Talk:Priyanka Chopra/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why aren't the citations used in this article consistent with most other wikipedia articles?

Why aren't the citations used in this article consistent with most other wikipedia articles?

Most other wikipedia articles' citations wikilink to the name of the publication. But this article, largely, doesn't. Consider the Hindustan Times. If this article was consistent with other articles, every reference to an article in the Hindustan Times would have a wikilink to the Hindustan Times article. But only the first reference has that wikilink. Further none of the instances where the paper is mentioned in the body of the article is a wikilink.

Why?

If no one can remember why than I ask why all these references shouldn't have a wikilink to their publication. Geo Swan (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason it is not like most others on WP is that it is one of the best, per its FA rating. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, it says: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found..." Please don't tell me that I have misunderstood that one as well. I have been through several FACs with various articles, and they do enforce this. They also enforce date consistency (d-m-y, y-m-d, etc) that you have been messing with here. I am surprised that you are not familiar with any of this, given your status as a long time editor. Have you not participated in GA or FA reviews? BollyJeff | talk 00:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I have never participated in a GA or FA review.

Almost all this article's coverage of Ms Chopra focuses on her career as a beautiful actress; a beautiful singer, etc. She is also an intelligent person, and a good writer. She could support herself as a professional writer. Personally, I think the amount of coverage of her ideas and her philanthropy looks disproportionately small. It seems to me it opens the page to criticisms it is written from a sexist POV.

I remind you that User:Krimuk90 dismissed, out of hand, the powerful ideas Ms Chopra expressed in her NYTimes's op-ed, saying that no more than a single sentence could be allowed to cover that op-ed. Is it usual for an article to keep FA status, when some contributors focus on just one aspect of the subject's life?

With regard to consistent dates, I just looked at the talk page archive, for the sections where previous contributors discussed and agreed to the article's local date format. Can't find them. Yyyy-mm-dd has always been my preferred date format, because tables that contain columns that contain dates sort properly when the dates are written in that format. If I had been able to weigh in when the article's preferred date format was decided I would have made that point.

So, how, exactly, did the preferred date format come to be agreed upon?

User:Krimuk90 voiced the opinion that I was "ruining the page format". If what they really meant was I had not followed some previously agreed page standard why aren't wikilinks to the discussions where those local page standards were first agreed upon at a prominent place at the head of the talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a biography, and not an essay on what the subject thinks about an X, Y, Z person. Writing about an actress' professional career is not sexist. Suggesting that she has to sound "intelligent" and talk about global affairs to be taken seriously is sexist! Also, please limit your comments to the minimum. There is no need for hundreds and hundreds of words to complain about how you have been wronged when you can raise your qualms in just a few lines. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• You have gone on record that no more than one sentence can be used to cover Ms Chopra's recent NYTimes op-ed. I've asked you to explain the reasoning behind the prohibition you issued. Excuse me, but you have yet to offer a meaningful explanation of your prohibition. Please consider, other good faith contributors can't suggest compromises, can't suggest alternate wording, that will satisfy your concerns, if you can't or won't make the effort to explain yourself.

Sorry, but I think it is a mistake, something not good for the project as a whole, to dismiss anyone's substantive concerns as if they were "complaints" about how they "have been wronged".

It is best for the whole project when contributors not only try their best to make good, helpful contributions, but when they are prepared to try their best to offer good, helpful explanations when other good faith contributors have questions or concerns about those efforts. I am not calling upon you to explain the reasoning behind your edits to me personally. Rather I genuinely think you, I, BollyJeff, Jimbo Wales, and every other contributor, has an obligation to be prepared to provide a good faith explanation to the rest of the project when someone raises good faith concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't be bothered anymore. Please go ahead and add whatever you want. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Most good Indian cinema articles use dmy, because it is the format used in India, a former British colony. Yes, there are links to support this, but you probably would not agree anyway, so I have not posted them. BollyJeff | talk 17:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll use dmy, here, on this page, and if I edit any other bollywood related page I'll take your advice at face value, and keep my eyes peeled to see if it too uses dmy. I would appreciate those links you mentioned, if it is not too much trouble. Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is one: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic. There are probably some old archived discussions on the matter concerning India in particular, but I cannot be bothered to search now. BollyJeff | talk 01:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The newly added texts in the "Column writing" section sounds unimportant as it doesn't quote what she actually meant by saying all this? I mean she wrote it about girls's health and education but there is no inclusion of the "main topic" which her article focuses on. As far as her humanitarian work is concerned that section should be huge as she is very active in these works. I guess we haven't added much. So, there is nothing to cry "why her section is so small and has been written from a sexist POV?" More can be added and hopefully will be. Also, She has written about various things and not just this column.—Prashant 05:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I think you and I are agreed that Ms Chopra's ideas and philanthropic work merit more coverage. Great.

