Talk:Ranveer Singh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lead Section

The entire lead section is un-referenced, please add some references there. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 05:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not needed. Per WP:LEAD, any content which is referenced in the body and mentioned in the lead, does not need references. The lead is a summation of the article body and hence is exempted from this notion. IndianBio (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ram Leela Movie Release Date

Ram Leela has a release date now. I edited the section but don't know how to enter the citation:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\01\27\story_27-1-2013_pg9_7 - Mizunori (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Parents

Singh's parents name should be added only if reliable sources are found regarding their info. Not some bullshit, fan created website with no journalistic credibility. Such additions by User:Vgnome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been reverted and discussion is taking place here. Not to break WP:3RR in this case, better to come to a consensus here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, user is going on adding content in my talk page here threatening me instead of trying to achieve consensus here. What to do :( —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that he has gone silent. The sources he added are all either self-published or otherwise untrustworthy, both of which violate BLP policies so I'm going to revert to your edit for now. If he has any other problems he can do what he suggested/was told and negotiate here. ProtossPylon 05:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What a waste of time. :( —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Ranveer Singh's introduction is too long and should be edited. For example this information, "Ranveer Singh had always wanted to be an actor since his childhood. However, during his college days he felt that the idea of acting was far-fetched and focused on creative writing..." is UNNESSESARY and belongs under his early life/bio section. Introduction is always supposed to be short and concise.--Bluescarred (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summation of the whole article, and in this case the fact of Singh wanting to be an actor but going in a different route has been discussed extensively in the Early life section. So that merits an inclusion in the lead of the article. This is already short and concise and need not be extended or shortened more. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia and not a celebrity gossip mag puff piece profile. "Ranveer Singh had always wanted to be an actor since his childhood. However, during his college days he felt that the idea of acting was far-fetched and focused on creative writing..." is absolutely NOT APPROPRIATE, particularly for the lead. WP:LEAD, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

TPOD, your concerns might be valid, however, removing sourced content from lead is not the answer, rephrasing it is the key. Provide your suggestion as to how that can be done. Even I can provide it too, however I hate it when editors go on a deletionist mode. And WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD are invalid arguments here because it is exactly what your edit is violating. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate content, even if sourced is absolutely acceptable. Particularly in BLPs WP:BLP. And advertisemofanpages.WP:NOT WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

But more relevantly, i did NOT REMOVE anything that WAS sourced -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

facepalm* The content is NOT inappropriate just because the English might not be up to the mark. The content is heavily sourced and discussed in the BLP's Early life section. And yes, you are violating WP:LEAD by its removal. I have no qualms if you rephrase the content to be more encyclopedic. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

the "more encyclopedic version" is to NOT include some self appraising quote "I always wanted to be a fireman when I grew up". Encyclopedias do not have those, particularly in the LEAD. They do not have WP:PEACOCKery thrown around puffing everything to be "critically acclaimed!!!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I see, basic understanding is not your forte. Now you are getting ridiculous repeating the same thing. Either help by content addition, else I will do it myself. Don't need your assessment. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I will change the following lines from the lead: " Born in Mumbai, India, Ranveer Singh had always wanted to be an actor since his childhood. However, during his college days he felt that the idea of acting was far-fetched and focused on creative writing. While pursuing his Bachelor of Arts degree from Indiana University (Bloomington), Singh again became interested in acting and after coming back to India, started auditioning for lead roles in the Hindi film industry" to "Born in Mumbai, India, Singh had always wanted to be an actor but pursued creative writing. Leaving his Bachelor of Arts degree from Indiana University (Bloomington), Singh returned to India and started auditioning for lead roles in the Hindi film industry." short and concise. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that you are getting into the WP:NPA I warn you to stop. You have been reverted by multiple editors and this page shows there is no consensus for your gilded lily version. Edit warring to reinstate such is not a good idea. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment once, as IndianBio's rudeness makes collaboration virtually impossible. I think an ANI report might be in order if it continues as its a serious problem when an abrasive editor drives away other contributors. Nevertheless, the content in question obviously doesn't belong in the lead section of the article. It already discussed the second paragraph and has little to do with the subject's overall notability. The lead paragraph of an actor's bio should cover major roles, awards and career achievements, not muse about their life history. The fact that this person first perused a degree in creative writing seems to have little, if any, impact on their later career. --Daniel(talk) 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Daniel, the second paragraph in question is the first section of the article and WP:LEAD clearly states "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". The fact which goes over the head of you people is that the first section discusses how the BLP was not going to be an actor. Its a basic contrast and is the norm for all featured content. I'm not denying the fancrufty writing which TPROD has mentioned, I'm asking inputs as to how we can incorporate the gist of it, which won't be a nonsense. Anyhoo, I will re-write the lead again and take input from WP:FILMS. Thanks for your help, or no help. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Kill Dil

