Talk:Madhuri Dixit/Archive 1

Archive 1

1st section

Should I make a seperate page for her filmography? if so, what?

I don't think we need a separate filmography page. This page is much less than 32KB limit. utcursch 11:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

How do I make it a continuously numbered list while having indented translations? does anyone know how to do that? -gren

Merovingian, what the HECK are you doing?

You have now twice removed most of the material from the article, leaving it a stub. Do you hate Madhuri, so that she gets less space than current sex symbols like Bipasha Basu? Marking the revert as "minor" is also an extremely unfair move.

If you think the article should be re-organized, re-organize it, don't delete information. Zora 8 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Case 1

• Madhuri Dixit (born May 15, 1967) is an Indian actress.

I am requesting that this be changed to:

• Madhuri Dixit (माधुरी दीक्षित) (born May 15, 1967) is an Indian Bollywood actress and model.

Does anybody know what language माधुरी दीक्षित is in? There is a link to the Sanskrit Wikipedia, where the article is technically a candidate for speedy deletion, due to the fact that it simply repeats the title. Sanskrit does not, as far as I know, have its own separate alphabet / writing system. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:50 (UTC)

That's Hindi, written in Devanagari script. Someone -- I think Elyaqim -- has been putting Devanagari and in some cases Arabic versions of the names in Bollywood articles. I'm thinking it over.

I've let the various Muslim editors introduce Arabic script right and left in the Islamic articles, and that may be necessary. However, I don't think that Devanagari and Arabic script at all necessary or useful for the Bollywood articles. For one thing, Elyaqim has been singling out the Muslim actors and putting Arabic script ONLY by their names. I think that may be code for "Muslims, watch out!" Which would be POV.

(The history here is that Hindustani, the various dialects spoken across northern India and Pakistani, comes in a Muslim, Persian and Arabic-influenced version called Urdu, written in Arabic script, and a Hindu, Sanskritized version called Hindi, which is written in Devanagari. So using one or the other script for the same name is making a political/religious statement.)

What do you think? If you think it's POV, let's remove the Arabic and the Devanagari versions.

Otherwise, adding more links/info to the first sentence is a good idea. Zora 8 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

Then, is my proposed change to the first sentence acceptable? --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 10:24 (UTC)

Yup. If you want to leave the Devanagari there for the moment, until I get a response from Elyaqim, that's OK too. Zora 8 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll make the agreed-upon changes and prepare the case for the second sentence. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Devanagari spelling provides additional information, it gives right pronounciation, since you can't trust roman transcriptions at all. BernardM 23:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Bernard -- you're Elyaqim, right? -- the problem with adding Devanagari to some Bollywood names, and Devanagari and Arabic to others, is that you're using it as a pointer to "who's Muslim and who's not". In the context of Indian politics, this is inflammatory. Either you give Devanagari and Arabic for all of them, or for none at all. I would prefer none at all. I'll wait a day or so before deleting, in case you can change my mind <g>. Zora 02:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• No, I'm not Elyaqim and I don't even know who he is. I don't want to use Devanagari script to tell wether an actor is Hindu or Muslim. If we follow this principle, we should also add Gurmukhi script, because the actor could be Sikh, etc. I don't think we should be afraid of such things. Using Devanagari script just tells correct spelling (if you don't know Hindi, believe me, transcriptions are really messy). I can't add "Urdu spelling" too because I don't know it, but please don't remove Devanagari script since it would make the article lose information. BernardM 09:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see your point -- I've run into movies where people have rendered the title three or four different ways. But I'm not sure it's so much a problem for actors. People seem to settle quite quickly on an English version of an actor's name. The only one I've seen flip around is Akshaye/Akshay Khanna. And just adding Devanagari sends the message that Devanagari and Hindi are better than Arabic script and Urdu -- when it's the same language, really.

I'll also admit that the older movies inevitably have titles in Devanagari and Arabic script, and the newer ones tend to just have Devanagari. So perhaps the scale is tipping. But still ... Zora 10:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking of consistency between the different roman transcriptions but of constitency between Devanagari spelling and roman spelling. With roman transcriptions different sounds are rendered in the same way, they're not rendered in the same way from one word to another, etc. You need Devanagari/Arabic spelling to know what a word really is. I know Hindi and Urdu are the same language, I don't have anything against having Urdu spelling as well on WP. I just don't know it, so I'm not going to give it, but if someone else does it, it's very nice. BernardM 12:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Case 2

• She is a native of Mumbai, India, and one of Bollywood's leading ladies.