Good references to look for would be ones where third parties, who are authoritative, verifiable sources themselves, have spefically commented on the ideas Ms Chopra expressed. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What you want to add? More about her ideas? Really? What is the importance of ideas in her biography page. I would suggest to add her humanitarian works and not her ideas.—Prashant 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

Hi, I think that File:Priyanka Chopra at Filmfare Awards 2013.jpg is better. OK to change it? Yann (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Head shots are preferred, see the example here: Template:Infobox_person#Examples. BollyJeff | talk 23:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This picture is obviously better than the one used now. Don't you have any argument? Regards, Yann (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Truth be told though, there are images that I like better than this one as well; and there are images that 1000 other editors would prefer too. Must we change the pic every five minutes to accommodate everyone's favorite? BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes Bollyjeff, yes you must ..hehe....btw, I added a new image today, shame Bollywood hungama has crappy low res images but this is appropriate.--Stemoc 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see the need for a change. The existing one more sharp and clear than this. BollyJeff | talk 13:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

SHERO

"In 2014, The Times of India described her as a "Shero" for removing the demarcation between a hero and heroine." is a golden example in bad writing. Does anybody think a puffed-up statement like that deserves to be mentioned in the lead? I mean, "shero", like seriously?! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Had removed it, but was reverted as usual by you-know-who. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If he does it again, we better go to ANI this time. I think we have had enough from the fan boy. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This one is classic. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! And then he had the audacity to come to my talk page and accuse me of hypocrisy. Or as he likes to call it, "hypocrat". LOL! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes baby, I have a poor english, which can make you laugh. So, Now who is laughing at someone's weakness. And, you will report me to ANI for my poor english? Or partiality? Though my english is poor, I am not partial and I just added about her as she is definitely called a Shero by many critics and media outlets (much before Vidya). If you will report me to ANI, I will also do the same as "Female Hero" is also the same. I added truth, what the source said. So, pls dont create an issue and re-add it. You know I once I wanted some changes to Chopra's article and you said go on and write. But, your this sudden change is very disturbin.—Prashant 08:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Shero sounds like a dog's name. Oh, this dog is actually called shero. :D -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the word "versatile" in the lead, if she has played a "range of unconventional characters" then it's obvious that she is a versatile performer, so unless we are describing her sexual preference the word is redundant in the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And, you realised this suddenly? LOL! It was there since it passed FA. It passed with that word and no one opposed it for that.—Prashant 11:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a blatant lie. This is the version that passed after "versatility" was removed during the FAC review. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And, what's your problem with word Shero as media publications have listed her. —Prashant 11:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Listed her what, dog for sale? One random columnist calling her a "shero" or whatever made-up-word does not ensure inclusion in the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This and [This http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-bollywood-an-oomphilicious-2012-1632118] and there are others sources too, which I am not able to find.—Prashant 11:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And, I this Priyanka Chopra is compared to Vidya Balan saying Vidya Balan was more western, if she had a quirky side to herself, if she was oomphy, and if she was a controversy child, she would probably have been called Priyanka Chopra! So What's say?—Prashant 11:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not able to find" is not a strong argument. And the ref literally calls Priyanka a poor substitute to Vidya Balan. The "female hero" is mentioned as Vidya Balan, and not Priyanka Chopra. So stop digging a grave for yourself. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Go and watch the next few lines as well before shoting about your female hero. Actually, I am getting ready to blast your bluffs here on wikipedia so get ready.—Prashant 11:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Priyanka is the true blue-blooded Bollywood heroine, who fulfills every definition of an on-screen leading lady, with perfection written all over her. She started early, got recognized across the world as a beauty queen, and no one else in the industry must have been as versatile as her. From villain, sweetheart, angry cop, biopic, funny-bones, glam-doll, babe-in-distress - she has made her presence felt in all kinds of roles". I am not understanding Why you are so much against Chopra? —Prashant 12:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's said about every bloody heroine. Nothing substantial to use fluffy words like shero. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Dont use that word in the lead as what you said was right. I am okay with it. But, For Balan Female is is not fluff?—Prashant 12:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, because she has been credited as "female hero" by multiple leading personalities, as mentioned in her article. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Krimuk, "Shero" does look like fluff here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If Meryl is called a Godess of Acting. That is not a fluff because she is the godess of acting. I am not saying media is saying. —Prashant 13:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And, Female Hero looks abolutely right. No? Wow. —Prashant 13:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No Contribution to Indian Cinema?

Vidya Balan: "She is known for portraying strong female protagonists and has been acknowledged in the media for pioneering a change in the concept of a Hindi film heroine."

Rani Mukerji : "Her film roles have been cited as a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in Bollywood."

Preity Zinta: "She subsequently played a variety of character types; her film roles along with her screen persona contributed to a change in the concept of a Hindi film heroine."

