even here. And.... as the reasons of exclusion of caste pointed out were "irrelavant to notability of subject person", "privacy of the subject person", "inclusion of caste is like branding individuals", etc. other information included in the article which also fall under these cases will also be removed after discussions. Examples of it included religion, non-notable spouse's and children's and parents' information, previous occupation, lived in places, non-notability related educational qualification, etc. Your views on this are also welcome here or at the India portal. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here. - Sitush (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 7 January 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The first sentence in her " acting " heading is wrong..please verify...she has not acted in Snegithiye...please check the official page of Snegithiye and correct it
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.
Does anyone know what happened to this movie? Deepika did an item number in the film, and photos from the song were revealed. Did the film release?? Chulbul pandey ab (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 May 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Just wondering...the heading for this section doesn't seem right to me. She had only one success out of 7 films during 2010-11 (Housefull, which was a critical failure), yet the heading is "Initial success, 2010-11". Wouldn't it be more appropriate if it were "Initial success and setbacks, 2010-11" or something along those lines?? AB01 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there is a small mistake under the sub topic early life and background. The Farah Khan had choosen her for Om shanthi Om not for Happy New year.
112.134.240.193 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Not done Actually, according to the sources provided in the article, Farah Khan had initially cast her for Happy New Year. In the next section it is mentioned that when the film was shelved, she cast her instead for Om Shanti Om. --smarojitHD13:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Successful is repeated quite a few rimes, perhaps reword one or too, especially "hugely successful ".
Early life
By 2006 Padukone had established a successful career as a model with a hugely popular print campaign. Hugely again I don't like seeing, maybe "by 2006 Padukone had established a career as a model after a highly successful print campaign?
Acting career
"The film was hugely publicised" -again..
"Om Shanti Om was a hugely popular release," ditto
"Love Aaj Kal proved the -" proved to be the
"Padukone started 2011 with the hugely hyped item " ditto. = overly hyped
"The pairing of Padukone with Kapoor (her ex-boyfriend) led to a huge hype surrounding the film's release" -ditto
Padukone's next film role was opposite Shahrukh Khan in Rohit Shetty's action comedy film Chennai Express as Meenalochini Azhagu Sundaram, -when was this?
Personal
"She visited the Indian jawan troops in Jammu, for an Independence Day special episode of NDTV's reality show Jai Jawaan.[108] In 2010 she took part in the opening ceremony of the third season of the Indian Premier League at the DY Patil Stadium in Navi Mumbai.[109] Three years later, she performed alongside Shahrukh Khan, Katrina Kaif, and Pitbull for the sixth edition of the Indian Premier League.[110] In early 2013 she performed at the 2013 Zee Cine awards[111] and later that year performed in Macao for the 14th IIFA Awards.[11" A lot of repetition of "she", replace some with Padukone.
Media
"In 2012 it was reported that Padukone had signed on for an endorsement deal worth INR60 million (US$950,000), " -who was this deal with?
Not sure that the photo of her in the media section is a flattering one although granted it is related to her endorsements. I thought the previous photograph looked nicer. Perhaps find one which is an endorsement but which she looks nice in too? How about File:Deepika-padukone-at-the-launch-of-tanishq-iva-collection.jpg? I suppose the Wrigley photo is OK, but I don't think it is one of her more attractive photos with her hair worn down.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That one looks good too, though I don't think she officially endorsed Tanishq- I think it was just for Race 2 promotions.. AB01 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
We could use both, and move the Wrigley photo down to the bottom right where her endorsements are mentioned? I'd rather the previous photo on the top left though and then put the Wrigley photo on the bottom right. ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Deepika Padukone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
(edit conflict) According to an interview she is trained in Bharathanatyam (source 2: [5]) and also jazz ballet (source 2) . Also, another article by The Times of India states she's learned Kathak (source 2: [6]). Is it worth mentioning in the article? Also, what happened to the infobox? It's missing!? ごだい (会話) 17:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It was removed during the FA review as it adds nothing new to the article. Read WP:DISINFOBOX. And the information about her training in Bharatnatyam and Kathak can definitely be included. --krimuk9014:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Image sizes
Registered users (but not IPs) have the ability to set their desired size for images that use the |thumb parameter. The default (which includes IPs) is 220px, but users may set it to values between 120px and 300px. This means that they can alter the size of images relative to the text to suit their monitor size and eyesight – but only for images that use 'thumb' and don't have a forced image size. When you force the lead image to 250px, you are removing the ability of other users to change that size to their preference. Of course, we conventionally make the lead image bigger than the other images in the article; that usually has a pleasing aesthetic effect. But trying to accomplish that by forcing an image width of 250px would result in having a lead image much smaller than the others for anyone who set their default thumb size to 300px, for example.
The solution to the problem is to use the |upright= parameter instead of specifying a fixed width, as Soerfm attempted. Although the value of |upright=0.9 is too small for a lead image in my humble opinion – I've used |upright=1.2 to demonstrate – the edit was good and should have been amended, not reverted, especially with a snarky edit summary. I appreciate how much some of you have invested in this article and the pressure of having it on Main Page; nevertheless I would have hoped you had learned by now that enforcing your own views by reversion without sensible explanation is ownership, not the stewardship that should happen. WP:OAS is policy and you would do well to study it, particularly "Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit." You have created an excellent article here, but it is a mistake to believe that it cannot be improved by other editors. Either supply valid reasons for reversion in your edit summaries or engage in constructive discussion here if you want to behave as stewards of this article. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how "the size is perfect" could be interpreted as a "snarky" comment and be regarded as ownership. Anyway, I reverted the edit by Soerfm because the size was too small for the lead. But thank you for the current edit RexxS, I appreciate it.--krimuk9016:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Cassianto: I would recommend not forcing any image size you if can manage it. I mean use the default (no px parameter) for most images and they will appear at 220px to an unregistered reader. For the lead image, it's usual to make that a little larger and something around |upright=1.2 is a good value to try for starters. That allows users who like their images a different size relative to text to change the thumbnail value in their preferences and still have the lead image larger than the rest of the images. For example, at present the lead image here will have a width of 220px x 1.2 = 264px for a IP viewer, but for anybody who has set their thumbnail default to 300px (maybe they have a very wide monitor), they will see the lead image at 360px compared to all the others at 300px. You can experiment with the |upright= parameter just by previewing the result of course. It was originally designed to make long, thin images more reasonably sized (hence the "upright" name), but has found use to allow images to keep their size relative to each other, while improving accessibility for logged-in users. For anyone interested in more detail, there is a good, if lengthy, tutorial at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial #Thumbnail sizes and the relevant section of the MOS is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images #Size. Hope you find some of that useful. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
RexxS, cool so the images I am working on here should all be default then? I have deleted the "upright" parameter for all but two which I have kept as "upright" as making them bigger would force sandwiching of the text. CassiantoTalk05:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
@Cassianto: Just setting |upright is approximately the same as |upright=0.75 which makes images 75% of their default thumbnail size. I'd recommend these settings:
[[File:George Robey by H. Walter Barnett.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.15|Robey in the 1910s]]
[[File:Kennington Road, London c. 1865.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.23|Kennington Road in 1865]]
[[File:RoyalAcquarium1876.png|thumb|left|upright=1.15|The [[Royal Aquarium]], where Robey gave his first major performance]]
In other words, replacing |250px with |upright=1.15 and replacing |270px with |upright=1.23 will give images almost exactly the same size for an IP viewer (or a registered user who has left their thumbnail default size at 220px), but will render the images proportionately larger for any registered user who has changed their thumbnail default size. You could check it out by temporarily changing your Preferences -> Appearance -> Files -> "Thumbnail size" to 300px, for example - but don't forget to change it back to 220px afterwards! It's instructive to see how some users actually see our pages - and try the "Thumbnail size" at 120px (presumably a left-over from early attempts to allow our pages to be viewed on mobile devices). See what you think. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
@Cassianto: May I assume that you haven't changed your own thumbnail preferences (so that you see what an IP visitor sees)? If so, then you can work out how to replace any forced size like this: divide the forced width in pixels by 220px; round that up slightly if need be; use that number as the value for |upright=. So, for example: [[File:Kennington Road, London c. 1865.jpg |thumb |right |270px| Kennington Road in 1865]] forces a width of 270px; divide 270 by 220 giving 1.22727 - so round that up a little to |upright=1.23 and use that instead of |270px. Of course if an image looks good to you at 220px width, then don't specify a width and leave out the |upright=; just keep it simple as most images are expected to be at that width. Making images narrower is exactly the same: a 200px wide image would become |upright=0.91 because 200/220 = 0.90909. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added. Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information can be added to this article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't link Juliet, because Padukone doesn't 'play' the character. The film is a loose adaptation, and Leela's character has very few similarities to Juliet. If linked, we would also have to link Juhi Chawla's character in Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak to Juliet, and many other Hindi films that are "based" on the play. --krimuk9002:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the subheading "Career struggles (2010–11)", the second line states: ...as the supportive girlfriend of a depressed man (played by Farhan Akhtar) who goes through a series of changes after receiving mysterious phone calls every morning.