User The RedPenofDoom is going on removing a sourced film name Kill Dil, giving reason as WP:UNDUE. I would request it to provide sufficient reasoning for the reversion, else this will be taken to RFC. The addition of a film name to the table is as per norm of the biography of Indian film related articles, including FA class articles, whether the film is released or not. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE IS sufficient reason to remove content that gives equal weight to a nothing in comparison to actual films. The fact that he has a WIP is covered adequately AND appropriately in the body of the text. To elevate it with duplicative coverage in the filmography is inappropriate WP:CRYSTALballing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? Kill Dil IS an actual film which is being produced as we speak here. It is not a case of UNDUE where just announced films are tacked in the table without any source. Every FA class film biographies have this including Deepika Padukone, Rani Mukerji, Kareena Kapoor Khan and Ranbir Kapoor. Please lets not talk about WP:WAX. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I do get it. It is a work in progress that as you state is currently being produced. It is not an actual film. treating it as an actual film is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. assuming that it will be an actual film is WP:CRYSTALBALLiing. That other articles are shit and contain inappropriate content is not a valid reason to ignore policies and let the shit spread to this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you crazy? I pointed out FA class articles above and you are saying they are shit? And you still haven't explained why you are saying that it is not an actual film. Do you think its a street play or something? Please explain your reasonings for believing it as such. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If "go on floor" means commence filming, then it is real and appropriate, as shown on the YRF website with a release date no less: Kill Dill. Why are you always so strict about this article RPoD? BollyJeff | talk 16:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

if it is a real movie, who has seen it? no one, because it is not a film - it is a work in progress. and presenting a work in progress with equal weight to actual movies is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball presenting stuff as actualized that has not actually happened yet. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

SMH, now you are really losing me. So you mean to say that no article should ever exist or be mentioned in Wikipedia when it does not "exist"? What does that even mean? It is clear as daylight that the film is being shot and it is appropriate that it be present in the filmography table for the artist, as is deemed norm. I suggest you go and take a consensus from the Film wikiproject or the MOS page because you cannot base this as WP:CRYSTAL since you are failing its core principles. FTR, neither WP:FILMOGRAPHY nor the MOS:Filmography say anything about future films not being added to the filmography table. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to use the absence of directives in WP:FILMOGRAPHY to make a case, there is nothing in WP:FILMOGRAPHY that states we may include not completed films, let alone that we should or must Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My points, take it to the project or the MOS page. You are just basing it on your own preference rather than a precedence. Sorry, not buying. Bollyjeff has pointed above also about this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am basing it on the application of multiple, yes MULTIPLE, policies and guidelines (have you failed to notice and read the links?) and not "my own preference". There has not been one policy or guideline provided that actually supports inclusions so it is YOUR position that is based purely on personal preference.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol, your assertion is that it fails WP:CRYSTAL. How is that even a case when multiple reliable sources list Kill Dil as a film, one which is being shot as we debate? How is the existence of the film CRYSTAL? What is WP:OR is your assertion of it as a work in progress, purely your preference. And answer me, why are you particularly targeting "this" article in stead of setting a precedence and taking it to the project or MoS page? Sorry buddy, I do not see your edits in good faith since observing closely, you have continuously tried to disrupt the film bio articles and their tables, especially this one. There are huge number of articles here in WP, many of them FA, GA, A-class articles listing actual films in production with a future release date in filmography tables. You cannot simply come here and say that they are WP:CRYSTAL in face of contradicting sources, just to suit "your preference". —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Show me one source confirming that it is an actual movie that someone can see and not a work in progress? Until it is an actual movie, claiming it to be one is WP:CRYSTAL. There are many film projects that have started work and never seen it to the screen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Cut the WP:OR crap of calling it a work in progress rather than a film with 280,000 G-hits and then I will pay attention. As it is there is already trailers released and "there are many film projects that have started work and never seen it to the screen" is again not a reason to remove a shot film from a table. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

a bolt of cloth, some buttons an a spool of thread is not a shirt. a trailer and a gazillion googly hits is not a film. There is no WP:OR in my position. There is in yours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude, it is really baffling to me why you care so much about this; I would really like to understand. The film policies say that if a film has begun principal photography, it is a film. Why can't you just let it go and be productive on Wikipedia, instead of wasting so much time on something not worth the effort? What could happen? 1 - It is never released and someone will remove it soon enough. 2 - It is released and what was all the fighting for. BollyJeff | talk 00:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It is really baffling to me why you care so much about promoting upcoming products and turning Wikipedia into a crystal ball. The film policies say that if a film has started production, it is possible to start an article about it. They do not say that it is a film. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And if there can be an article, it can be linked to. BollyJeff | talk 01:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