Kangana Ranaut: "Alongside actress Vidya Balan, Ranaut has been credited for spearheading a movement that breaks stereotypes of a Hindi film heroine by playing the protagonist in films (most notably Queen) not starring a well-known male star"

Kareena Kapoor: "Noted for playing a variety of characters in a range of film genres—from contemporary romantic comedies to crime dramas"

Priyanka Chopra :---------------

So, Every heroine except Chopra in some way has contributed to India cinema but, Chopra is a poor substitute of Vidya Balan as Krimuk said. So, What should I assume?—Prashant 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Chopra is one of Bollywood's highest-paid actresses,[213] and considered by the media one of the most popular Bollywood celebrities in India.[3] After playing strong, independent characters in Aitraaz (2004), Fashion (2008), Kaminey (2009), What's Your Raashee? (2009), 7 Khoon Maaf (2011) and Barfi! (2012), she gained recognition for her versatility in portraying a range of unconventional roles, leading CNN-IBN to describe her "as one of the most powerful actresses in the current lot and someone who doesn't shy away from experimenting with roles within the realms of popular cinema".[214] The Times of India called her a "game changer" and added that she "made the age-old demarcation between a hero and heroine redundant and one can easily describe her as a Shero".[215] Analysing Chopra's career highlights, Bollywood Hungama noted: "Despite a career that has seen a constant flip-flop .... [the] performer in her has seen a constant growth with every passing year."[45] In 2012, film critic Subhash K. Jha labelled her "the best actress in the post-Sridevi generation" and listed her character in Barfi! as being "one of the finest inwardly ravaged characters in Bollywood."[216] Chopra has often featured on Rediff.com's annual listing of "Bollywood's Best Actresses".[217] She was ranked second in 2006 and 2008,[218][219] and number one in 2009;[220] she was in its list of "Top 10 Actresses of 2000–2010".[221]"

That's not enough?! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

These above listed actresses have more praise than Chopra's in their "In The Media". Plus, In the lead, which Chopra has none.—Prashant 12:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And in the lead, "Chopra has become one of Bollywood's highest-paid actresses and one of the most popular celebrities in India." +"She was later noted for portraying a range of unconventional characters". The fluff in Chopra's article is more than all the above articles combined. If anything, the article is need of some extensive trimming. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Highest paid, Most Popular is also in their articles too. Blofeld has added them. So, pls dont go to that as popularity and money cannot be compared to Contribution to cinema. If popularity was a parameter, Katrina Kaif would have been the highest contribuotr to Indian cinema.—Prashant 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Chopra has won major awards for only one film, Fashion. All the other actress, including Mukerji, Balan, Kapoor have been awarded with major awards for multiple films, and have all been credited for changing the game for actresses. Barring one Fashion, Chopra's work has not been recognised as much as the other actresses. So Kaif, Deepika Padukone and Chopra fall under the similar bracket. No such claim exists in either Kaif or Padukone's article, and shouldn't exist for Chopra either. Still, there is a mention of "range of unconventional characters" in the lead, which is understandable given the risks she takes in her career. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I support Prashant in the context that he is trying to model PC like other Bollywood actress FA's. And an answer like WP:OTHERCRAP seems invalid here. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It is already modelled after other FAs, and doesn't need additional fluffy words like "shero" in the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OMG! Kapoor has not even won a single NFA and Rani (though deserved) have not received too. Vidya has one like Chopra and Ranaut. But, Zinta's? Come on you were caught in your text. And, who are you to decide this as you dont write sources? Wikipedia uses major sources from media outlets and Chopra is very well praised for her contribution. If Screen, Apsara awards dont have any value Why you have listed in Balan's page showing her many wins?—Prashant 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said they have no value? I never said that. And stop comparing other articles to this one. This doesn't need additional fulff. There is enough praise for Chopra that will make even Meryl Streep blush. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont think so. No one can make Meryl blush. She is just only one in the world. I said this as you said Chopra has not been recognised for her roles other than Fashion. Winning awards for a role does not always ensure that you were recognised. Jessica Chastain did not won an Oscar nomination for A Most Violent Year that does not mean she was not recognised like her role in Zero Dark Thirty—Prashant 12:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Chastain's article doesn't use made-up fluff like "shero" either. Her talent speaks for itself. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Because that is not a Bollywood article. You need to model Chopra's article like her Bollywood contemprories. By the way, you changed your view so easily. Why?—Prashant 12:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It already is modeled after her contemporaries. There is no extra fluff needed. Also, there is no view to change. I have said the same thing from the very beginning of this discussion. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