This may be misleading as Karthik (played by Farhan Akhtar) does not suffer from depression, but schizophrenia. Both entirely different disorders.
It is understandable that although correcting to "...as the supportive girlfriend of a man suffering from schizophrenia..." is correct, it may give a large part of the plot away.
May a suggest using a more appropriate term such as "a troubled man".
Source: Karthik calling Karthik (2010) movie
90.198.87.219 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if you see the film, Akhtar's character is depressed in the first half of the film. We come to know much latter that he is suffering from schizophrenia. I can mention schizophrenia in the article if you want, but the fact that he is depressed is not wrong either. --KRIMUK90✉04:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Padukone soon began to receive offers for film roles.[21] Believing herself to be too inexperienced as an actor, she instead enrolled for a course at Anupam Kher's film academy.[22] Following much media speculation, the director Farah Khan, who had noticed her in Reshammiya's music video, made the decision to cast her for a role in Happy New Year.[6][17]"
Please change 'Happy New Year' to 'Om Shanthi Om'(2007) which was Deepika Padukone's debut film. 'Happy New Year' is an under production film set to release in 2014 and shouldn't feature in a section that talks about her early career and entry into the movies.The aim of the paragraph is clearly to build up towards her debut movie.
Please check the reference provided. The film that she was first signed on for was Happy New Year. In the later section you will find that the film was shelved, and she was cast for Om Shanti Om instead. --KRIMUK90✉17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}}(t • e • c)19:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Infobox image
I changed current infobox image to File:DeepikaPadukone04.jpg because the current image does not look like that of Deepika.[7] But Kirmuk90 reverted my edit and that of Kailash29792.[8]User:Kailash29792 had corrected caption, so I assumed he don't have objection to change.[9] On commons, User:Stemoc uploaded new version of this image.[10] So I assumed he liked image and have fixed crop, light issue. Nobody bother to upload new version unless he likes the image. So I reverted edit of Kirmuk90.[11]. Kirmuk90 again reverted my edit simply saying 'I disagree'.[12] Then I requested Kirmuk to choose another image from commons category or upload new image of his choice.[13] But instead of thinking on my proposal, he thought of 3RR. Posted warning message on my talkpage as safeguard to impress admins and reverted my edit.[14]. This is wastage of time of everyone. I request Kirmuk or other users to choose some other image of their choice. Abhi (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically, I don't think we have to regularly upload a new image of Deepika until she has gone through a major facial makeover. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The image you want to change it to is of a much lower quality, and has poor lighting. I request some other editor to change it back unless they disagree. Thank you. Btw, the statement "does not look like that of Deepika" doesn't make sense to me. Why do you think it doesn't look like her? --KRIMUK90✉07:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
How about sticking to any latest image of Deepika that shows her in her normal self without excessive make up or extreme/poor lighting that may change the colour of her skin? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to above image by Kirmuk and that's what I was saying. But u were adamant, tried to scare me by 3RR warning and u himself have violated 3RR. I am going to file report for the first time. Abhi (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
AB01, that's the best image in commons category for infobox. I am going to link it to infobox. But same image exist below in article. I will try to swap it with Krimuk's image. But if I fail to do so due to browser limit, pls do it. Abhi (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
That 'in the media' section is too long for my browser. Can't change that image. I request some user to do it. Abhi (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Thanks. Enough controversy. Also the subject look sleepy.(Can't type more. Browser limit over) Abhi (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Having an image for the last 2 years doesn't mean that it should remain that forever. I don't mind the image, but there are several other good-quality images available on commons, and unless we reach a consensus on which one to use it is unfair and very unprofessional to go on and change it! --KRIMUK90✉01:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, the current one is my favourite image for the infobox. But, what image would you propose? Like, what's your Top Three? AB01I'M A POTATO01:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I am ok with the current image. :) What I previously wanted to say was that since the image has been in use for 2 years, we could change it given that there are several high-quality images available on commons. Anyways, my previous comment was directed to Abhi who seemed overenthusiastic in changing the previous image without paying heed to what I had to say. --KRIMUK90✉02:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Deepika Padukone has topped FHM's 100 sexiest women in the world list for the year 2014 as she replaces actress Katrina Kaif, who has been topping the list for the last five years.[15]Shivam.tickoo13 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
IN MEDIA
Deepika Padukone has topped FHM's 100 sexiest women in the world list for the year 2014 as she replaces actress Katrina Kaif, who has been topping the list for the last five years.[16]Shivam.tickoo13 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2014
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Sakina khan (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
deepika and ranbir your 'jodi' is very bueatiful .pleace marry ranbir kapoor .just i am not telling this all are telling that u marry ranbir kapoor
I reverted your edit not because it was allegedly wrong, but because your grammar was pathetic, and so was the referencing style. Please read WP:REF to know how to add a source properly to any article. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The source does not say that she was born to a Kannada speaking family. They are proud Kannadigas because they were born and raised in the state, that's all. So no, we won't be changing any information. --KRIMUK90✉05:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
That's untrue. An infobox provides a quick overview in a predictable position of key facts that a reader can access at a glance. It also provides both microformats and structured data that facilitates third party reuse of our content. There's plenty that the lead does not provide. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither of the article authors want an infobox. The infobox contains nothing that isn't already provided which can be easily viewed. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else Please get on with something more useful, there's a million and one things needing doing with article work on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. For an article on a living person, it is probably better not to have an infobox (especially in this case). ☠JAGUAR☠22:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is it "probably better" in this case not to have an infobox? Do you have any reason to say that?