of course if there is an article there can physically be a link. there can physically be a link to Mt. Vesuvius and Checkers and Hurricane Camile. whats your point? just because we can doesnt mean that we should. What I am objecting to is when Wikipedia articles start giving equal weight in a filmography list to a non-film as is given to actual films for which the only real rational to include it there is to make predictions about the future actual "filminess" of the current work in progress or assist in the promotion of the project for the actor and studio. (And I do not have any objection for the fact that the film IS ALREADY LINKED in the body of the article where it is given appropriate contextual content "The film Director Shaad Ali signed Singh for his venture titled Kill Dil, a romantic film which Ali described as "a film about the tricks the heart plays on an unsuspecting victim of love. Ranveer is pukka for the male lead."[45] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This why the tables usually have a notes section where you would state that this particular film is in production, thus setting it apart from the others. BollyJeff | talk 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

because people apparently have hard ons for tables and trivia and promotion and choose to satisfy that compulsion rather than abide by Wikipedia policies, guidelines and MOS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ba-bye! BollyJeff | talk 01:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Enough with your own personal preference. Do not bring other people's ability to navigate into this. It is your own personal problem in seeing non-released films in filmography tables and you are vehemently invested in removing it from only one article, and that too this one. You are not interested in discussing in the wider arenas and setting a precedence. Dude, frankly we don't give a damn to your shit. There are other users who have asked you to stop this before also with the tables and all, but you continue it. Hence, this won't be removed from the table until you get a consensus from a wider perspective and set a precedence. This is your problem girl, not anyone else's. I will revert your disruptive edits. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job Indian Bio. I just read the entire discussion, and it's ridiculous. What a colossal waste of time and energy for someone to bicker over something as simple as that. I support your reversion. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 07:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And for your information TRPoD, here are pictures of Ranveer Singh actually filming for Kill Dil: Ranveer Singh on sets of Kill Dil --krimuk ⁹⁰ 07:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect TRPoD, I really don't see the reason why you're so adamant about this. Now IF the film wasn't being shot, I would definitely understand your reasoning. However, the film has entered principal photography and is already scheduled to release this year. I also support Indian Bio's reversion. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

i care because i care about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and not an advertisement platform or fansite. An encyclopedia does not consider a non completed film as a film. But fansites and advertisement platform sure do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has continued edit warring over this issue, even though people here has advised him/her against the removal of the information. @BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, Krimuk90, and Bollyjeff: would request you to take this issue further. This edit warring cannot go on and on. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. Please, Red Pen, do not revert anymore before building consensus here. You are a sensible editor, so please stop the war and discuss first. Then maintain the sanctity of it and don't go on warring. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 06:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Stop it both of you, you both are matured men, [I hope so] who are capable of content creation, a quality hardly seen in Indian editors. You two who are among those few and should not be wasting their respective times over bickering and warring over such a small thing when you should be creating GA's or FA's! TRPoD, can you point me to a policy, Manual of style that says films that haven't released are not films, which if I read the section correctly seems to be your point for crystalballing and giving undue weight. I suggest both of you stop hitting the edit button for a while, sit down calmly and try to understand the other person's opinion and then approach it in a civil manner without having a mindset that screams out "No the other person is wrong! My opinion is the right one". This above all is a content dispute and violations of WP:3RR which I think you have both done by now will get you blocked if any admin intervenes. Pause reverting each other. Please discuss. Soham 14:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have have already pointed to several, MULTIPLE TIMES> First is the logic of the name itself. the section is FILMography, NOT WORKS-IN-PROGRESSophy. The second is WP:UNDUE- we do not give equal weight to a not-yet-film as to the actual completed films. Then there is WP:NOTADVERT- we are not here to promote future films. Add onto that WP:CRYSTAL- we do not make projections that works in progress are going to be completed until they are actually completed. And the only reasons given for including is that there are sources that the project is at some point in its progress - big deal Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion (the appropriate place to cover a WIP is to provide the appropriate context which requires TEXT and is already present in the body of the article) and that "all the other kids are jumping off the bridge" neither of which separately or together comes anywhere close to evidence of the policies both individually and especially together that say we shouldnt include it. Local consensus cannot overrule the policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight; I understand all the things you've stated above but please give me an article which explicitly says "Unfinished films are NOT films". If you can provide one such article all you're points will be absolutely justified. Soham 08:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been pointed to the policy WP:CRYSTAL " In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). " and then from WP:NFF " The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. " - show me one policy that explicitly states "non finished films should be treated equally to completed films.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, TRPoD, you have been requested many times to take it to the proper venue, like the Mos for films or the WP:FILMS talk pages and lets have a discussion to set a precedence. The onus lies with you since it is you who feel to iterate the points above, others disagree with you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