But, I dont see any similarties in the lead and the way other actress have been praised for their contribution, Chopra should be given the same treatment. I agree with Kailash as what he said was right.—Prashant 12:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The fluff in her article is sufficient. What you see or don't see is irrelevant. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So, Jessica Chastain has this in her lead "Chastain's performances in Zero Dark Thirty and in the 2013 horror-fantasy film Mama led film critic Richard Roeper to describe her as "one of the finest actors of her generation". Wanna say something more?—Prashant 13:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to say, since according to your statement, we should not model after Chastain "Because that is not a Bollywood article. You need to model Chopra's article like her Bollywood contemprories". Why are your changing that statement now? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep! Nice as It was a deliberative attempt to know if you are thinking in a neutral way for Chopra, which you are not as you dont want to see her being called versatile (which is definitely going back after I put many sourses together, come on you know that), a Shero or something like change in concept for Bollywood heroine, which is obvious by the text Unconventional character.—Prashant 13:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Garner unanimous consensus and then you can add. Till then, stop arguing with me. I'm not going to sit and worship Madam Chopra like you do, so my point of view will always be neutral. Also, I will revert poorly written edits because this is an FA, and you need to maintain a decent standard of writing. Blindly putting together random words is not considered good writing. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Unanimous consensus by whom? I am one of the main contributor of the article, following Wikipedia policies and blah blah blah. But, you dont seek any consensus in your articles before adding fluff why? Because I dont interfare in anyone's work. If I started interfaring in your work and pointing out the partiality in your work, you will be in a big trouble. So, pls lets be pratical and not play favoratism.—Prashant 13:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN the article. This work is in the public domain and anyone can edit it. So garner consensus, or your edits will be reverted. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia contributors agree to release their intellectual property under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. This is not the same as agreeing to release our contributions into the public domain. The main difference between PD and these licenses used here is that they continue to entitle us to have our contributions attributed to us. Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. But, other people often complain this about you (see the above section of WP:OWN). I appreciate your writing as you always correct my mistakes (joking & making fun of me offcourse). But, you always revert my edits showing that you Own the article and I dont have any right to edit it. —Prashant 13:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Next time, I won't even bother to correct your mistakes. No one else makes the required corrections anyway, so the article can be demoted then. Will that be better? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's why I appreciate you but, as I said you cannot own it. No matter it stays an FA or not.—Prashant 13:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't own it, and neither do you. That's why I started the discussion, for input from other editors like Dr. Blofeld. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Its not about inputs from others because you know that I dont get along with most of writers. So you are trying to prove me wrong by Hook or Crook. I wont stop till I prove my word because I know its about being neutral and equality in Bollywood Articles.—Prashant 13:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course you will. So go garner consensus, and stop being a child. Also, with that attitude you not getting along with people is the least surprising thing in the world. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Versatile described

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.

---

Added FYI

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-priyanka-chopra-s-5-most-powerful-roles-2016099 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.219.135 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that. Versatility is Chopra's another name. Few people here may get hurt afterall.—Prashant 16:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Here we go!

• From being a versatile and successful Bollywood actress
• The versatile actress
• She is one of the most versatile actresses
• Versatility
• Bollywood versatile actress Priyanka Chopra
• no one else in the industry must have been as versatile as her
• One of Bollywood's most talented and versatile actresses
• The versatile actress
• she proved her mettle as a versatile and hard-working actress

Gosh!! I am feeling tired writing this. Please do me a favour, google Priyanka Chopra versatile and you will get 1000 more sources. Is there a punishment for an user who removes uncontroversial edit? As the user definitely knew that Chopra has been called versatile. I want to ask Is there a rule for this kind of favoratism players?.—Prashant 16:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The word was removed during the FAC review, and should stay that way. There are a million views on google for "priyanka chopra cleavage show" and "hot body show" as well. Doesn't mean we need to add that. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stay in your limit and dont try to be oversmart. Now, you have been caught for your shameful act. So, you are making excuse? The word was not even objected during FLC and why it would have been objected? At that time we did not had much sources thats why you had removed much before the nomination. Later, Blofeld re-wrote the article. So pls dont be so judgemental. Wikipedia works on sources and not your imaginations. If it matters to you remove female hero and blah blah blah from above list of actresses then, we will talk.—Prashant 06:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources also say Priyanka is very sexy. So should that be in the lead as well? Sexy is also her "second name". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Go on and add the word sex symbol as she is a sex symbol.—Prashant 07:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, she is a versatile sex symbol apparently. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah! And, not the Female hero of Bollywood. Lokk at her she is crying for not being called. LOL.—Prashant 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why won't Bollyjeff or Blofeld participate? They are the main contributors to this article's FAC I believe. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld has already participated in the discussion above, and has discouraged the use of fluff like "shero". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Kailash29792, I am also a main contributor of the article. So thank you for taking away my contributions.—Prashant 08:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, I dont care about the word Shero. Its fine to not add that since there are not too mant sources. I am fine with it. But, Like the articles of above actresses it should be added that she had played different roles from the traditional portrayal of women in Bollywood as unconventional means the same. I want equality with the articles as neutrality is very important on wikipedia.—Prashant 07:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the rage you displayed and the amount of personal attacks you made, it did seem like you did care quite a bit about the word "shero". Now that you were defeated on the issue by other editors, you are targeting some other methods to get back at me. That's too bad as I am not going to let fluff overtake this article. If you say "unconventional" means the same thing, then what do you want to change? The fact that she played unconventional characters is already mentioned. There is no coherence in your arguments and you change your stand one too frequently, and most of your messages make no sense to anyone! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you dont want to discuss, just go away as you dont Own the article. Your problem is very serious. First you oppose to something and then say why you have moved on? Hypocrisy much! I dont care what you think. There is a difference between between saying she plays uncoventional and saying "acknowledged by the media for playing". I just can say one think if that is a fluff to you. Then all your edited articles have fluff. Sorry to say, but I have to open a discussion to delist each of your articles from FA. I hope I open that soon. And, this is not an attack.—Prashant 07:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have sources to prove that the articles I contributed to aren't upto the mark, then please open the FAR right now. Why wait? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have the sources. Dont worry I definitely will. A teaser was given to the "No contribution section" above. Just wait for the right time.—Prashant 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the big deal with adding the word versatile in there somewhere. The ibnlive and dnaindia sources make it pretty clear. And she did play 12 roles in one film. I do hate to see you guys spend so much time arguing about it though. Further, I don't think the word 'Shero' is appropriate for the lead. BollyJeff | talk 13:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If someone makes a decent case for it, I don't have a problem with adding anything from her versatility to her breast size. But if someone keeps making personal attacks towards me, and accuses me of being a hypocrite, I'm not going to let them continue with it. I have contributed on articles of 4 different actresses who have nothing in common with each other, and are in the same league as Priyanka Chopra. I don't know what the fuck I'll achieve by trying to bring down Chopra. So if someone doesn't act like a goddam fan boy, I can try and help improve the article. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you know about certain words such as Equality? For wikipedia, it's called neutrality! I dont want to discuss furtger with you.—Prashant 14:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Which other contemporary leading actress have you contributed to? You don't get to lecture me on neutrality. Your world revolves around Priyanka Chopra, and you think everyone else is a piece of shit. I have contributed to Vidya and Deepika, who are polls apart. So are Rani and Kangana. I know what neutrality is. There is nothing special or different about Chopra that I need to bring her down. I don't hate her or any other actress, unlike you. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on Huma Qureshi and Parineeti Chopra. Listen, I dont have. any problem if you like her or not. But, you are turning from your own words. It's posted above. When I wrote Versatility cannot be removed. You said provide sources and when I provide so many sources. Suddenly, it became unwanted? So, tell me what should I assume?—Prashant 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are more sources for "sex symbol". Why don't you add that? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember how much you wanted to add her being a sex symbol in her lead. If you think it's right go on and add in the lead. I dont have a problem if she is also considered a mere symbol.—Prashant 14:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a million sources of her affairs with Akshay Kumar and Shah Rukh Khan too. I see no mention of that either. All you want to do is add praise, praise, praise. Nothing else. We all should just sit and do bhajans around Madam Chopra. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh really? But, I dont see the same in your articles. Deepika has been dating 100 mens, Rani had an affair with Govinda, Abhisekh and Aamir, Vidya had affairs with Shahid, John. So, Wy didnt you added these stuffs to your articlea because you want to do bhajan around your female heroes. I will provide 100 sources for their relationships too. I am trying to come to a result but you dont want to. Its better we dont cross each others paths.—Prashant 15:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Deepika's affair with Ranbir and Sidarth. Mentioned. Kangana's affair with Aditya Pancholi. Mentioned. Rani's affair with Aditya Chopra. Mentioned. Vidya's affair with Shahid. Mentioned. All of it mentioned in their articles. Nothing about Chopra's affairs with Akshay or Shah Rukh. Why? Hypocrite!!! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, dont get the discussion to another level. It will be better if you can opena FAR of this article and I should open FAR of yours. And, then it will be okay. Bye Bye!!—Prashant 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the moment I catch your lies you change the topic. Hypocrite!! I have no intention to open FAR on the article because I know how hard Bollyjeff and Blofeld have worked on this article, despite all your attempts of ruining it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And, the moment I catch your lies then? Since Bollyjeff agrees with me adding Versatility. The discussion is over. If you wanna call me hypocrite, then call me. I dont have any problem. OMG! I tried to ruin the article. Wow!—Prashant 15:20, 11 February 2015 (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.