The infobox I provided was indeed minimal, as infoboxes should be. They become counter-productive if we end up cramming cruft and trivia into them. However, date and place of birth, age, occupation and the career dates would seem to me to be key information for an actor and the sort of information that a reader may visit the page simply to find out. We have the opportunity to give visitors the choice of using the article for (1) a detailed biography; (2) an overview of the person's life and career; (3) a quick reference for key facts relevant to the person. Those choices are provided by (1) the main article; (2) the lede; (3) the infobox. Just because all of the information in the lead can be found in the main body of the article, we don't adduce an argument that we shouldn't have a lead. Correspondingly, it doesn't matter that the infobox carries information that may be found elsewhere in the article; that's no reason not to have an infobox - it serves a different function from the lead and the article body.
In addition, the infobox I suggested provided the following microformats for third-party readers: vcard, fn, bday, birthplace, role. None of that is available in the lead. Nor does the lead contain the structured {label-data} pairs, {"Born" - "5 January 1986 (age 27) Copenhagen, Denmark"}, {"Occupation" - "Film actress, model"}, {"Years active" - "2006–present"}, which are used to gather information in machine-readable format, as well as by researchers who use them to train natural language parsers. There are many more uses for infoboxes than just collecting together a few key facts for the casual reader. --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
RexxS, I'm sick to death of logging into this website and seeing people like you forcing infoboxes and then brandishing civility policies at editors who work in good faith here and disagree with you. Infoboxes are NOT compulsory and this was decided by Arb here. I have no problems, in fact I support infoboxes where they contain a wealth of information, whether it be buildings, sportspeople or aircraft or settlements and I think they're to be advised on things like that where a lot of facts are best represented in a table/box. What I detest is infobox pushers where the infobox is virtually redundant and contains nothing other than the name and date of birth and occupation which is all mentioned in the lead and the people who've bothered to promote it to GA/FA have decided they don't want one and it looks better without it. Your summary adding the box implying a virtually empty box is full of useful facts for mobile readers is simply false. Quite frankly I've had more than my fair share of infobox disputes and I do NOT want to see a repeat of Peter Sellers. I strongly suggest you read the "Obsession with infoboxes" section on my user page and do something useful instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
And why shouldn't I be equally sick to death of seeing you reverting my good-faith improvements to an article with no more justification than that you own the article and don't like infoboxes? Why shouldn't I detest infobox haters who don't understand the value of even small infoboxes for the casual visitor and for third-party re-use, yet feel the need to remove them without a proper discussion? Is your best argument "it looks better without it"? Is this all about your personal preferences? You have made no attempt to enter into discussion yet you have the gall to remind others of the ArbCom restating our policy "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." When this article went to FAC, one reviewer was against an infobox and one was in favour. They brought these arguments to bear:
"I consider the infobox to be more of a WP:DISINFOBOX and utterly pointless here."
"I see other Bollywood actresses have similar, so this must be the norm"
"it's very standard for actor articles to have an infoxbox and I think you'll find yourself constantly battling with other editors over it...it's bound to be re-added all the time"
"two pieces of information that they provide at a quick glance (not so easily available in the lead) are 1. the subjects age, and 2. the years they have been active"
But your response addressed nothing:
Most of us here seem to agree that the infobox is pointless ... Looks better with out it IMO"
Yet you seem to think that your opinion trumps all other and that you can attack those that disagree with you whenever you choose. Nevertheless, I engaged with you politely and in a collegial manner, despite your lack of understanding of the value that an infobox may bring and the disinformation you spread. Beside me, there are two editors above asking what happened to the infobox and they deserve to have a proper answer. Are you unable to sensibly and rationally discuss the pros and cons of my edit without resorting to ad hominen arguments? I find that many others whose views on infoboxes are strongly divergent from mine are perfectly capable of entering into discussion with me and seeking consensus without resorting to the utterly unacceptable behaviour you have displayed. If you are truly incapable of editing in a collegial manner with editors like me, then I strongly suggest you find yourself another website to contribute to. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
RexxS, I think for most cases an infobox would suit an article very well - such as articles ranging from cities to small villages and types of flora to species, etc... but unless I'm mistaken, they're not compulsory. For an article such as this, an infobox with minimal information like you said above may not be needed. At a quick glance, all the information that was in the infobox can easily be found in the lead. Is ArbCom trying to make them compulsory? And even if they are, don't we even get a say in it? ☠JAGUAR☠17:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging so politely, Jaguar. It's difficult to generalise about types of articles where infoboxes serve best, which is why our policy is to discuss the pros and cons on individual articles. At the FAC, Loeba said, "it's very standard for actor articles to have an infoxbox" and Cassianto (who is generally not in favour of infoboxes in biographies) added "other Bollywood actresses have similar, so this must be the norm". In fact there are about 2.3 million out of 4.4 million total articles with infoboxes, so there really isn't any norm, and of course they are not compulsory - but neither is their absence compulsory either (and ArbCom has no intention of changing any of that). As you can see from my comment above, there are several reasons for having an infobox. Equally there are several reasons not to have one. Sometimes the information cannot be satisfactorily summarised and needs a more nuanced explanation - trying to over-summarise can mislead the reader; sometimes the aesthetics of the page are badly disturbed by an infobox - a huge infobox can overwhelm a short article, for example; sometimes there are just insufficient key facts known to sensibly populate an infobox; sometimes an infobox can become a magnet for "true fans™" to cram every bit of cruft and trivia into it. Then there is the effort required to maintain an infobox and make sure the text, the lead and the box remain in sync with each other. For any given article, there are lots of considerations that need to be made to determine whether an infobox is a net improvement. And that's why it's important that the discussion can be made in a collegial manner. I'm not tolerant of editors who poison discussion with personal attacks and a "because I say so" attitude. --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, another day, another infobox discussion. Firstly, welcome back RexxS and I'm glad your absence was a temporary one. Infoboxes; what can I say that hasn't been said already. It is true, I don't like them on biographies. The reasons why I don't like them on biographies are thus:
over simplification of the facts
they can give misleading and ambiguous information
the information given is repetitive and redundant and can be found within the first line of the lede,
they are ugly beyond belief! Especially if they bleed down the page and into the first section which has a sandwiching effect with the first picture
How can we summarise accurately the life of a notable being who has had a seventy-year career and who has lived for ninety-years in a series of bullet points?
They contain unimportant information; why do I need to know who their non-notable wives/husbands are? Who their non-notable children are? What gender they are? Why should these points be the first thing a reader sees?
They can contain factoids, cruft, and other trivia which, although very interesting to fact hungry students who are cheating in exams and essays, do nothing for explaining the complexities of someone's career which they have worked hard on?