TRPod, please point me to a policy which says Unfinished films are NOT films. Other than that I agree with everything you say like, WP is not for future projects, not for promotion or advertisements etc. with deep concern for WP:MOS and other policies. Soham 12:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have: WP:CRYSTAL -the onus is on you point me to one policy that says non finished films should be treated as if they are finished films in contravention of POLICY WP:UNDUE-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL does not say anything about "unreleased films" not being films, or "unreleased" albums not being albums, or "unreleased" songs not being songs. We are moving into semantics I believe. You conveniently chose not to read the following: "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun". WP:NFF talks about creation of a film article if production has begun which is reliably covered by third party soruces. It does not talk about removal or dissuade about mentioning the film name. MOS:WORKS does not say anywhere that for filmographies we cannot list a film which is not released, neither does WP:FILMOGRAPHY. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You can outline why you think the policies do not apply at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ranveer_Singh.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

He is at it again! Wasting everyone's time by removing stuff just for the heck of it! I am really tired of this nonsense!!If he wants to be constructive then he can provide the sources he claims to be important himself, instead of just blindly reverting! --krimuk ⁹⁰ 14:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting TRPoD's disruption. I'm keeping a watch. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am NOT removing stuff "just for the heck of it." I am removing claims being inserted into the article in Wikipedia's voice which violate WP:CRYSTAL by proclaiming as a fact events that have not happened yet. Get over your promotional spin needs and face the facts. The films have NOT been released in 2014 and we CANNOT know that they will in fact be released in 2014 and we should not be stating or implying that they will be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't give me or the community a headache with your old gramophone record spinning. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

what is "plain and simple" is that because you have neither policy nor sources nor a time machine to support your position that we should proclaim as factual future events, so you are resorting to personal attacks and a fallback cry that "We have always ignored them - and see they are doin it too!!!". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

so thats your rational for violating contra to policy and guideline? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff, Krimuk90, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, and Soham:, your take on this? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: You want to know why your thoughts are not taken seriously and called as broken record? Because of your plain and simple biasness, targetting one specific article (this one) and not interested in setting a precedence. The last time you lost your appeal regarding the inclusion of unreleased films, so now you find some other loop in WP:CRYSTAL to introduce another edit warring activity. You know very well that editors would be disturbed by this and they would flog around for discussion. Guess what, not happening, either go to FILMOGRAPHY and set a precedence there with proper decorum and discussion, else just desist edit warring. Need I remind you how many times you have been notified to WP:ANI and 3RR noticeboard? I will use the same loop in CRYSTAL and state that since those films are source with WP:RS, what proof you have that they won't be released in 2014? Answer me. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your sources most emphatically DO NOT support presenting definitively as 2014 film. Your editwarring to purposefully reinstate content that misrepresents the sources is unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. No point in being nice any more. This is going to be snide. TRPoD, please find a better hobby. If you are this jobless then form a consensus for ALL Filmography pages and not just for the newer crop of Bollywood actors. Until you do so, your reverts will not be taken seriously! So you can keep CRYSTALizing all you want. Or better yet, sue Yash Raj Films. How dare they project their release date to be 2014 without knowing for sure?--krimuk ⁹⁰ 04:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yash Raj Films does state that Kill Dil will be released on September 2014. I don't know what you are even saying at this point. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Until time machines are invented, no source making such a claim is a reliable source for proclaiming future events will happen as scheduled. Sources can only be used to indicate a scheduled or projected or announced date of release. You keep removing the important qualifications. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It passes all the 4 points of CRYSTAL, since they are backed by reliable sources from reputed production house and third party media. End of story and yeah where's that precedence? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

it does not even pass the first "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

UTC)

This user Red Pen (or whatever)only knows to revert articles. No contribution to wiki and no knowledge about any pages. Doesn't have a clue what's happening in real world because user does not do any internet research neither tries to correct any page nor develop. Only deletion of our contributions, when we try to develop articles ! And more thing I have realised is user Red Pen would not touch any FA articles neither GA as they are being watched by administrators. All FA and GA articles can have future projects and this crystal or whatever does not include for them. Daan0001 (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Daan0001: your repeated personal attacks need to stop -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You were clearly outvoted here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Request_for_Comment_-_Include_unreleased_films_in_Filmography_sections.3F, so go away. BollyJeff | talk 15:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What the consensus at that discussion shows is that people felt that clearly documented status of projects that are in process are appropriate to include in a filmography. There is no consensus to over-ride WP:CRYSTAL and make proclamations in Wikipedia's voice about future events (and even if there were in that discussion, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And you have been pointed out that it passes the CRYSTAL policy, so yeah, stop wasting everyone's time here in the encyclopedia. Again, go either find a better hobby, or gain a precedence. The change won't be done. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

no, it clearly doesn't pass "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead, set a precedence, you will loose again. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

