Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Question

"She narrowly escaped death twice in late 2004: first after an explosion at a Temptation concert in Colombo, Sri Lanka; and second during the Indian Ocean earthquake.[63]"

Could this be elaborated? How close was she to being killed? How did she manage to escape? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nishkid64! I was always a bit skeptical about how it should be written. Her last column for BBC described it in minute detail, but I didn't really know how to collect this. Do you have any idea? Shahid • Talk2me 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could follow up with a brief description of the events (one-two lines for each, maybe?). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems a bit complicated, but I'll try to. But what exactly do you think is missing? I mean, I did not quite understand what you mean by asking, "How close was she to being killed?", and what exact details should be integrated from the article following this question. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images

I read through the FAC and am still not sure why this article needs as many non-free images as it has, considering the free ones it does incorporate. Why not remove some (or all) of the non-free pics? --Eustress (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I second the inquiry. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I could've sworn I already got rid of them, maybe they got put back at some point. In any case, the article contains plenty of free images of the subject, so there is no defensible reason for any nonfree ones, as they are clearly replaceable (and for that matter replaced). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the copyright breaches are too many. They need to be removed or this taken to FAR.YobMod 10:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If an article goes to FAR for one problem which is very minor, it will instantly be removed by either Sandy or Raul. Other than that, I discussed it already with Yobmod and Black Kite below, and the decision is clear. It was accepted during FAC and during its review to be featured on the main page. It's not really a big deal, and I don't mind removing the images, but this is not an issue with this particular article. The issue is the use of non-free images in BLPs, particularly on actors. FAs like Diane Keaton, Eric Bana, Cillian Murphy all use non-free images, and they are featured and accepted by the community. I want to know if the use of FUs is permitted in BLPs or not once and for all. To do this, someone must start an RfC. Shahid • Talk2me 10:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Chicago?

I think it's a great achievement for Miss Zinta that she won the best actress award at the annual Chicago International Film Festival Awards. But it is definitely far from being an extremely major award to be included in the infobox and the table/succession boxes. Actors win such awards very often so this one is not an amazing exception to say the least. I would therefore say that IMO its mere mention in the career section and maybe in the lead (I'm still thinking whether it is really suitable for the lead) would suffice. Shahid • Talk2me 14:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that awards from international film festivals do not count as major awards? Sorry, but I just cannot agree with your opinions given for such an assertion. Awards given by international film festivals are just as valid as Oscar or Filmfare awards. In fact, I would suggest they are more valid, considering how they are on an international level and don't have any of the national or linguistic limitations imposed on the Oscar or Filmfare awards. As for Zinta, this is the only international award she has won, and this fact alone makes it notable in my opinion. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite aware that people from one country tend to make a great share of a deal when they hear a seemingly "international" name or title. This case is similar. I would like to know what the general notability of this award is and what makes it international and as major as the Oscars. Obviously, as a foreign film festival award won by an Indian film actor, it is worthy of a mention in the article (not in the lead). However, film festival awards are often given to actors. Please see how many of them were presented to Angelina Jolie (take for example her most recent win at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival) and Meryl Streep and to our very own Shabana Azmi. Yet, there is not even one mention of such an award (except for the Cannes, which is the most prestigious film festival on the planet) in their articles (please note that the first mentioned article is a FA like the one of Miss Zinta). These awards are far from being major annnual film awards like The Academy, Golden Globe, SAG, Filmfare and Indian National Film Awards which are basically and natuarally intended to award actors for their achievements in acting. But here, we all have to admit that it is the first time we hear about the Silver Hugo Awards. There is nothing amazingly special about it. Back in time, it was accepted not to include such awards as Zee Cine, IIFA and screen in the infobox and in the table but to get it stricted to the most notable, important and veteran film awards in India - Filmfare and NFA. I can't see how this is more important than, say, IIFA. This is blown out of proportions because of the simple fact that it is the first non-Indian award that our talented lady has got. If she had won an Oscar for this role, nobody would have even looked at it considerably. This shows the enormous WP:UNDUE that is pushed into the article.
I would first like to, before the possible re-addition of this award, discuss it further to achieve consensus and avoid any misunderstandings and edit wars. And please think about it again before replying. Trust me, as a fan of miss Zinta and the main contributor of this article, I am more than happy and more than proud to know that she received this award and see it in her list, and I was definitely intending to have this award mentioned in her career section (I did not add/expand this paragraph because the film has not been released yet and the general reception is unclear as of now). But we have to be fair-minded, neutral and firm about such things. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The point I was making is that since it is her first ever international award, that would be a personal milestone for her. I don't think you can yet compare her to more experienced actresses like Angelina Jolie, Meryl Streep, Shabana Azmi, etc. who have won many international awards. A single international award wouldn't be notable for them, but it would be notable for an actress like Preity Zinta, since it's the only one she has won. This is a personal milestone for her, so this alone would make it notable in my opinion. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

Seraphimblade, you are the one who changes something that was accepted and well discussed - so you are the one who must start a discussion first. You just remove and don't even try to explain on what particular basis - because clearly you yourself can't really do that. If numerous BLPs on actors pass FAC and get promoted when they include so many images - it means a lot. Or will you say that you're the only one who understands this policy and all the ones who took part in those FACs are blind or dumb?