This is not to say I dislike them *all* of the time. They work well on geography articles, film articles, war articles, nobility articles, and political articles. I'm sure there are other but they escape me. Padukone is purely biographical, so IMO, all of the above bulleted points apply. My "other Bollywood actresses have similar, so this must be the norm" comment was rhetorical, which I put out there with a positive slant, fearing that I may start a heated discussion about infoboxes on it's FAC. This happend to SchroCat and I during the Ian FlemingFAC which was disruptive and annoying and made the article fail it's FAC. A do agree with RexxS; there appears to be no "norm" when presented with the statistics above. In fact, I agree with all of your cons and thank you for giving us the pros. In terms of FAs, I believe the decision whether to have a box or not should be down to the local editors who have worked hard to make it an Featured article. CassiantoTalk19:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Not to get into a big debate about this, but for my 2p (since I was tagged here and was involved in the artice FAC) I think Rex makes a very articulate argument for the inclusion of infoboxes. He has explained precisely why I favour them. They provide instant statistics in a way the lead does not, and there's nothing wrong with a reader wanting to find facts in an instance. If someone literally only wants to find out Padukone's age, I don't think they should have to look at the birthdate in the lead and do the maths. If they want to know the year of her debut, they shouldn't have to scan the lead when they can find it straight away in an infobox (I always look at the "years active" row when I visit a bio page, I find it really useful). These facts aren't things that can be miscommunicated in an infobox, either (I don't quite understand the argument about them containing ambiguous information, TBH). Likewise, it's very possible that a reader will be coming to the page to quickly find out who an individual was married to and what those years were. Maybe not everyone cares about those facts, but it's definitely something people will be coming to a bio article for so again - I think it's reasonable for us to make that information instantly available (it wouldn't be there in the first couple of lines of the lead). Don't we want to be as useful as possible? However, as Rex says, if a reader does want a full introduction to that individual, we have the lead (and then the full article). The infobox doesn't take away from this. Yes, it the info is repeated in the lead, but I think Rex's point that this info is also repeated in the main text is a very good one and almost makes the "repetitive" argument redundant. I really like his point that we give readers the option of finding information in three different ways (via quick statistics, via a written summary, or via a full biography). The appearance of infoboxes is a subjective issue as well - they don't offend me personally, on the contrary I think they give pages a more "formal" look. Although I agree that they look pretty silly on bare-bones stub articles. Basically what it comes down to is that I know I find them very useful and miss them whenever they aren't on an article, so I'm speaking on behalf of people coming to the page who also find them useful. --Loeba(talk)19:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, could we all please try and avoid the uncivil language: there is as little need for the unfounded ownership allegation as there is for the Nazi tag and it's not a good way to start a conversation.
In regard to the IB, I'm afraid I don't see an advantage in this instance. The only "new" information the IB provides is her age, which is partially interesting, but not a terribly good reason to justify including an entire infobox just to support it: everything else in the box is redundant, being provided in the first few lines. As with many infoboxes, some of the information is misleading and ambiguous: the "occupation" field in this case is inaccurate, for example. As to the provision of metadata, firstly there is no consensus that we are required to provide this for unconnected third parties; secondly we already provide this: it's in the hidden {{Persondata}} template already that provides the key facts. – SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would also like to avoid uncivil language, but I don't accept that my characterisation of Blofeld's behaviour as ownership is unfounded. Perhaps you and I have different views on what constitutes ownership, and we may have to agree to disagree on that point.
You make some good points about the IB here, but IBs are not required to provide "new" information. In fact they should generally duplicate the key items of information for visitors who want to simply look up a fact about the subject. I accept that the box I suggested was minimal, but the previous box contained a lot more information - too much in my opinion. Nevertheless if others felt that a larger box was more viable, I'd be happy to discuss what other information might be included or excluded. I'm also puzzled why stating Padukone's occupation as "Film actress, model" should be inaccurate, misleading and ambiguous. The lead states "Deepika Padukone ... is an Indian film actress and model" - surely the infobox is no more inaccurate, etc. than the lead is? The point about Persondata is important. It is certainly much better to have some metadata than none, but you have to remember than Persondata is proprietary to Wikipedia and it doesn't provide the generally-recognised microformats that the infobox would (vcard, fn, bday, birthplace, role are not generated in Persondata). There are several other ways in which Persondata would be a poor substitute for the infobox, but it's easiest to refer you to this essay for those. I agree we are not required to provide metadata for unconnected third parties, but we're not required to provide encyclopedia content for unconnected readers either! This project is a hobby (other than for the paid editors) and from my own perspective, I see value in providing data to third parties as they then disseminate it further and help us to create that "world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
@Loeba. I'd feel differently if the infobox contained a lot of data but the infobox attempting to be added contains barely anything, It really doesn't add anything of major value and you seem to view it as a missing piece of furniture rather than it of having major value. The only thing I can see it useful for as it was "how old is she?" ♦ Dr. Blofeld21:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess part of it is that I'm used to them, but I genuinely do always look at infoboxes whenever they're on an article. And it may sound odd but yes, I do like seeing an individual's age (or their age at death) and the years active. As I've said a couple of times, these things can't be found at a glance in the first line of the lead (which seems to be the main argument for excluding this particular infobox). So it can't be said that the infobox provides "nothing" at all. Maybe I'm weird in wanting these particular pieces of information, or maybe there are a lot of people coming to the page who want to see them. Who knows? The only way we could really find out is through a large survey for all the IP visitors. As much as WP seeks to achieve "consensus", such discussions rarely involve more than a few people so it's hardly representative... --Loeba(talk)21:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Funny thing is back in 2007 or 2008 I actually used to go through actor articles adding the former infobox actor with silver for deceased and gold for living to articles :-] If we could get the actor infoboxes to contain more data I'd be more inclined to support them in biographies again. It's not that they contain nothing, but in terms of extra information the infobox wanted here really is next to nothing in added value. What frustrates me more than anything is that the arb have decided that infoboxes aren't compulsory but the reality is that infoboxes generally end up being added to every article, whether the chief articles writers support them or not. They're more interested in civility.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld21:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
But then we can go back to Rex's point that the lead doesn't provide anything that the article doesn't provide - on the contrary it is only meant to contain things from the main text - so can we also call that redundant? I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here but it is an interesting point - as I said above: with an infobox we're providing the same information in three different formats so you can use whichever is most useful for your needs. I don't really see how that's a bad thing. Someone who doesn't need the infobox format can just avoid it, whereas someone who does want the infobox format (for instance to find the age) doesn't get their requirements met if it is missing... --Loeba(talk)21:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If we could think of new parameters to add to the infoboxes like:
Manager
Alma mater
Place of residence
Physical data like height/weight etc
Notable film awards etc
Highest grossing film
Worst grossing film