TPRoD, I don't deny that the release date of the film Kill Dil is not definite since the day is yet to come, as is stated in WP:CRYSTAL. But that exact date has not been mentioned in the article Ranveer Singh. A part of the first point of WP:CRYSTAL states that scheduled future events should be mentioned if the event is notable and is almost certain to take place. Now I believe you could be certain that the film will be released this year (if not on the exact scheduled date) since it has passed through pre-production or whatever it is, which is why I believe that mentioning the film in this article is not violating the first point of WP:CRYSTAL. Smtchahal (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have about 8 articles on my watchlist that have each been delayed by over a year and so NO I do not think that Wikipedia should portray as an almost certainty that something will happen on a future date particularly when it is sooooo damn easy to FACTUALLY present it appropriately as "scheduled for". Wikipedia and our readers gain NOTHING by pretending Wikipedia has prophet powers advertising for corporations -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If a project is delayed, it is delayed, however there is no source stating that the films listed are delayed at present and per WP:V they are indeed listed on a particular date in this year. I won't even go into your WP:NOTADVERT crap that you are spilling because its plain laughable at this point. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, someone can go and add a notice saying that the films are unreleased but are scheduled to release this year, where appropriate. Should I call it the end of this discussion? Smtchahal (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Burden shifting and bad sources

I don't understand the reversions that began with this bold edit by TheRedPenofDoom. If a source is deemed unreliable as RedPen asserts, then the content it supports may be inaccurate. For Krimuk90 to say in his edit here "Discuss first. And provide better sources instead of removing them!" shifts the burden of providing reliable sources to the editor who removed the problematic content. If the content is important to you, Krimuk90, then you should be the one finding a reliable source. Further, as you know, Wikipedia operates on the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Discussion CAN be employed first, but is not required. So instructing another user to discuss first again shifts the burden of work onto the other editor. If you disputed RedPen's assertion that the source was unreliable, then reverting Red's edit would have made sense had you also followed up with a discussion here about the reliability of the site. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Read above about TRPoD. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cyphoidbomb: Indian box office figures are notoriously inaccurate and based on guesses and subject to promotional propaganda. the leading national paper in fact stop reporting their box office column [1] because even with their resources, scope and experience they could not make accurate assessments. There is a general consensus that Box Office India is a fairly reliable source (but even their own About page hedged that they were merely rough guesses - but they have since removed that disclaimer when Wikipedia editors were challenging its credibility as a reliable source) , but otherwise Box office figures need to come from highly respected sources to be considered valid.

The real issue is that people want to present claims about future projects in the Filmography table. At the Film project it was recently decided that if there is proof that an actor has done acting for a project, the project can be listed in the filmography rather than being covered purely by text in the body. Fine. Here however, Krimuk90 is disputing a formation in the filmography table that clearly reflects what the reliable sources can actually appropriately verify, and sluffs the "in process" status of the work to the side in a bunch of trivial "notes" - which are themselves in violation of the rationale for using a table in the first place - organize like content with like content in columns. "Notes" about the role which belong by organization principle in the role column "notes" about the date which belong by organization principle in the column about the date. thus negating the need for a column labeled "notes" which is just a magnet for trivial additions-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, you are right about removing Bollywoodlife and I have no questions about it. However, as before, your assertions about the table and filmogaphy is wrong and you are tweaking loops in CRYSTAL for your benefit which is unacceptable. As before, re-iterating it for the nth time, either set a precedence (your onus, just like adding that RS was Krimuk's) else leave the removal. Consensus is against you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of discussions have been held on this topic before, and consensus was reached, which TRPoD flouted. It's very unfair and easy to assign blame for an editor (Cyphoidbomb) without having prior knowledge of the discussion that preceded my edits. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 14:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: IMO the year column should just have a year, not additional text like "schedule for", else it can break the sorting, and it just looks very bad. There is nothing wrong with having a notes section RPoD, most high quality articles do have them. BollyJeff | talk 14:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, does it look like he cares for aesthetic as long as he can sabotage it? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had the self-imposed misfortune of reading most of the discussions on this page. The thing that most concerns me is the incivility being demonstrated in the form of gravestomping, personal attacks, and baiting. "I see, basic understanding is not your forte," one editor wrote. Another, "Ba-bye". "...revert once more and I will make sure you are banned from editing" (Oh wait, that was directed at me.) And then even as I was writing this, IndianBio launched into some open-air passive-aggression in the form of "Lol, does it look like he cares for aesthetic as long as he can sabotage it?" What is that? That can't feel good. This place feels like a hostile playground. Also, I don't get any bad faith vibe from RedPen.

