Talk:Vicky Kaushal

Awards

@DarpSinghh: Re: this edit, I've removed the Films of India Online Awards. There are thousands of minor awards "organisations" across the globe, many of them run by regular people, like bloggers, or even people who work for marketing groups who just want to promote their clients in some way. We simply can't entertain these non-notable awards, lest every article about an actor or film would be stuffed with meaningless accolades. We only care about established awards from notable organisations. As a general rule, if an awards organisation doesn't have a well-established article at Wikipedia (where someone has already gone through the effort of demonstrating notability) that has survived community scrutiny for a few years, then we should ignore that organisation. Thanks for understanding, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

Add the fact Kaushal wins Supporting Actor for Sanju for the 4th FOI awards

https://www.foionlineawards.com/4th-foi-online-awards Correctoryamum (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: appears like a non notable award, being added for Promotional purposes DBigXrayᗙ 18:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Uri

Not sure where this hostility is coming from, Cyphoidbomb, but I'm only following what the source says. Also, I fail to see why writing something negative about a person makes the article "balanced" but writing something positive about a person is automatically seen as "puffery" by some people. If sources are reporting a film's incredible box office performance, then the article needs to reflect that. Period. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: It's not intended as hostility toward you, but your first submission described it as a "top grosser" which implies it was #1, when it clearly was not when compared against the history of top grossers. That looked very much like puffery, even if you didn't mean it to be. "Balanced" would have been saying that it placed Nth among Hindi language film releases in 2019, for instance. And where is the official top 25 highest-grossing Indian films list as published by the majority of proper sources, so that we can accurately assign a placement of this film against those from history? Not surprisingly, the Indian entertainment machine has failed us again by neglecting to do their own ranking, but we should not be using Wikipedia's ranking for this purpose, so I don't know why we keep pointing to List of highest-grossing Indian films as though that's an official list. Anyway, again, it was nothing personal, but we need to be more careful about how these "records" are presented. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"top-grossing" doesn't indicate number 1 at all. It indicates a high level of commercial success, but if there's a better way to say it, I'm all for it. Sources describe Uri's success as "historic". Using a word like that would be puffery, but we do need to stress on how big of a hit it is, which is what I was trying to do. No way was I trying to "inflate the film's success", and I absolutely do not appreciate being blamed for something like that after contributing so much on Wikipedia for almost 8 years now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 04:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article, thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Kommentare

• "Aspiring to a career in films" — Can be rephrased as "Aspiring to take up a career in film".
• "His father was keen on his son having a stable career" — As an engineer or any other position in the film industry.

Most likely as an engineer, but the source doesn't explicitly mention it. I therefore wrote that he "thus pursued an engineering degree" later in the sentence. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Does any source mention Laal Pencil's genre?

Nope, couldn't find any mention of it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps a wikilink to "stammering" in case readers don't quite get the meaning at first.

Ssven2, thanks for the comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Wikilink the publishers/newspapers/websites for ref nos 1 to 7.
• NDTV, Rediff.com, Box Office India, Film Companion, RajeevMasand.com shouldn't be in italics.
• Wikilink the publishers/newspapers/websites for ref nos 10, 11 and 12.
• Wikilink NDTV and The Hindu in ref nos 15 and 16 respectively.
• Wikilink Variety in ref no 20.
• Remove the wikilink for ref no 24 (Firspost) coz there are other Firstpost references before it.
• Wikilink Business Standard, India Today, Bollywood Hungama, Mid Day
• Remove the wikilink for ref no 30 (NDTV) coz there are other NDTV references before it.
• Remove the wikilink for ref no 38 (Filmfare) coz there are other Filmfare references before it.

That's about it from me. Resolve the remaining comments and the article is passed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ssven2, all done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing my comments, Krimuk2.0. Congratulations, the article has passed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

The article ahs seen an number of recent unsourced attempts to variously claim that he is engaged to Katrina Kaif, or that he has already married her. Please don't add claims that he is engaged, or even already married. I've taken a quick look for sources, and what I see are social media and tabloid rumours and speculation, none of which can be considered reliable sources. It is a WP:BLP violation to make such claims without reliable sources, let alone without any sources. Meters (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

Vicky kaushal is not married yet 2601:586:8200:640:206E:3C93:DE51:5141 (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed her as a spouse in the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. News media is mocking this page though Jay (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead has too many minor details

Meryam90 Would you explain why you reverted me here? There is no reason why films like Manmarziyan/Love per sq ft, which literally have two lines of text in the body, need to be mentioned thrice - once in the lead, once in body and once in filmography. hemantha (brief) 03:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I respect your point of view but the edit you have made has completely cut the lead by half and deleted several informations that were mention worthy: informations that were approved on the lead section during the GA review itself. You took it from three paragraphs to one and completely undermined previews edits/work, that was not acceptable.

Making improvements is welcomed but completely deleting major points that are valid like education/forbes rankings, that was for me an impulsive edit on your part. So I reverted to the previous version and as you can see I totally agree to the rest of changes you made to the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 2022-01-30T03:32:35 (UTC)

Meryam90, To clarify, I did not remove any information in that edit; they are all still in the body text. I've reverted you since you seem to have misunderstood that edit.

Coming to the issue, I am questioning why things like schooling, supporting roles etc need to be mentioned in the lead. As you can see, the GA approved version had a lead of two paragraphs, half the length before my edit (GA version itself had too many unnecessary details). What is the necessity of mentioning some minor films thrice in the article? hemantha (brief) 05:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

please refrain from reverting back for now till this discussion is resolved. A bit of restrain a maturity would be appreciated here. Ok?

As for you understanding of my explanation, I said you have shortened the lead TOO MUCH and it is no longer a representation of the body of the article. Because you don't see the point of why some tings are mentioned is not enough reason to take them out. And like you said, the GA version had a substantial lead paragraphs, contrary to the bleak version you have left after your edit. And his career has expanded since so more info have been added. If you have a look at most autobiographies especially those of Featured and good articles of Bollywood actors, mentioning all those notable achievements is a recurrence. Absolutely nothing odd about it.

if you have removed the names of the films you have an issue with, sure no problem, but you went on an accessible trim that completely undermined the lead section. If you want us to work on it to see where we can agree on the parts that need to be removed, I am more than happy to do so, but the length and quality of the version of your edit is not suitable for the quality of the article or the subject matter at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 2022-01-30T05:32:37 (UTC)

Instead of subjective notions of "undermining", "bleak" etc, can you answer a specific question - why should schooling, support roles be mentioned twice or thrice in an encyclopaedic article? Please don't say look at other articles (GA can and is known to be gamed); but do point to a single FA that mentions an award twice in lead and again twice in body. Lead is supposed to be a summary, not a total repeat of the body. hemantha (brief) 05:40, 30 January 2022

(UTC)

the lead section is a summary to the whole article. Where has the education or Forbes or his movies contribution been mentioned thrice? All those points have been mentioned in their respective sections and summarized in the lead as per wiki policies. Are you suggesting that what is mentioned in the article cannot be in the body? lol.

One example comes to mind. Priyanka Chopra and mind you, her aspiration for an education has been mentioned not even the actual degree she obtained...so again, I don't understand why you see the need to shorten to miserably the lead based on your subjective POV. All points that have been mentioned in the lead are the BIG highlights of the career of the actor so far.