that would make the infobox more useful. I really don't care enough about infoboxes to argue over them for weeks on end but if Rexx is going to add an info box it should damn well contain info!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld22:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Ernst, for those comments - they are useful. I could make an infobox for you with any parameters you wish - or start a discussion to add them to an existing infobox like {{infobox actor}}, which already has a field for Alma mater, Residence, Height, Weight and Awards. I'm not about to add an infobox to the article again (I keep to a strict personal 1RR) and I don't want to argue for weeks. I think I've added all that I usefully can to the discussion here and I'm happy for the regulars to make whatever use of it they feel fit. I'm just glad that we've been able to have a constructive dialogue now. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You would have been subject to an amicable conversation from the start Rexx if you'd joined the discussion here before inserting the infobox :-] There is a valid argument that an infobox should summarize the key facts of an article. I think some new parameters related to important facts about an actor's career which are not too trivial might help, including first release, latest release, highest grossing, lowest grossing film, who is the actor managed by and what studios are they signed to etc. I don't really think height and weight are a good idea though because weight is subject to change especially for actors and actual height is often disputable. I much preferred the appearance of the infobox actor and I always liked the idea of the silver for deceased and gold for living. I thought it looked classy and much more presentable. I find the current infobox biography rather ugly and plain. If you were to propose a reintroduction of infobox actor on condition that we add new parameters which are not included in the biography one I'd be the first to support it. But I know a lot of guys here like Pigs on the wing are trying to merge and keep templating as simple as possible and I generally support that movement like I've always done with a lot of the redundant geo infoboxes. ♦ Dr. Blofeld08:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
What about a collapsed IB? I generally find that they keep both parties happy. Those that detest them get to see just the picture, and those that want quick information just have to press "more" CassiantoTalk10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
As the main contributor to this article, I feel like I need to have my say here. As expected, I am completely against adding the infobox because (to repeat the obvious) all the information is right "beside" it in the lead. I don't understand why some editors are so hell-bent on adding it. But if it's such a major issue for them then I would support the inclusion of a collapsed IB. --krimuk9010:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
If I'm perfectly honest Cass I view collapsed infoboxes as even worse, it makes them look even more empty and redundant at initial glance.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
If we must have an infobox in every article we should at least strive to actually make them present key facts which are displayed throughout the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
As a wikipedia user, I would love to have an infobox for articles that are too large. Infobox will be useful when you are engaging in some discussion about a certain person and if you want to appear ahead of others in that discussion by just browsing wikipedia by mobile, reading the infobox and appearing smart. As a wikipedia editor, I think infobox looks good on an article and does not intrude the first section. Also, having an infobox will serve the best interest of Wikipedia - to be an encyclopedia, to give people knowledge freely and faster. I'm sure many people would just peep at infobox and get their data, instead of going through the huge paragraphs for the data they might need. We should not bring that frustration to the reader. :) - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Vatsan34...I'll tell you what, let's stop writing articles altogether then and just have infoboxes. That way, you can cheat in your exams and earn friends faster rather than have all of those annoyingly "huge paragraphs" to contend with. CassiantoTalk10:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Cassianto Ha ha! I never said like that. See, if you pick up a novel or book, you look at the backcover which gives a short info about what is inside the book. That backcover info is almost present in all books published nowadays. Infoboxes are the same for Wikipedia. Some see backcover and keep the book back into the shelf; some take the book and read it. So, readers might decide on reading the article after reading the infobox. If infobox is not there, chances are they might not get to know about person or place without reading the article fully. Article is important, and the opening paragraph we give is also brief but Infobox would be more easier to read as full data is split in easily readable format. - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Vatsan34... The "back cover" of a WP is the lead section. It conveys the entire article in four neat paragraphs (GA and FA obviously). An IB is dumbing down, pure and simple. Apart from being a complete eyesore, they reduce the life and career of a notable person to a series of trivial bullet points, which seem to cater for the idiotic and lazy;they effect the lead image by forcing the size of it, thus reducing it's quality; they interfere with the next section, which in turn, sandwiches the text with the first image; they convey misleading information without explanation; they repeat information found in the obligatory lede section; they convey information that is not important, and certainly should not be the first thing a reader sees. Now, I hold this view on biography and classical music articles mainly as I do agree with them on certain articles including geographical, historical, war, scientific, and film articles. To have them on all articles is unnecessary, as in this case. CassiantoTalk11:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
"seem to cater for the idiotic and lazy" - Easy now Cass, I like to think we infobox supporters aren't all lazy idiots...Images don't have to be compressed by them by the way, they can be fixed using the "image_size" parameter. I'm sure that won't change your opinion over them, heh, but I just thought I'd let you know. --Loeba(talk)11:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be different if the infobox did actually summarize the most important points of the article but date of birth, birthplace, active since.. only is hardly of high value to the reader!♦ Dr. Blofeld11:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
"seem" is the key word there, I'm not affirmatively saying so. (Also, a small "IMO" should also have been there too, sorry). Laziness could be blamed, although there are lots of other reasons why one would rather read them. I have never familiarised myself with the different parameters surrounding infoboxes and had no idea that this had now been fixed. I shall strike. CassiantoTalk12:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm it's still making it personal though, which I don't think should be a factor. I admitted that I don't want to rely on mental arithmetic to work out her age, but hopefully that doesn't make me a lazy idiot...I didn't actually take it to heart that strongly, but I'm just giving you a heads-up because I (or someone else) could have. Just stick to the technicalities :) --Loeba(talk)12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you guys just add the infobox back again like the articles of other celebs? If a viewer doesn't want to read the whole article but wants to have a brief idea about her hometown, birthday, age, family, then he/she generally will look into the infobox. It was a bad bad idea to remove the infobox. Itz arka (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The (few) people who are against adding infobox to this article have not made a single valid point in their argument. It's almost as if whatever they "feel" is right and nobody can oppose them. Their comeback lines are:
"I'm sick to death of logging into this website and seeing people like you forcing infoboxes and then brandishing civility policies at editors"
"I really don't care enough about infoboxes to argue over them for weeks"
"I'll tell you what, let's stop writing articles altogether then and just have infoboxes."
"An IB is dumbing down, pure and simple. they reduce the life and career of a notable person to a series of trivial bullet points, which seem to cater for the idiotic and lazy"
The fourth quote here is what it's all about. What do they expect? Every person who opens a Wikipedia page to be an internet genius? A lot of people who look up stuff on Wikipedia don't know where to find what they are looking for. An infobox assists such people (who are in majority) as well as regular Wikipedia users (who are not "idiotic and lazy") including myself.
As said before by many users, infoboxes give quick access to basic information. Right now, just to find stuff such as birth place/occupation/career span/age, you have to scroll through the article, search for these basic information scattered in different parts of the article, then do the math in your head to find out the age. Phew, just bring back the infobox. 61.3.106.99 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ehm..actually, birth year, occupation etc. are all mentioned in the first 3 lines of the lead. The lead is what summarises the article, and we don't need an additional box to summarise it further. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that an infobox would be helpful to acquire some quick facts about the subject. It would be a lot faster than searching through the entire article.