Ethnicity is Punjabi?

How can her ethnicity be listed as Punjabi when Chopra herself has said that her maternal grandmother is Malayali? I'm not sure what her paternal grandfather is, but he's likely to be Malayali as well:

"I am a Malayali," says Priyanka with a straight face on learning about our recent trip to God’s Own Country. Even as one rubbishes it off as a prank, she says, straight-faced "My naani is a Malayali from Kottayam, so I have roots there."

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/interview-what-is-priyanka-chopra-s-kottayam-connection-1740013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyanP (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Somebody proclaiming themselves to be a part of a certain ethnicity doesn't actually need not necessarily make them a part of that group. Further, the source states that only her maternal grandmother to be a Malayali, not mother. I see no point in bringing in the Malayalam ethnicity here. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean Malayali* ethnicity; Malayalam is the language they speak. In any case, going by your logic, I'm not sure why there's a point in bringing up her Punjabi ethnicity in the article. If that's relevant so is her maternal grandmother being a Malayali. AyanP (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Ayan

Pardon me for confusing you, but I'm very much aware of the difference between "Malayalam" and Malayali". No where in the article (in words) I'm able to find a mention of her Punjabi ethnicity. The "Malayali ethnicity" matters only in her maternal grandmother's article, not here. I suggest you please read WP:CATEGRS before jumping into conclusions. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth would there be an article about her grandmother? And yes, there is a line about her Punjabi father ("Her father was a Punjabi") while there is no mention of her maternal ancestry. If the latter doesn't matter, why is the former mentioned in the article? AyanP (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP

Unless you can also find her maternal grandfather's ethnicity there's no strong reason to include "Malayali".Filpro (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reviews

Why are we removing reviews of Chopra's performance in an article about Chopra? [1], [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Can We Get a New Main Photo?

I don't think the current one is flattering at all and it's not exactly recent anymore. AyanP (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP

There are ample photos in commons, please list here any suggestion that you might have, or anything in proper pixels in recent one. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone already changed it to a recent photo, but I think this one is even less flattering. Considering this page is probably going to get a lot more people visiting this page because of Quantico, I think she deserves a photo that does her justice. Let me look for a better one.