That said, Wikipedia is not IMDb. We are not here to catalog every project that an actor works on and I'm of the opinion that only notable works should be included, particularly in a filmography table. Sometimes there might be context behind a minor role that provides an exception, but then you would expect that to appear somewhere else in prose. A made-up example: "Singh explained that he was so eager to work with director XYZ that he eagerly took an unpaid role an extra in XYZ's highly publicized commercial for ABC grape juice." But an unspecified role or a minor role, and especially a cameo seems misplaced in a filmography table. (I've raised this same objection at Talk:Lena (actress) as the article is being used primarily as a resume.) While I personally don't object to a reliably-sourced in-development project being included in the article, (I see these in Television articles all the time) I do feel that the inclusion should be limited to notable roles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"revert once more and I will make sure you are banned from editing" that was not directed at you Cyphoid, sorry if you felt so, that was directed at TRPoD, and yes, its beyond clear (CRYSTAL?) what he is upto. If you know his/her history, you would understand. However, read the whole discussion, the consensus and the edit warring the editor has subjugated to, instead of choosing to set a precedence. And yes, WP:RS passing sources validate the film projects which are listed in the table. Passive aggression or what, his re-re-re trials to disrupt the article is beyond laughable now. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I said at the beginning of my reply that I did read the entire discussion and it was unpleasant, largely because of the incivil behavior I witnessed from you and other editors, which you are understandably downplaying. (Take your edit summary here for example.) Simply having "a" source, even a reliable one, doesn't make the content notable, and notability is a requirement of WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) doesn't say much, and instead defers to the general notability guideline, which states that notability is established by significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's not likely that a cameo role in a film that hasn't been released, and that doesn't have significant coverage, by only a few sources, would qualify as notable, at least not yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Please do not judge us by the above. He has the ability to turn normally very nice people into monsters. BollyJeff | talk 16:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL - "dont judge us by what we actually do. we are actually angels and his pressure for us to follow policies makes us do bad things." I find that amusing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"No bad vibes from TRPoD". Hmm. I must be really evil. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 16:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Unspecified roles in films still in development

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.

---

.... here is the entire RfC discussion...

Should an unspecified cameo role in an unreleased movie, and an unspecified role in a second unreleased movie be included in the Filmography table of this article? That is, are these proposed roles significant enough for inclusion?

References provided: [2][3][4] -- 16:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• If included, the content should not be WP:CRYSTAL presented as being a film of a particular year. Doing so is clearly not appropriate, no sources can verify WP:V future events have happened. WP:NFF things happen to postpone and derail film projects and neither we nor our readers gain from our attempts at prophesy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as nominator. I had not seen the previous RfC here. I don't have a problem with the inclusion of reliably sourced future projects, but my purpose for this RfC centers around the inclusion of minor roles like cameos and roles labeled "unspecified". Wikipedia is not IMDb. And on that basis I oppose their inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• If a reliable source verifies an actor's involvement with a film that is currently filming, I see no reason for Wikipedia to hide that fact. We are reporting what has been stated in the press. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2011–present: Recent work

Krimuk90 I don't understand the allure of "2011–present: Recent work" as a subject header. Contrary to your edit summary here "According to WP: EPHEMERAL, recent is not redundant in this case. If you just want to war for the sake of it, you can revert" the addition of "Recent work" IS redundant, as "present" implies recent. So, it's not an arbitrary "war"; the text is unnecessary because it's repetitive and we are essentially expanding on something that has already been summarized. If my removal of the content was offensive to you, I apologize, but I intend to remove it unless you have a different argument that warrants its inclusion, and I'm open to the possibility that you might. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am not particularly fond of saying "recent work" either, because it's very drab and boring. The reason I reverted back was because I don't think it's particularly against policy to write that. I agree that it is unnecessary, and I shall not argue any more about this, but I think it's good to have a section header. Any suggestions? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ephemeral represents a guideline, not necessarily a policy, although the difference is negligible. Why we need a summary of something that is already summarized, and that further DATES the content is confusing to me. I have no beef with you in particular, and I certainly don't want to create one, so in the spirit of working mutually toward a common goal, I'll yield on this issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I. And that's why I have self-reverted it long back, if you have a look. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice that! Thank you for the concesssion. If you restore the edit, I won't contest it. I appreciate the self-revert, and moreso the friendly exchange of opinions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, thanks. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal life section