Again, nothing is mentioned in the infobox that isn't present in the first three lines of the lead. No one has to search through the article for quick facts. If someone wants some quick info on her, they can read the first 3 lines of the lead. Not a difficult job, that. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2015 (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. Cannolis (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Infobox
Removing the infobox doesn't make sense at all. It is odd for viewers who hesitate to read the whole biography instead they check the infobox in a brief to have an idea of her birthday, age and hometown. So that's a very stupid idea to get rid of the infobox for nothing reason! Huh! Itz arka (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
They don't have to tire themselves out reading the whole article: the information is most likely in the lead. If it isn't in the lead, it's too trivial to worry about getting the full picture of the individual. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Infobox is must according to the wikipedia usage and guidelines.Moreover this discussion is old as it is 31 May 2015 now and this topic was posted 5 months back in January 2015--Randhwasingh (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This page without Infobox reads like a page for an article not a person. Infobox is common and norm at wikipedia, so why the special treatment to this article? Please restore.JayB91 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I too agree with User:JayB91. Whenever I open a biographic article in wikipedia the first thing I look for is infobox where everything important about the person is so brilliantly incorporated. This article will definitely look much better with an infobox. 1.39.60.33 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2015
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why are only a few selected films included in the filmography section? Is this a selection by some media? If so please mention the source as well so that we readers can know who has made the selection. Or is it possible for a Wikipedia editor him/herself to make the selection? Then I'll give my favourite list too. 1.39.60.33 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (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. Bazj (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Image Change Request
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Image used in the article is of 2012 and this image is of 2014. So I request you to add the latest image to the article.--Musa Talk 09:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Mohit Jain Biggest/Crazy Fan of Deepika Padukone from Chennai, Tamil Nadu created a website for Deepika Padukone & gifted to her Birthday 5th of January 2014, fortunately Mohit Jain also share his birthday on same day. Mohit Jain created this website at the age of 18.
Mohit Jain dream’s to make this site as Deepikas's Official Website & this announcement has to be made by Deepika herself. Mohit Jain is also a “National record holder of creating maximum websites in shortest duration” has specially created a website for Deepika Padukone to gift it to her.
Sorry, we cannot link to fansites per WP:ELNO unless they are written by a "recognized authority." A recognized authority, must meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. In addition, the link you provided is dead and does not link to any actual content. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
First she came in bollywood by the most popular singer himesh reshamia's album song..... than she get chance to make twice role of shanti in om shanti om
Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2015
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: as you have not requested a change. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit war today
Neel.arunabh, Kailash29792: I think Neel.arunabh was trying to fix the big red error message "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "top" defined multiple times with different content" but he has not done a very good work at it so far. Nevertheless his edits were well-intentioned. Regards, Biwom (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
<!Padukone (village) is a village near Kundapura, Udupi district, Karnataka, India from where the surname originates !>
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. If you are looking to create a new article on Wikipedia, follow the instructions at the WP:AFC page. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Excessive use of surname.
I feel that the name Padukone has been excessively used instead of the name Deepika I would like to make the change and would request editors to not revert the changes, or else give an appropriate justification. YASH DAYAL SHARMA (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This article on Deepika Padukone is clearly biased. The person in charge of editing it has completely sidelined her performance and corresponding critical acclaim for Tamasha just because it wasn't a mainstream film and did not do well at the box office. I'd like to point out some of the critical acclaim received by Padukone for her performance in the film, so the film can be listed properly in the intro paragraph, the career section, and the selected filmography. I repeat, just because a film does not do well commercially doesn't mean the actress hasn't worked hard for it and hasn't garnered praise.
Currently in career:
Later that year, Padukone appeared in Imtiaz Ali's Tamasha, a romantic drama opposite Ranbir Kapoor. The film opened to generally mixed reviews.
PLEASE ADD:
Yet Padukone's portrayal of Tara was positively received. Taran Adarsh of Bollywood Hungama comments that "her ability to switch emotions in her role is superlative and commendable." Rajeev Masand of CNN IBN opined that Padukone "conquers challenging scenes with natural ease" and "practically steals the film." Most critics highlighted the lead pair's chemistry and ability to work off each other, with critic Anupama Chopra of Hindustan Times commenting that "even as the story stumbles, Ranbir and Deepika power through. They have a special kind of talent — the ability to be both extraordinary and instantly relatable. They are transparent actors and their tears have a genuine ache." Padukone's performance earned her a Star Screen Award for Best Actress in the Popular Choice category.
I wud like 2 pics of Deepika to be changed-
Firstly, the lede pic. Coz she looks darker in the pic than she is actuly (probably due to the play of lights). Also lede pic shud have a more close-up photo. Everytime someone changes this pic, some other person puts it back. The person putting it back may be working in Yamaha. Putting this pic of Deepika at a Yamaha event along with a pic caption which clearly states so raises suspicion in me.
Secondly, the "Van Heusen event" pic right at the end of article. It again seems to have been put up from an advertisement point of view.115.245.31.124 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I assure you, no form of "advertisement", as you say, is the reason for having those pictures. They are the best quality free images available on the subject at Commons, and that's all. The lead picture is a "valued image" on Commons, and thus the best representation of the subject. As for her looking "darker" in the pic, I really don't have a response to such a remark. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
IP 115.245.31.124, you need to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It's one of our guidelines, and it says that you should always assume that, just like you, other people here are only trying to improve Wikipedia. Writing things like "the person ... may be working in Yamaha" is a clear breach of this guideline. Regards, Biwom (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
'Farah Khan, who had noticed her in Reshammiya's music video, made the decision to cast her for a role in Happy New Year
Shouldn't the movie be Om Shanti Om and not Happy New Year?
Nope, the information is correct. If you see the next section, it says: "By the end of 2006, Farah Khan's Happy New Year was shelved, and Khan had instead cast Padukone for the reincarnation melodrama Om Shanti Om (2007)". --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
If every Wikipedia article of eminent personalities have an info box, why can't this article have ? All the biographical articles (including featured and good articles) on Wikipedia that I have seen until now contain an info box. What's the problem here ? Why a comment have been put asking users to "refrain from adding info box" ? Isn't it meaningless ? How can a biographical article be complete without an info box ? I am really confused. Someone please clarify all this. Vibhss (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Can't anyone explain how including info box in this article would create a bad effect ? Articles of all other contemporary actors (even oldest of all actors) do have an infobox although the info in the info box is explained in detail in introductory paragraph or "Early Life" or "Background" section. I read WP:DISINFOBOX but couldn't find any convincing reason over non-inclusion of infobox in this article. Vibhss (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it weird that this page does not have an infobox but all other actor/celebrity/person pages have one? Why this weirdness, if I may ask? Barthateslisa (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree Barthateslisa. I find it a bit bizarre that there is no infobox. I don't see any particular reason why this article is somehow unique and doesn't deserve one. I don't think the archived discussions make good arguments either. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Also there is no basis for her to be an Indian of Danish Descent. Doesn't that mean one of her parents is Danish or she is Danish? I don't think there is evidence of this ... if there is please cite or remove the category I think.Supcmd (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Infobox
There is a request for no Infobox on article ... however reasoning is no longer on talk page I think. Please clarify.Supcmd (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have looked at the talk page history. There is a consensus that there should be an infobox. I shall add one shortly.Supcmd (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Here is the logic:
The assertion on the page is unsigned and had no talk page reference as of yesterday.
I have been through pages of archived history and the numbers are roughly 10:1 in favour of an infobox.