FYI, have you noticed that BollywoodHungama.com retouches candid pictures to add more lighting and make people look paler? I wish we could use photos from another source. How about pictures taken by fans? AyanP (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)AyanP

I think 2013 is a long time back....that's not the way to treat one of our most high-profile actor.. Deepavin (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we should upload a photo of one of priyanka's oscars looks preferably oscars 2017 look it is flattering and popular too. Shetroublemaker (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

Please change the first photo. 117.195.3.24 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Five categories

While I'm not denying the fact that her five wins across as many categories is a Bollywood record, having such a contentious claim (even in the lead) in a non-neutral manner is not a great idea. Keeping Amitabh Bachchan aside, Lakshmi and Kamal Haasan have won in more than five categories (albeit majorly being Filmfare Awards South). So PC, is definitely not the first actress to win in five categories. Lakshmi did that many years ago (Tamil, Hindi, Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada, and a Lifetime Achievement Award). —Vensatry _(Talk) 13:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all AB and KH are not actresses. Second we are talking about "Filmfare Awards" amd NOT "Filmfare Awards" South, West, East, or North. Your edit saying first Bollywood actress to win? Excuse me Filmfare Awards are obviously for Bollywood. Your words doesn't make sense. And, why its not neutral to say the truth? If she had won some "made up" award like Entertainer Award (which doest happen at Filmfare Thank God) than it would have been a problem. Farhan Akhtar has won in six categories. I don't think anyone wins a Lifetime Achievement Award. They are presented and we are talking about the competetive awards here. AB has won a Power Award, what is that? Isn't that questionable? I repeat, dont you ever revert my or anyone's edit without making sure you are right, which in this case you were wrong.Krish | Talk 14:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that "Critics Award" is also non-competitive; there are no nominations. Anyway, please don't cause another stink here. All this "first and only" type of language is too flowery, especially in the lead. You should know it by now. A simple statement of the facts as in the newer version is just fine. BollyJeff | talk 14:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Critics awards do have nominations. It's just they are not revealed. I read a recent article by Subhash K. Jha about that. It is notable that Filmfare doesnt reveal all the nominations except the top 10. But, they send the nomination to every nominee. It means, the actor or actress have more nominations than it is shown in their wikipedia pages. By the way, i have tweaked that line to simply say that she is the first actress to win Filmfare awards in five categories.Krish | Talk 14:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krish!: Since when did Filmfare become a promient ceremony (for you)? I see you'd bashed the award in a conversation with another editor? Ok, AB and Kamal aren't actresses, what about Lakshmi – does the name sound like a man to you? —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you have reinserted the 'First and only' bit. Poor language in a FA mate! —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't "Female Hero" a poor language for Vidya Balan? Also, I still feel Filmfare Awards are biased. It doesn't had to do with their credibility. My work is to update the article. It's a fact that she is the first and the only actress to win 5 awards in different categories, what i can do in this? By the way Lakshmi has won in different languages and we are talking about the Filmfare Awards.Krish | Talk 15:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You clearly are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to promote something. I don't care about the Balans, the Mukherjis, the Padukones, the Ranauts, or the Chopras. All that I want is the aspect of WP:NPOV is not lost. Isn't winning awards in multiple languages (that too at a time when not many categories existed) a better 'feat' than someone winning in different categories in a particular industry? And Lakshmi won a Filmfare Award for Best Actress too. FYI, Filmfare, Filmfare Awards South, Filmfare Awards East, all are awarded by the Times Group. You are repeatedly displaying this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality inspite of Bollyjeff's (the primary contributor to this article) advice. I'll wait for Dr. Blofeld (another significant contributor), Cyphoidbomb, and Cowlibob before proceeding to a WP:DR. —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm only here to f***k myself right? and I didn't contributed to this article. Correct. You are so kind Vensatry. Thank You.Krish | Talk 16:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot answer such existentialist questions. I know this was unsourced, but can you explain this revert which was made without an edit summary? As a matter of fact, five years ago Kareena Kapoor achieved the feat that we're talking about – five awards (read Filmfare Awards). And she is an 'actress' too! —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Kapoor was presented with a Special Award for a film, which was eligible for next year. But she got awarded a year before than its actual eligibility. You just cannot say a person has won a Special Award, those are presented. By the way, Chopra's record is for five acting categories which are competetive and not some Special Award because of a sirname.Krish | Talk 17:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Er, I'm not getting into a debate as to which awards are competitive and which are not. WP isn't the place for it. The concern was with respect to your original wordings: 'first and the only actress to win Filmfare Awards in five different categories.' —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"First and only actress to win Filmfare Awards in five different categories", seems like a "moving the goalposts" accomplishment. By that, I mean that without context (like reporters making a big stink about it), it's somewhat arbitrary, even if true. If you move the goalposts closer or further away from your subject, you can turn anything into an a accomplishment. "PK is the highest-grossing Indian film to date." Now that's a significant achievement. "Dhoom 3 was the highest-grossing Indian film of 2013." Okay, got it, that's important too. "Bang Bang! is the highest-grossing Indian film to screen first in Dubai." Arbitrary accomplishment. "Film XYZ is the first film to gross more than ₹N crore in Kerala on its seventh day after release." Now we're in ridiculous territory. We're not here to fluff things up [3][4], and manufacturing arbitrary accomplishments isn't part of our goals either. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Wish I could give your comment a 100 upvotes. Another worrying aspect is that Indian media copy these arbitrary claims made in WP. Over a period of time, factoids become facts! —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I will also add that Krish's battleground mentality and WP:OWN of Priyanka Chopra related articles are something that needs to be toned down. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Too late to talk about WP:OWNish behavior now! I agree with what Cyphoidbomb talks about goalpost changes. Vensatry clearly points out how Kareena Kapoor, a female actor, has also achieved same feat before although her PRs have not done a good job of hyping it up. If we at all disregard acting and gender, both Kapoor and Chopra have a long time to catch up with Gulzar who has 20 Filmfares in 7 different categories. Also note, this content is also being added to the article Filmfare Awards, where it is not suitable at all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless Filmfare itself comes up with something like this, I don't see a compelling reason to add whatever is being reported in the media. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Vensatry I think you are right. I don't know why I had added that stuff in the first place. It's just some articles surfaced after the Filmfare ceremony. That's why I removed that thing yesterday, the time I realised it wasn't really neccessary.Krish | Talk 14:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