I am requesting that this be changed to:

• She is a native of Mumbai.

• She is a native of Mumbai who has had a successful film career.

She is a native of Mumbai who has had an extremely successful film career, spanning much of the 1980s and 1990s.

I don't think you quite grasp the magnitude of her stardom at the time. She was in the biggest hits and had the most fans. Bollywood does that, much more than Hollywood. I'd say it's an artifact of the way films are made there. Instead of an actor doing one film at a time, as is usual in Hollywood, the HOT star signs a number of films and makes them simultaneously, commuting between Mumbai sets by limousine. This is starting to change, since there's more location filming these days, but it's still possible for the top stars to dominate the biggest releases, sometimes for years at a time. See the Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh Khan articles for extreme examples of this. I'm not being fannish, I'm being realistic. Zora 8 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Note: it's after 1 AM here in Honolulu and I need to sleep. Please don't think I've abandoned the discussion. Zora 8 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

I understand, but I'm simply seeking confirmation for the proposed change. I'm not trying to downplay Dixit's success; I'm just trying to clarify the passages. In this case, I am seeking to replace one of Bollywood's leading ladies with has had a successful film career. I believe that the latter is a better example of acceptable Wikipedia article prose, not that the current wording isn't. This is an encyclopedia whose articles are written inn a neutral point of view. I believe that the proposed change is more objective. For the record, I don't doubt Dixit's talents; instead, I am trying to explain that it seems more in accordance with Wikipedia custom, in which people of the same group (in this case, actresses) are all treatly fairly. By the way, I am happy to continue this discussion this at a later time. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 11:22 (UTC)

Well, I'm attached to "one of Bollywood's leading ladies" because of the alliteration. But if you want to replace it with "successful actress", I won't stand against it. However -- I do not think it a good idea to remove any mention of her film roles, or why people like her in them. I want the Bollywood articles to be USEFUL to people who are venturing into an Indian grocery/spice/video store for the first time, staring at the unfamiliar names and faces on the covers of the DVDs, and wondering what to rent. I have been there, and it took me years to get my bearings. I want to spare other non-Indian people the same disorientation. Letting them know that Madhuri plays roles which require "dhak-dhak" dancing instead of nuanced acting is going to help them figure out whether to rent Tezaab or Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam. It's not saying that the movies involved are good or bad -- just what type they are and how popular they were. We have a whole List of popular Bollywood films which is a reference for people exploring Indian cinema. If Wikipedia is still here a hundred years from now, I figure we'll all be kinda brown, bear names like Farouk Rahul Wang, and know exactly who Madhuri Dixit was. In which case the film summaries can get a bit drier. In the meantime, I don't think it hurts anything if some of the articles or film summaries sound a bit like TV Guide. Zora 9 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

I will change the second sentence, and keep the passages about her major film roles, with some syntactical clarification. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 9, 2005 08:24 (UTC)

Hey, hey, loosen up!

Merovingian, it's really not necessary to write so stiffly <g>. I don't know what you have against the words "hit" or "super-hit" -- they're descriptive, not subjective. Good or bad is a matter of opinion, how many weeks it played in Mumbai is a matter of record. I restored super-hit for Hum Aapke Hain Koun ... it was. Surpassed only by Sholay and Dulwalia Dulhania Le Jayenge. I did some copyediting and tried to make the prose more supple. Zora 9 July 2005 10:05 (UTC)

I guess my reasoning is that popularity is relative. I'm not trying to take away from the movie's status, but most Americans have never even heard of Dixit. On the other hand, I'd say that most Indians have no idea who Lindsay Lohan is. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I'm so far into the Indian film world at this point that I naturally take the Indian viewpoint. It's interesting, though, that both Hollywood and Bollywood are increasingly reporting in terms of domestic receipts and international receipts -- but in each case, international is defined vis-a-vis the local market. So far as I know, there's no global film ranking that covers films both by receipts (with everything converted to dollars, say), and by eyeballs. You'd have to count eyeballs to get some idea of relative popularity, because a film shown primarily in developed countries, where people can afford to pay more, is going to have bigger receipts per eyeball. But eyeballs are really uncountable ... especially with the piracy that's rampant in the Third World. Interesting problem ...