I've removed the Personal life section recently submitted, where editors (Nixie9xl0 and Bejnar) have added sourced content about a rumored romantic relationship as well as the denial of the rumored relationship. I find this content inappropriate for a BLP because it doesn't tell us anything definitive, and it effectively sneaks salacious gossip into the article while distancing ourselves from the gossip by presenting the denial. If, for example, we were to add sourced speculation that the subject was gay, along with a sourced denial, would we allow that sort of content to be included? No. Because the standard for BLPs is exceptionally high and Wikipedia should not be used to proliferate rumors even if we immediately try to shine them up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to @Cyphoidbomb:: The Ranveer Singh article is a protected article under Wikipedia:Pending changes. I was reviewing the proposed edit by (Nixie9xl0 and found that while it did not meet the criteria for refusal, it did need a citation for BLP purposes. So, I checked sources, accepted the edit and made the necessary corrections. In this case we are not dealing with gossip or rumors. There are a number of what are generally considered reliable sources that report on the togetherness of the couple. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to list them all (See Wikipedia:Citation overkill). To ignore it is to ignore an aspect of a public figure's life. If you don't like the use of the word "romantic" (which is used by the sources), please feel free to rewrite the content, but don't just delete it. Your opprobrious example is inapposite. It is better to say something honestly, than to leave the reader wondering. --Bejnar (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Bejnar I didn't mean to impugn your reviewer skills. I was speaking solely about the content. I've already expressed my opinion that it is inappropriate to handle gossip this way in a BLP. My opinion may not be shaped properly, or it may be. But based on my opinion, it was a sound decision to remove the content, rather than rewrite it. Having a section that essentially says, "he's not dating this person" doesn't seem terribly useful or notable. We are not required to write up every aspect of a subject's life, even if it is sourced. I'm amenable to RFC if you still disagree. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that the couple are going out together. This is not gossip, this is not rumour. The question about inclusion is really two-fold (1) How consequential is this fact in the life of the biographee? and (2) How likely are readers expecting to find this information? The first question cannot really be ever answered for BLPs, their lives are works in progress. The second question can be estimated by the number of news articles discussing the fact, not in tabloids, but in respected newspapers. Here, I think that that can be established. An RFC will be of little use if I cannot convince Cyphoidbomb and User:IndianBio that there is a difference between gossip and fact. --Bejnar (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like the info is indeed gossip worthy. I don't see Singh or the person he's dating to be commenting on it. I feel that WP:BIOs need to have concrete information and not WP:CRYSTAL. And in this respect, if Singh is himself concluding that he's seeing this person and is "dating" maybe we can have it here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For Ranveer Singh's commnets, see, for example "Rumoured lovers Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh's Sunday dinner date". Indian Express. 16 April 2014. Archived from the original on 16 April 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) (cited in the deleted material) and "Deepika holds special significance in my life: Ranveer Singh". The Times of India. 7 February 2014. Archived from the original on 7 February 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help). As mentioned above, I have not tried to produce an exhaustive list of all of the reliable sources. "Gossip worthy" or not "gossip worthy" is not a relevant consideration for inclusion or exclusion. See the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• There being no further discussion I will restore the Personal life section with the entry "Ranveer Singh has been quoted as saying "Deepika holds a special significance in my life." --Bejnar (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

NO - we dont put silly quotes like that in an article. thats for celebrity gossip mags, not an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure Bejnar had the consensus anyway, since there was no discussion from the editor who added the content. I'm confused by Bejnar's position. "There is no question that the couple are going out together" so we should print that fact, but also include the denial? For what purpose? To tell the public what Singh apparently doesn't want people to know? I think this is pretty well covered in WP:GOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." and "...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bejnar, you pretty much confirmed that this is nothing but bloody gossip, with those quotes and links. Sorry, this cannot be added. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity

In this edit I have boldly removed the |ethnicity= content. The Template:Infobox person docs indicate that the field should be used if relevant. There's no indication that his ethnicity is relevant to his work as an actor. If he were a known Sindhi activist, i.e. someone who was active in causes related to the Sindhi people, then it might be relevant. With no context, there's no clear relevance, and the mere fact that it is referenced doesn't necessitate inclusion per WP:V. See similar discussion from 2014 above where his religion would be a puzzling inclusion. Same deal. If he's not known for his religious works/participation, why would we include it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. No relevance to either his on-screen or off-screen persona. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ranveer Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Celebrity/Ranveer-Singh/1028316-Profile.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sikh or Hindu? Why no mention of his religion?

Why no mention of his religion? If he was "muslim" it would be all over the article. His religion should be put in like every other bollywood actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.102.121 (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What relevance does it have? Has it been widely covered? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well his paternal family is Sikh, as mentioned in this article, and I think that this information needs to be mentioned, as it shines more light on his background. Considering the linked article by The Times of India, as well as a picture of his Sikh grandfather being posted by himself on Instagram/Twitter, I think it has been fairly covered by the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.36.34 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Rather than perpetuating a 2 1/2 year-old conversation, I'll respond to the one you started below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

He comes from a Sikh family.

Interesting that his family is Sindhi Sikh, and I think this needs to be added for relevance.