personal life

why is there no 'personal life' section here? there needs to be one. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

See the last part of both the 'Early life and background' and 'In the media' sections. What else is "needed"? We don't want gossip here. BollyJeff | talk 20:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

you shouldn't have brought up the subject of gossip, as it's unrelated to the topic her personal life. the wiki articles on most famous people contain a 'personal life' section. it's customary, and there's no earthly reason for her article to be unusually structured. the very point of an article content index is to save the reader the trouble of having to wade through untold numbers of paragraphs searching for what they're looking for. THAT's why it's needed. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

African-American  During her teenage years in America, Chopra sometimes faced racial issues and was bullied for being Indian by an African-American classmate.[23][24] I do not see the reference of the classmates race as being relevant in any way & while reviewing the source material I do not see a reference made to the race of the classmate. Thank you 

Pdxpop (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. The mention of a specific classmate has been removed since the sources don't support it. clpo13_(talk) 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Family Information

Hi Priyanka Chopra confirm your father was a doctor of Army Medical Corps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.99.89 (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Main Lead

As she is a well known personality among indians and around the world and that to on a featured article i can't find even one source proving all those statements. Readers will be confused and editors can remove content which are unsourced. Better atleast few statements should be sourced. Ambeinghari (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, looking at WP:CITELEAD, it should not be needed unless something very controversial is said in there. This article, along with SRK have passed the very stringent featured article process. What is said here that is hard to believe? BollyJeff | talk 17:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Fashion

please change ((Fashion (film)|Fashion)) to ((Fashion (2008 film)|Fashion))

Done. BollyJeff | talk 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Length

The gigantic size of this article is bigger than Julianne Moore who has had a much more prolific career than Chopra. Also, the image of Parineeti Chopra is irrelevant to this article. FrB.TG (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Moore has has 62 films to Chopra's 55; not a huge difference. Yes, it is longer; so what? Yes, I agree it has too many pictures. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It was fine when it was promoted to FA. My point is that we don't need to devote a paragraph to each of her work. FrB.TG (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Chopra as "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" is not supported by sources

The claim that Chopra is "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" is not supported by sources. First, rediff.com, the only source used to support this statement, is a junk source which uses a slideshow containing factoids about Chopra's life in short captions but even then it does not use the word "world". In slide 17 under the title "Hot endorsements" the source introduces Chopra as: As one of the top-paid actresses in the business.

Given that rediff.com is an Indian website, "in the business" may well mean "in the Indian cinema business", not "the world". The Hindustan Times is the second source attached to that sentence but the newspaper just calls her "the highest-paid actress" in India which is different from "world".

I removed the "world" claim with a proper edit-summary only to be reverted with a rude edit-summary normally reserved for vandalism. The use of deceptive edit-summaries in edit-warring is not good practice and should stop immediately. This is supposed to be a featured article. Use of junk sources which do not even support the facts presented in the article is not supposed to exist in such articles or in any other article or BLP for that matter. Dr. K. 20:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, the change to the original text from "one of the highest-paid actresses in Bollywood" to "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" first occurred on 14 September 2016, by the same user who reverted me, using highly enthusiastic edit-summaries. The problem is, s/he did not supply a source for "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" but for "one of the highest-paid TV actresses in the world" using the list by Forbes. I just hope this editor realises the difference between a film actress and a TV actress. In fact, the 2016 Forbes list of the highest paid actresses in the world does not include Chopra. Dr. K. 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I forgot, TV actresses have horns on their head. LOL.Krish | Talk 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see what I wrote above. Forbes has a different category for TV actresses and another for film actresses. If you don't understand that you should not be editing this FA article. Dr. K. 21:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dispute moved to ORN

Due to continuing edit-warring violations of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V etc. I have opened a discussion at WP:ORN. Dr. K. 01:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Highest-paid Bollywood actress

From Deepika Padukone is now the highest paid actress in Bollywood (GQ India):

Deepika Padukone has now reportedly hiked her fees to become the highest paid actress in Bollywood.