Zora 07:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Merovingian removes, anon fanboy adds

I dunno if Merovingian is still reading this talk page, but I find it somewhat amusing that after he and I scrapped over his plans to wring all the fannish hyperbole <g> out of the article, an anon came along and re-added the hyperbole. Stronger than it was before -- now Ms. Dixit is a national icon! I thought that only applied to Amitabh ...

I removed it, but I'm not sure that it is possibly to hold the line against legions of South Asian fans. Zora 06:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Urdu

I first want to thank BernardM for summing up the whole transliteration arguments (and do you get as frustrated/bored explaining it over and over [and over and over] as I have?). If anyone wants to join me in starting a unicode activist wikigroup, than please, by all means! I think while honourable, Merovingian is a little out of their element, ever so respectfully speaking. In the Desi world a Gora needs to know this stuff! And when it comes to Bollywood, stardom really isn't so relative - it is a cultural anomoly. Shahrukh is like 20 leading Hollywood men wrapped up into one for instance. However, when it comes to transliterating names it can get sticky and I don't know how to resolve that. There are so many dynamics to consider. If we want to avoid it all together there is this option: Mādhurī Dīkṣīt (or Dīxīt). But Urdu is no problem, though the Sanskrit क्ष conjunct and ष itself has no equivalent in Urdu nast'alīq/naskh. Here's Madhuri Dixit in Urdu naskh: مادهرى ديكشيت

Go ahead, put in as many as you want! Whee! Or add a section of transliterations at the end, so it doesn't swamp the start of the article. I can't advise you about the Devanagari, I'm ignorant there. Zora 09:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Btw, are we absolutely sure it दीक्षीत अौर न दिक्षित है? I'll be honest here that I don't know, but it sounds odd in Hindi, and when I hear Desis say her name it is more like िदक्षत by ear. If we want to go crazy we could also go with માધુરી દીક્ષીત, ਮਾਧੁਰੀ ਦੀਕਸ਼ੀਤ, etc. Khirad^talk

I've corrected spelling. Some anon replaced दीक्षित with दीक्षीत. दीक्षित seems to be the most used spelling. By the way you typed wrong Devanagari, see Wikipedia:Enabling_complex_text_support_for_Indic_scripts. We're not going to use Gujarati script or Gurmukhi because Hindi films' language is Hindi. BernardM 22:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No caste

I removed the claim that Madhuri is a Chitpavan Brahmin. Let's NOT do the caste nonsense on WP. If she is indeed a Brahmin, it would be notable if she made a big deal out of it. As she doesn't, it isn't anyone else's concern. Zora 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does matter. She is part of the "Chitpavan Community" (you can substitute a plethora of words for caste like: clan, tribe, etc.). Its more easy to justify this way. She was therefore then born in the "Chitpavan" community. Considering her husband belongs to the exact same community, it seems she feels a sense of belonging in the "community".Bakaman 03:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless she makes the claim, prominently, it's not up to us to categorize her. Zora 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You're correct about categorization, we already came to a consensus on that in WP:INB. Merely saying she was born in a "Marathi Chitpavan" (no need for the varna, its obvious to people who know, and harmless to people who dont) family isnt adding "caste nonsense" its adding "context" about her upbringing. IMO, anyone who reads the article even right now (from India) can easily figure out her caste by some very obvious clues in the article.Bakaman 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the entire caste-issue, however, if mentioning the "Chitpavan Community" helps people to understand more about Dixit's background, I'm all for it. I imagine "Chitpavan Community" a bit like a German saying s/he's a "Badener" - not exactly a "caste", but for a German person it says all. ;) --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not like saying that she's a native of some city or another. It's more like classifying her as white, as opposed to colored or black in Apartheid-era South Africa, because castes are ranked and the upper castes dominate and exploit the lower castes. Being a Brahmin in India is a BIG DEAL, because they're a small proportion of the population and they hold most of the plum jobs. Being a Brahmin is much nicer than being a Dalit, an Untouchable, and being forbidden to use the village well, visit the village temple, etc. Or being targeted for rape and murder if you get uppity. Kherlanji Massacre WP should not buy into this archaic and evil system by classifying people. IF they choose to classify themselves, then we can report it. Zora 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm please dont parade your ignorance of the actual reality of clan networks in India. The system of clan's and tribes is still strong, while the four varnas are slowly melting away (for good). I have purposely used words like community to neutralize the impact of the assertions. Classifying would be occuring if we were adding categories (which I have explicitly stated many times I am opposed to). Actually the more neutral term is "Konkanastha" (which merely means "person from Konkan", a region in India). O and btw, there are no untouchables in India anymore, the practice is outlawed. I find your assertion that Brahmins are priviledged to be highly inaccurate. Please do read up on actual events rather than selectively trying to emotionally blackmail users. Its not like Brahmins (3%) were lording it out over Dalits or anything.Bakaman 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora,