The objection is not for Deepika but a general argument against infoboxes generally (disinformationbox)
Critical information normally in the infobox is leading to popular misinformation. In this case Deepika is often believed to be a Danish citizen when in fact she is Indian.
The argument against infoboxes probably makes MORE sense for short articles. This article is too long and could lose a reader without a short useful summary.
The wikidata project is a really worthwhile exercise in trying to structure global information. Without infoboxes you can't surface the data to validate it.
Deepika received 4 Teen Choice nominations not just 1
@Krimuk2.0
Apologies for reverting your changes. Even if you don't consider Bollyworm as reliable website, change the citation not the facts! Search the internet. She has received 3 additional nominations in the second wave of Teen Choice Awards 2017 nomination released a couple of days before. Here are more legit citations you can rather refer to instead:
DarpSinghh, can you please replace the Bollyworm source with Billboard? Krimuk, once he does that, can you do c/e? I do not want to interfere with the article's smoothness. --Kailash29792(talk)16:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Krimuk2.0 I thought you didnt believe the news as it was mentioned on non-reliable website. Like I said, change the citation which can be replaced instead of completely reverting the mentioned fact.
And by the way why didn't you revert when an anonymous user wrote her as "Oscar Academy" (Note: not Academy Awards, Oscar Academy 😂😂) member on Accolades summary? It stayed there for a week. She just received an invitation, she hasn't confirmed and the ceremony is next year.
Please see the many discussions on this on the talk page archive and get consensus here before adding the infobox back. Ravensfire (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
What makes wiki article more credible is the nationality of the person. How come this biographical article do not state thenationality of the person in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalurumaga (talk • contribs) 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bengalurumaga: Are you kidding? It says Indian in the first sentence. Unless you're suggesting she is from a different nation, in which case, specificity would be helpful, along with references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: as per Bloomberg-Quint, a respected news agency in India, she holds a Danish passport.
And according to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which deals with termination. Any citizen of India, who by registration, naturalisation or otherwise voluntarily takes the citizenship of another country, shall upon such acquisition cease to be a citizen of India.
For Example, artist MF Hussain who took up honary citizenship of another country had to forego his Indian nationality.
The amended Citizenship Act of 1955 does not provide for dual citizenship or dual nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalurumaga (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bengalurumaga: It is the epitome of original research to apply our personal understanding of law to draw conclusions about a subject's presumed nationality. For all we know, she's the one person India allows to hold dual citizenship. The self-identification noted by Kailash seems the strongest evidence. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
and also during the promotion of XXX: the return of xander cage, Vin diesel was talking about Ranveer Singh and mentioned that he was deepika's boyfriend in an interview with anupama chopra, i ve seen the entire interview.
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add in personal life section why is she is still single even when she is 32 years old. She is younger than Priyanka Chopra with whom she did Pinga but still she is above 30 and nation wants her to be married and settled out of love. 120.61.182.155 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Per WP:BLP we don't add gossip about living peoples' personal lives. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid gossip site. You haven't provided any proposed content to add, or a reliable source for it anyway. Begoon11:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear from your message whose contact number you want to add, or where. That's not important though - because the answer is straightforward: you cannot add "contact numbers" to wikipedia because it is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Read the material at this link: WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Wikipedia is not the White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic. I removed the numbers you just added to a different article - please don't add any more, now that you understand this. Thanks. --Begoon14:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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. The editor whose username is Z013:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
We believe what a subject has to say about her own citizenship. It's as simple as that, especially when there is a direct quote from Padukone saying that "I was born in Denmark, but I hold an Indian passport." As for Kumar, he has said he has dual citizenship, which can only work if he continues to be an Indian national because his Canadian citizenship is honorary. He doesn't claim that he carries an Indian passport though. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I know nothing about the subject, but would point out that "I hold an Indian passport", does not mean that she does not have Danish citizenship - or has even claimed to not have it. Many people don't bother with two passports. Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
It's useful for an infobox to be included on this article.
The utility of including infoboxes are standard in BLPs and there's clearly enough information here for a well formatted infobox. There doesn't appear to be any compelling reason not to include one as the information provided is helpful for casual readers at a glance (especially for parameters such as date of birth which would include the subject's age which isn't currently included anywhere in the article). Also, most people probably get their answers from the infobox or the filmography rather than visiting the article to read a whole biography.
A proposed infobox (most of this information isn't included in the lead) would include name, image, date of birth, place of birth, age, residence, nationality, alma mater, occupation, years active, filmography, home town, parent and awards. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Support the addition of infobox to the article. I was surprised to see some editors actually revert others for trying to add the infobox. There's no good reason for them to revert since it's not vandalism or any form of disruption. There's nothing wrong with having it so these editors who revert only do it for their own styling preference and that is not a valid reason to exclude the infobox! The editor whose username is Z008:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Support the addition of an infobox; I find that infoboxes help the casual reader find information easily. There are people who are staunchly anti-infobox but I don't see them around, so I will vote support for now :) Hickland (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Close RfC Since there appears to be no prior discussion, and no-one objecting to an infobox, this RfC seems unnec. Just close and put in the infobox per WP:BRD, if anyone objects to it or its content - discuss - and if that doesn't resolve matters, use an RfC. Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Support/include infobox as nom – Wikipedia's aim is to "benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia".
Infoboxes benefit readers as they allow people to quickly access the information they want, especially with the omission of where she was bought up, her early modelling career and alma mater from the lead. On this article, it's particularly important due to the article's length and reading level. An infobox (with the right populated parameters) would be useful to readers which is our aim at the end of the day.
From an Open University study] - "many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords" (section 2.3).
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.
How does Deepika Padukone, whose full time career is as an actress, qualify as a columnist and model? She has written a couple of columns for Indian newspapers, yes, but so has Vidya Balan, Priyanka Chopra, and others. That does not make her a columnist by profession. Also, she used to model as a teenager, and is not a full-time model now. Chopra, who won the world's largest modelling competition, also does not have "model" mentioned in her infobox. Tanbircdq, explain these additions instead of warring. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed columnist now. However, infoboxes summarise the whole article, which includes previous noteworthy occupations, not just the subject's present position. The other stuff exists argument is invalid, this needs to be addressed on Priyanka Chopra's article, where I've included this now, should it be reverted then we'll have to go through the whole process there too.
