Talk:Divya Agarwal

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 10 September 2020 by reviewer AngusWOOF (talk · contribs).

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

India: Television Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian television workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[MTV Splitsvilla#Season 10|MTV Splitsvilla 10]] The anchor (#Season 10) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Citations

Cyphoidbomb, Dl2000, it looks like the citations got trashed with the major rewrite by 2409:4055:2e02:20f2::7309:760c, so I reverted back to my version and included just a few sentences from that edit. I am removing the incomplete citations tag. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something smells fishy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the comment [1] was towards the IP editor, not for Dl2000. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks - nothing like an WP:EDC to mix things up. Dl2000 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AngusW🐶🐶F's version of this article is much better than cyphoidbomb's older version. This one has all the required details and citations. Some are removing citations unnecessarily is a different thing but this article definitely has much more information than the previous one Rjidindiana (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing required details

Kindly do not remove the edita that had been made Please....it contains all the required info Minishaliper (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minishaliper, you've been trying to force this edit in for well over a month now. That's not how Wikipedia works. Discuss the edits here, calmly, and work towards consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that but this page had been protected. I don't know how it's been removed and some are making unnecessary edits.The current version that you reverted is the most appropriate one. Thank you Minishaliper (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Minishaliper: "Most appropriate" according to whom? I see several problems, including the use of poor references like bookmyshow.in and www.paisawapas.com, a blog, for biographical details. Apparenly you are unaware of our reliable sourcing guidelines? You also deleted normal maintenance templates from the top of the article, you deleted {{hlist}} from |occupation=, and I'm concerned that her Personal life section feels more like a gossip column. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things to note on why I reverted - Minishaliper's version had the tabloid-esque "Personal life" section way up at the top as the first section after the lead. That's just terrible - Wikipedia isn't a lifestyle / pop culture blog. That stuff should be at the end IFFFF it warrants mention. Honestly, that's questionable here. Yes, she's dated a couple of people - so? That's pretty normal. Much of the rest of the changes were empty parameters and commenting. It's pretty obvious that a specific version, or the text from a specific version is being used for the edit, but I'll be darned if I can figure out which one. Regardless, best to talk through the changes. Ravensfire (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb firstly if the article wasn't properly sourced then it wouldn't have been accepted as I am the one who drafted this article the way it was and that's why I used most "appropriate one". Secondly if some details are not properly sourced then I think you can help me with that. Secondly the article with which it is being replaced again and again is even more poorly sourced article by an anonymous user who isn't specifying the reason for editing. And about personal life section you can definitely suggest what changes are needed to be made so it isn't a "gossip section" . thank you Minishaliper (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that now AngusW🐶🐶F's version is most appropriate one as it's properly sourced and does not have poor references. Thank you Minishaliper (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPs have recently tried to use their version again, introducing unreliable sources like Times of India as well as de-referencing the music videos section. I have reverted that and am now requesting page protection again. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Minishaliper: Again in these changes you are using poor references. You have to stop doing that. Bookmyshow.in is not a suitable reference for anything other than movie times, as there is no presumption of editorial control. We don't use blogs or gossip sites like bollywoodshaadis.com etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rowspan years in filmography

109.158.70.191, rowspan loses the order of appearances within a year. Since the table is sortable, this is necessary to keep the chronology. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but this is uses in every celebrity and plus BCL is a reality show where she was seen as a contestant as per WP:Filmography and look in Selena Gomez videography as well so please stop adding airdates as that not how it is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.191 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that is not how blp television or filmography tables work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.191 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

109.158.70.191, per WP:FILMOGRAPHY either rowspan or NO rowspan are both acceptable as shown in the television example. I still ask that you retain the airdates for default sorting. I have changed this for embedded airdates to show chronology. I've done numerous filmographies in that manner per Example #1 second table. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add airdates if you want no rowspans then thats fine we can change it to only years but we dont add air dates here. And plus BCL is a reality show so we should add contestant not herself same goes in bb11 where she came as guest.

109.158.70.191, the dts format shows the year not the date. That's how it works. It then lets that first column be sortable by date. Please do not hack it up any more. This is your last warning as you've stepped over WP:3RR AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We dont use air dates though why are you not understanding my point look in here [2] do you see airdates being used no. So stop it and leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.191 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

109.158.70.191, the airdates aren't shown in the column, only the year. That meets WP:FILMOGRAPHY standards. I already told you this. There is nothing wrong with the previous format before you started editing in those shows today. The article has been formatted like that since I moved it into mainspace from draft. Stop disrupting the existing filmography like that. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyphoidbomb are we supposed to add airdates in blp filmography tables like this user has done here [3] because i told him and tried to explain him that we don't use them in there but in shows airing. Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.191 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

109.158.70.191, as I said, if you don't want to use the dts format, then at least leave the embedded notes so that people can check and know the order of appearances within the year. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not meet WP:Filmography as it does not even say anything about airdates. I have asked an experienced admin to explain it to you. Wait for Cyphoid's reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.191 (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF is a respected member of the community and if they are trying to educate you on community standards or with ideas that are helpful to other editors, I would follow their lead with open eyes and ears. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you don't sign your comments with four tildes, like ~~~~, then people don't get pinged properly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agarwal listed sixth in the polling for 2019

According to Economic Times [4] she is listed sixth overall for 2019, but the wording to support it is a bit confusing:

"Also, in the Top 5 are Jennifer Winget at number 2, Nia Sharma at number 3, Erica Fernandes at number 4 and Karishma Tanna at number 5. Divya Agarwal, Shivangi Joshi, Surbhi Jyoti, Miesha Iyer and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia take the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth place, respectively "

You can see that the author forgot to put in "the sixth" as was listed five people and four places. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]