You are in effect calling me and my people (Chitpavans) racists. Firstly you are exagerating the extent of casteism that prevails in India.

because castes are ranked and the upper castes dominate and exploit the lower castes. Being a Brahmin in India is a BIG DEAL, because they're a small proportion of the population and they hold most of the plum jobs. And how the heck is this related to the discussion here.

Have you even been to India? Evidently reading leftist rags has made you prejudiced. BTW dont rake up Kherlanji on every now and then. I must point out that its wasnt the Brahmins but Other Backward Castes (no pointing this does not make me racist)

As for mentioning caste. Look around... every fucking South Asian bio-article (yes even the ones on Sikhs & Muslims) mention the persons caste. It is used as mere ethnic/cultural term rather than varna.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 18:26, 22 December 2006 (U]

Moreover Zora, its about the time you stopped forcing your half-baked views on us. 'Haingin around at Sepia Mutiny' hardly qualifies for expertise in Indian culture. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Marathi

I can understand Zora deleting her caste, but why edit out references to her ethnicity (Maharashtrian)? अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Does she claim to be a Maharashtrian? Who defines what that means? Who has the authority to pigeonhole people?

If it's a question of nationality, you can decide that by where someone votes, what kind of passport he/she carries. You can describe someone as being born in one country, but living and holding citizenship in another. There are rules for deciding whether someone is IN or OUT. But what are the rules for describing someone as Maharashtrian? Are you willing to accept anyone legally resident in Maharashtra, and voting in the state elections, as Maharashtrian? If so, what does that make Madhuri, who lives in the US? Zora 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. There are two cats Category:Marathi people and Category:People from Maharashtra for that reason. People's domicile change (though she is settled in America) but their birthplace and ethnicity is stationary. There is a difference between Maharashtrian and Marathi. One refers to a person domiciled in a certain state in India, the other refers to an ethnic group. Yes we are able to refer to a legal resident/voting as Maharashtrian, and that makes madhuri an Indian American. There is no "pidgeonholing" going on, and obvious facts are to be stated as obvious facts. Its not my problem if unlike every other user that touches these pages, you lack the ability to tell which ethnic group a random Indian person belongs to. Were merely sorting granny smiths from fujis; neither is better or worse, but both are different entities.Bakaman 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh.. Zora, your righteousness is getting a touch irritating. Maharashtrian is an alternate term used for Marathi people. It has nothing to do with being domiciled in state of Maharashtra. Its not my job to teach half-educated wannabe 'India experts'. Just one small request, dont delete info, unless you really know what you are doing.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 11:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fame and Popularity

I removed this section from the page as it was completely unencyclopedic. A relevant discussion can be found on Talk:Preity Zinta as to why that text should not be in the article. Regards, xC | ☎ 07:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Madhuri Dixit with her family.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Madhuri Dixit with her family.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Additions

Points for expansion of this article. Add your suggestions below & comment on them accordingly. This will help other editors to find reliable sources & then add in the article.