The linked article clearly mentions his "Dadaji" or paternal grandparent being Sikh, therefore he descends from a Sindi Sikh family. I hope this clears out earlier confusions regarding whether his family is Sikh or Hindu. To those who say this information isn't relevant, well then they should go around removing the religious backgrounds of other actors on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.36.34 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

References

He specifically calls his grandfather("Dadaji") a Sikh, neither his family nor himself, not even his father, why? He is a Sindhi, it is normal for Sindhi Hindus to have one member of the family practising Sikhism by personal interest but others staying with Hindu traditions. Sikhism is a religion not an ethnicity, which sticks with your descendants, if his grandfather practiced Sikhism, doesn't necessarily mean his father or family also practice it. He doesn't call himself or his family 'Sikh'.

Unless their is a source where he calls himself Sikh or his family Sikh, it can not be added. 49.15.69.145 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand why we would note that his grandfather was a Sikh if there's no information about how it affects Singh. Was Singh raised in the Sikh traditions? Does he portray a great number of Sikhs? Is his acting influenced by anything Sikh? As the editor at 49.15.69.145 noted, Sikhism is a religion and religion isn't inherited. And to the point that anyone who finds this information irrelevant "should go around removing the religious backgrounds of other actors on Wikipedia", that's a logically fallacious position for at least two reasons: 1) We decide article-by-article what is relevant. 2) You're arguing that we should add potentially irrelevant information to the article until we can remove all irrelevant information from all articles. That's like telling a cop, "you can't arrest me for shoplifting until you arrest all the other shoplifters in the world." No, we deal with the issue in front of us first. Note that both the |ethnicity= and |religion= parameters were removed from Template:Infobox person because in most cases it's just not relevant unless the subject is known for their religion (like the Pope) or their religion ties into their work, the way being Jewish ties into Woody Allen's work, character development, sensibilities, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.36.34 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Simmba into filmography

I had added film Simmba into filmography here, which was reverted by Krimuk2.0 stating it should be added only when it starts shooting. I have reversed it and added again, as the film has a confirmed date and it is also confirmed that Ranveer sing is part of it with official posters and so many news articles on internet already. I request Krimuk2.0 to let Simmba stay in Filmography
CC: Wikipedia:BRD and Cyphoidbomb
Thank you. Sonuverse (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally, we don't start adding a film until filming has started. Until then, there's still a decent chance it won't happen. So, per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't include it until then. This is a general standard across all film related articles. Ravensfire (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Sonuverse. Please let filming begin, and then we can add it. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

spouse-deepika padkoune Riyarhm (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ranveer's Discography

Ranveer also sang AADAT SE MAJBOOR from Ladies vs Ricky Bahl. Why isn't that included? Vanillagarlic (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

change ranveer's height from 1.73 to 1.78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f87ffC6LO8 the source : he said his height is 6 feet in shoes Mearna kamal (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Þjarkur (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

change the height from 1.73 to 1.78 the reliable source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f87ffC6LO8 the source : he said his height is 6 feet in shoes Mearna kamal (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need reliable secondary sources, not just subject claiming something about himself in some interview. Sam Sailor 15:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019

'83' is an upcoming Bollywood movie. It is sports darma movie directed by Kabir Khan and produced by Vishnu Vardhan Induri, Sajid Nadiadwala and Madhu Mantena . Neha sinha seelatest (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2019 (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. Melmann 17:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Height

Ranveer Singh height is not correct, He is very short.His height is listed as 5'6 in some sites, even 5'5. And also he looks 3-4 inches shorter than Arjun Kapoor(is 5'10 feet). You can see their both Photos and compare height but 5'10 feet for Ranveer singh is not correct and everybody knows. 5'6 and 5'10 have huge difference, So please change the height. Rivaan11 (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for your desired changes and learn properly to place a edit request.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

I want to correct some grammar mistakes. 103.240.163.54 (talk) 12:11, 6 November 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) 12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Cast

Cast 203.109.66.27 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

He comes from a Sikh family not a Hindu family. He stated that himself. 80.47.125.21 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

His grandfather used to wear a turban and sport a beard. Easy to say, he comes from a sikh family.

Ranveer also had a sikh wedding. Since his wife Deepika comes from Hindu background, this only means that he comes from a sikh background. Beretx (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ranveer singh

His born place is Mumbai (not bombay) Please edit it🙏🙏 171.78.211.45 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2022

Change early life background from Hindu to Sikh.

His grandfather used to wear a turban and sport a beard. Easy to say, he comes from a sikh family.

Ranveer also had a sikh wedding. Since his wife Deepika comes from Hindu background, this only means that he comes from a sikh background. Beretx (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Hindustan times not reliable enough? Beretx (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)