Her role as Mastani in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s period drama, Bajirao Mastani, won her both critical reception and Bhansali’s loyalty, since he just offered her a paycheque of over Rs 12 crore for his upcoming movie, Padmavati.

When other contemporaries including Priyanka Chopra, Kareena Kapoor and Sonam Kapoor get paid somewhere between Rs 8-9 crore, Deepika’s broken through the glass ceiling with her latest project.

Similar comments are made by dnaindia.com

Back home, much has been talked about how Deepika had triumphed over all her contemporaries when it comes to the financial game. Yes, she is undoubtedly the highest paid Bollywood heroine but that's not all. She's in fact the only Indian actress who has made it to this year's Forbes list of global actresses with the highest earnings in the last one year.

I note that dnaindia.com is a source used multiple times in this article. So the personal attack in the edit-summary: Looks like Padukone's PR also got somone on Wikipedia is nonsensical, given that dnaindia is an RS used in this very article. It has become clear that no amount of reliable sources will end this edit-war by the other editor. This is WP:OWN behaviour at its worst. This, coupled with the personal attacks, will need some attention at ANI in the not too distant future, if it continues. Meanwhile, I will add a disputed tag to this supposedly FA article. Dr. K. 06:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's funny because you had reverted my edit based on a different source and now you have completely manipulated everything using another sources. Let me be clear I was fan of Chopra even when I co-wrote the article and the day the article passed FA. Everything in the article had gone under the highly detailed FA-revie and then It passed. By the way saying I OWN this is ridiculous because I don't but it feels like you own the article. Now let me tell you the fact that Deepika Padukone has the most amazing PR team on the planet and I can prove this. So the first line of your text says "Her role as Mastani in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s period drama, Bajirao Mastani, won her both critical reception and Bhansali’s loyalty". This is laughable because she was panned for her performance and yet her PR claims she won critical acclaim. See the summary her. Plus, the claims of her being the highest paid for Padmavati are not confirmed by Forbes and her being the highest paid with 10 million was before the tv list was revealed by Forbes which her PR constructed saying "Padukone beat Chopra" but the truth was that Chopra made 11 million, more than her. So don't try to manipulate things. The article that I gave breaks everything and its obvious that 11>10 million. Additionally, I would like to invite editors like Bollyjeff, Dr. Blofeld, Pavanjandhyala, Ssven2 to discuss here.Krish | Talk 07:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Actresses salaries obviously will go up and down over time. One day one women will be "ahead", and then may be overtaken by another. In my opinion, Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should have content that can stand the test of time. It is not meant to give daily updates on who is better than who. I would prefer that the articles of both women say that they are "one of the highest paid", assuming that they are both in the top ten or so, and for the fighting to stop. BollyJeff | talk 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with your comment. Thank you. Dr. K. 16:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to add the year as well in the lead because none of the actresses are regularly featured on Forbes. So if we want to say about them being highest paid in the world, then we must say about the year. This will be more clear. What's say Bollyjeff?Krish | Talk 18:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. BollyJeff | talk 13:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So don't try to manipulate things.: Once more: Stop the personal arracks. You have been blocked before for such behaviour and you should know better. I am not trying to manipulate anything. I am using reliable sources, one of which is used in this article multiple times, and that's why I want them reflected into this article. You are a self-admitted fan of PC and I am just a neutral editor who tries to improve this article. I would obviously welcome more input from the editors you pinged, some of whom I am familiar with. But you cannot reject sources already used in this article just on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis because their analysis does not conform to your biased view as a fan. Also your source makes very little analysis of the salary PC receives and even then does not mention anything about the individual fee she receives for each picture whereas my sources explicitly mention that Deepika gets paid a higher fee for each film than PC.

Your source says:

Her major earnings involve a fat paycheck from her TV series and her upcoming film Baywatch. This clearly means that PC has beat DP's earnings, that were approximate $10 million.

which means that they make an aggregation of total income from all sources, They do not claim that PC's individual fee for each film is higher than Deepika's. This is not a proper calculation. The highest-paid actress determination is based on the individual fee an actress receives per film, not her total yearly income. Total yearly income is irrelevant because an actress could make fifty low-paid films and then end up getting a higher yearly income than an actress who gets a higher rate per film but makes a smaller number of films. There is a reason why PC did not make the Forbes highest-paid actress' list and your efforts to the contrary are pure distortion of what the sources say. What's more you have edit-warred incessantly to suppress what the RS actually say and you have engaged in personal attacks. I think you should seriously reconsider this attitude. Dr. K. 15:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

May I know the reason why Chopra didn't make it to Forbes highest paid actress'? I am eager to know. Tell me, since you look like a veteran in terms of finance and earnings.Krish | Talk 18:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Producer

change ((producer)) to ((Film producer|producer))

Done. Bollyjeff | talk 15:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Priyanka Chopra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121216155313/http://www.worldmusicawards.com/ to http://www.worldmusicawards.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f%5B0%5D=ts_chart_artistname%3A%2Apriyanka%20chopra%2A

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)