• TV apperances: I dont have much info about it. But she has been on KBC few times. She used to host a Matrimonial show called "Kahina Kahi Koi hai" (i guess) on Sony or Sahara or something. Also has been on Koffee With Karan. Jhalak Dikhla Ja is already mentioned. Any more? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Controversies: Dont know if controversies related to "Choli ke peeche" & "Aaja Nachle" songs should be pt on these articles. They have no connection with Madhuri directly. But we cant deny the publicity & fame these songs received. Link if needed -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Advertisements & other promotions: She has been in Lux. Any more? Any modeling shows? (NONE!! as per this) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Useful links:

• Forbes 2001 India's Top Movie Star List. Madhuri ranks 5th. Already used
• Madhuri best, says Birju Maharaj Added now.
• Saroj Khan on choreographing Madhuri Dixit Nene after a long hiatus
• Madhuri missed Saroj Khan in Aaja Nachle
• Madhuri is like lady MJ: Remo
• Top 10 songs of Madhuri Dixit
• Bollywood lacks classical dancers after Madhuri: Mahvir
• Beyond the glamour

I highly doubt any of these will really help us improve this article. Right now it's in a sad state. We must improve her career section first and foremost. Ass info about her films, their critical reception, the kind of roles she played, how they were received. There's much to write. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Right! but i can hardly find any stuff on net about her golden days. Internet is just crying of her return journey. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Never knew this. Quite funny thing. Did you know it? Vikram Batra has a funny connection with Madhuri Dixit. Read this. I am also told that this line appears in LOC Kargil. Should this, after having good refernce, go on article? Say under a public-image section. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Filmography

I think the filmo should be back as it was - no need for costars and director columns. This just takes unnecessary space and contributes nothing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be concerned about her, not all these other folks. All of that info is in the individual articles. BollyJeff || talk 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I think we can restore the previous version. What's your opinion, Animesh? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Aaahh!!! You know i wouldnt agree. I did it!! :) I also cited Riya Sen, a GOOD ARTICLE. Just for curiosity i also went in the GA review of that article & found no objections to that format of filmography. I understand that when you would want to discuss a small issue like sortablity of Notes Column in order to bring uniformity throughout Wikipedia, this issue of "extra" columns should definitely be discussed. & i also see your point that this info isnt specifically abt her. But we know that lead coactors & directors play good role in any actor's career. You wouldnt mind having Director's column in Urmila's filmography to show RVG influence. Or Rani Mukerji's work under Yash Raj banner. Nargis, in her 50-something films has been in 16 films opposite Raj Kapoor. (Dont worry! They arent added in table yet). But these things through a table are better represented, especially sortables ones. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it's necessary at all, and frankly Riya Sen is not a template for Madhuri Dixit even though it's good. Please consider WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to take example then you better take it from Angelina Jolie and other FAs, all of which have none of these columns. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to mention the directors, since the article is concerned only about Madhuri Dixit. If the filmography is a separate page, co-stars can be mentioned. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 16:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay I see that the majority - 3 people out of four agree that this column is not necessary. Will have to be removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

how does the info when on separate page become "abt her" & otherwise its not? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Madhuri-Dixit.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Madhuri-Dixit.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Caste

Dear Editors!
There has been a discussion on India Portal related to mentioning of caste of subjects. The point is that mentioning caste of people, who have nothing to do with their caste, is found to be unnecessary by few editors. Hence the caste of the subject person needs to be deleted from the biography. I am not deleting the caste as of now but am only posting this here so that the regular editors of this article are well aware of it beforehand and no edit-wars take place. For details of discussion held on the portal please refer Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. Your views if any are welcome there or even here.
And.... as the reasons of exclusion of caste pointed out were "irrelavant to notability of subject person", "privacy of the subject person", "inclusion of caste is like branding individuals", etc. other information included in the article which also fall under these cases will also be removed after discussions. Examples of it included religion, non-notable spouse's and children's and parents' information, previous occupation, lived in places, non-notability related educational qualification, etc.
Your views on this are also welcome here or at the India portal. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Beauty Secrets by Madhuri

I think she had her line of beauty products called "Beauty secrets by madhuri". I feel it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshpradhans (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure! here! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But its not mentioned, i din't think any bollywood actress have had her own line of beauty products. article should mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshpradhans (talk • contribs) 07:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Niteshpradhans about this one though. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)