Please note: Krimuk2.0, has continuously reverted the infobox out of the article from various other editors so we had to go through the unnecessary process of an RfC, which was unchallenged therefore this should stick. There appears to be WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article if every time a good faith edit is made, it's reverted. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
There was consensus to remove the infobox during the article's FAC process and a subsequent discussion, and hence it was previously removed. OWNERSHIP would have been to not respect that consensus. Now that there is a new consensus to include it, the infobox exists and has not been removed. Hence, there's no need for irrelevant arguments and accusations. Stick to the topic of discussion without commenting on the editor. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I will do. Please also refrain from accusing others of edit warring when you appear to be engaging in it too. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Ms. Padukone did not go to college. So why is the alma mater relevant here? Our guidelines at Template:Infobox person state that "It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, she attended her 11th and 12th grades (or junior college in some parts of India) at Mount Carmel. And as I said earlier, she did not go to college, so how is it relevant in the infobox? Before that she studied at Sophia High School and amongst other more notable aspects, she has featured in music videos and has even formed a humanitarian organisation. My point is, the infobox should summarise the most notable aspects of Padukone's life and career. How is her high school education of such prime importance? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
this official source https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/04/11/worlds-most-admired-2018/ says she is not 9th most admired woman in the world. is deepika's PR writing this article? it says "Also that year, the market research firm YouGov named her the world's ninth most admirable woman". she is not famous in places other than india and it says she is powerful in world and this "In 2016, Duff & Phelps estimated her brand value to be US$86 million, the third highest of Indian celebrities." is so biased. not even ambani's article says this kind of paid stuff. this article says she was the highest paid actress in 2017 which is not true. http://www.forbesindia.com/lists/2017-celebrity-100/1665/all. is it written by her PR management team or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.91.174 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
this writer erased my petition to change some incorrect things in this article as i pointed his mistakes as you can check the details if you can, i dont' know how things work here. this writer is trying to hide his mistakes. look at this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.91.174 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 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. L293D (☎ • ✎)01:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Deepika Padukone is single. She is not even engaged. Why does it show that she has a spouse? I want to change her relationship status. Brootypie (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Krimuk2.0:. Regarding the Media Coverage section. What I understand is that terms like "India's Most Beautiful Woman" , "Most Desirable Woman", "Sexiest Asian Woman" can also pass of as exaggerated or false praise (puffery). But they are claims made by Media, Fans and Public in general. Movie stars get such name all the time and this is what makes them stars. I dont think calling this Unencylopaedic is accurate. Waiting for your views. (Purplecart (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC))
Hi, we need such titles to be made by publications which are considered reliable. For instance, when The Times of India names her the most desirable or some other leading publication names her one of the sexiest women, we can add that with the correct attribution. Claims by "media, fans and public" aren't what we consider notable. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Just Curious about the reference to The Times of India. I do not doubt that The Times of India is Reliable. But I think so is Republic and Deccan Chronicle. So I tend to Disagree that the publications are not reliable.(Purplecart (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC))
The reference you added attributes "twitterati" as having called Padukone "World's Most Beautiful Bride". You think what users on Twitter say is fit for an encyclopaedia? Did a qualified journalist for Republic call her that? Did qualified journalists from Deccan Chronicle list her as such? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
minor correction
Simply wish to suggest a minor correction.
About halfway through the section "Personal life and off-screen work," a sentence states: "That year, she participated in the World 10K Bangalore marathon, ..."
A marathon is a particular type of running competition with an invariable and exact distance, specifically 26.2 mi or 42.2 km.
Hence, in the quoted phrase, the typo should be corrected by replacing "marathon" with "running race" or something similar, e.g., "running competition."
The pronunciation of the last name "Padukone" according to the IPA transcription on the English page [pəɖʊkoːɳ], and the name written in devanagri [पादुकोण/पडुकोण]and kannada [ಪಡುಕೋಣ್] on दीपिका_पादुकोण are all inconsistent. Unless we can find a reference, these should be changed to reflect the kannada/konkani pronunciation as is seen on Prakash Padukone's page.
I propose:
Change the IPA transcription to read [pəɖʊkoːɳeː] devnagri (both hindi and Konkani) to read पडुकोेणे and kannada to read ಪಡುಕೋಣೆ.
OR
Mention the different pronunciations explicitly.
Deepika's career Started With and First Assignment was With Himesh Reshammiya Music Video
Deepika's started her career with a music video with Himesh Reshammiya. She first appeared in 'Naam Hai Tera' music video with singer Himesh Reshammiya. After that music video, Farah Khan saw her and offered role in Bollywood blockbuster movie 'Om Shanti Om'. From 2004 to 2006, she rose to fame with her modelling assignments and achievements. After being awarded as the “model of the year” by Kingfisher, Deepika Padukone soon got selected as one of the cover girls of the Kingfisher Swimsuit Calendar 2006. In no time, she was the brand ambassador of Tissot SA, Kingfisher Airlines, Maybelline and Levi Strauss. It was in the same year that finally brought her into the celluloid world as she started her acting journey by being selected as for the video song Naam Hai Tera by Himesh Reshmiya. She made her debut in the cine world with Aishwarya, a Kannada film followed by her big Bollywood break, Om Shanti Om in the next year, 2007.
To editor MohorS:Not done: Please read the sources provided. Deepika Padukone was indeed cast for the Happy New Year role after the director, Farah Khan, saw her in Reshammiya's music video. She had also been cast in Om Shanti Om, and the difference is explained in this article's #7 citation. Thank you for your participation!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there00:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2020
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The actress is being questioned by narcotics crime branch for her alleged involvement in the supply and consumption of drugs. This page has to be edited to update the publicly available information.
According to NCB sources, the three actors have been asked to join the probe after several alleged chats came to light where drugs were being discussed. The source said that Deepika will be first asked to identify the mobile number in the alleged chat with her former manager Karishma Prakash. She will also be asked if she sent those messages or someone on her behalf sent the alleged messages enquiring about "maal" from Karishma.
This is not a policy, it's an essay that describes how some editors feel. Some editors are fine with controversy sections, others are not. But that typically only refers to the heading "Controversies". We are allowed to include criticism of our article subjects, provided we are doing so in accordance with our BLP policy. Some editors just feel that the content should be added to more intuitive sections of the article, like under Career or Personal life or Social activism or wherever the content most intuitively belongs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, literally no one said that criticism should not be included. It was there before, and it's there now. Creating a section for two sentences to criticise someone in a BLP is what is being discussed, which is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article_structure, a policy, which says "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The controversy should be included.The idea that this is wikipedia and not a tabloid for controversy is dumb when other actors have controversial stuff on their page. Especially when said controversy is this big. Hpdh4 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add this in (In the media) after the last line ...skin-lightening products which perpetuate colorism.' →
In the following month, Padukone was substantially covered by the TV news channels with netizens reacting on social media when she was summoned by the Narcotics Control Bureau after her name emerged in the drugs chats.[2][3][4]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2020
This edit request to Deepika Padukone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Please Change X: Padukone will also produce and star in a remake of the American comedy film The Intern, and will team with Prabhas in an as-yet untitled science fiction film.[145][146] to Y: Padukone will also produce and star in a remake of the American comedy film The Intern, and will team with Prabhas in an as-yet-untitled science fiction film [145][146] helmed by Nag Ashwin. She has recently begun shooting alongside Shah Rukh Khan for YRF's next project titled Pathan.[1][2]" Rathodin1 (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Welcome. Please be more specific about what you would like to change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Not done: I assume you are proposing a change of article name. This is the English Wikipedia, and thus we write everything in English characters. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Celestra (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Already done Celestra (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Done -- Dianna (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Not done Actually, according to the sources provided in the article, Farah Khan had initially cast her for Happy New Year. In the next section it is mentioned that when the film was shelved, she cast her instead for Om Shanti Om. --smarojit HD 13:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DeepikaPadukone04.jpg&diff=125793338&oldid=125793307){kind=link}
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. Bazj (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done