And what I see particularly wrong in your perception of the issue is that "it was not caught during the FAC". With this particaular article this issue has been discussed a lot. In peer reviews, in FACs, in noticeboards, in talk pages. Do you think that after that you can come and do one edit and cancel all that happenned? Start a discussion first!
Secondly, there's much to discuss. First, you say: "'Replaceable' means"... Interesting, who are you to decide what replaceable means? Replaceable is whether an image can be replaced. Images which were aken during shootings and screenshots are not replaceable. Replaceable means (from the policy): "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" - so here you see that your words are misleading. These images are not replaceable. Nobody said that just other images of hers but that have the same effect.
Secondly, please read this: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - that's exactly what I worked for. These images were chosen specifically, and their rationales are amazingly elaborated and well written.
Apart from this, each rationale explains why the images provide a critical commentary on the film and its contents. This is what the copyright license asks for.
Do you have anything else to say? Shahid • Talk2me 07:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Critical commentary would make them acceptable in the article about the films, quite likely. However, this is an article about a person. Commentary is a necessary condition, but not in itself a sufficient one. The image also need be irreplaceable by free content. Here, we have plenty of images to show what this person looks like that are free. That means, whether or not any nonfree image has critical commentary, it cannot be used, because a free image serves the function. You might look into using it for the movie article, but you can't use them here. They're replaceable and replaced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You again ignored most of what I wrote and again you write many things without basing yourself on any policy and particular guideline. Who said that critical commentary would be useful specifically in the film article only? You?
Again, the images are irreplaceable, because no free image can replace an image of this particular kind (or like the policy says, "that has the same effect). Meaning, images that show her during the shooting of a scene. I'll repeat my mantra, replaceable is whether a particular image can be replaced. Images which were taken during shootings and screenshots are not replaceable. You have to ask yourself (from the policy): "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" - Nobody said that just other images of hers to show who she is, but images that have the same effect. In this case, free screenshots from films, which don't exist and never will.
Thirdly, please read the following criterion that even disregarding all of what was said above, can stand on its own to support this images' inclusion: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - that's exactly what I worked for. These images were chosen specifically, considerably and thoroughly, and their rationales, which are amazingly elaborated and well written, show how they add to the understanding of the subject (in this case, the actor, his performances, his acting abilities, his screen presence and his film roles - which are discussed in the article, but far better illustrated in images). Shahid • Talk2me 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, a photo of every moment of the subject's life is not required. "The same effect" doesn't mean "We can use a nonfree photo if there's one moment in this person's life a free photo is not available for." We can show what she looks like using the free images we have readily available, and we can explain that she is an actress using text alone. Text alone is a suitable replacement, if the image is not necessarry to make the specific point. In this case, "Zinta is an actress, having appeared in..." makes the point just fine.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You misinterpret the policy and its criteria and mispresent them altogether. The same effect is the same kind. Meaning, images that show her suring the shooting of a film scene. This can not be replaced. Period. There is also a critical commentary (btw, you did not answer... who decides that critical commentary would be useful specifically in the film article only? You?)
The images's rationale also say clearly that the images add a lot to the understading of the subject, and explain specifically why they are so important. One of the reasons is that the images illustrate something that cannot be illustrated with prose alone. Please pay attention to details. Shahid • Talk2me 18:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, we do not need to use images of every moments of the subject's life. The free photos we have illustrate clearly what she looks like, the free text indicates quite clearly what her occupation is and what she has done during it. The photos are superfluous, replaceable, and replaced. (Even if it were desirable to have an image of her during movie filming, it is also possible a free image of her could be taken of her during this, as she is still in fact doing so, adding another dimension of replaceability). You may also wish to consult those who have taken previous images of her during such times, and see if they might be willing to release an image under a free license. What you may not do, however, is use a nonfree image when a free image is either potentially possible or actually in existence. Here we have both. Even if you assert we need an image of her on a film set, we need only for someone to snap one and freely license it. That being said, it's not necessary. The text makes it quite clear she's an actress, we do not need a photo to get that point across. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is only one criterion, which I already talked about. Your above explantion means nothing because it's based on your personal opinion, and mine is based on WP:NFCC. See the FAC and the discussion which took place on it regarding the images. There was a clear consensus, based on policy, that these images should be kept.
But let's leave it aside. There is one criterion which is more important and it can stand on its own to make the images acceptable and that's exactly what I did according to what the FAC commentators suggested: Criterion number 8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". That's exactly what I did. See the rationales, you clearly haven't read them.
And now I ask you to first discuss and reach another consensus over the one already reached during FAC BEFORE reverting again. Someday you will have to get over your obsession. Shahid • Talk2me 19:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This guy is clueless about actors Shahid. You can;t argue with somebody this clueless about films and performances and critically commentary, He is clearly not able to understand. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Images redux

I was quite surprised to read above that the images weren't tackled during the FAC. Well, they were - I opposed them, and then withdrew my oppose ([1]) after they were removed from the article ([2]). Then after I struck my oppose, they were put back ([3]). Argue about the image issues here all you like please, but don't try to claim that FAC was done by the rules, because it wasn't. Black Kite 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So it should go to FAR if editors are making substantial changes which would almost certainly have caused it to fail at FAN in the first place.YobMod 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Black Kite, what you are saying is not true. After the images were re-added you changed to oppose again[4]. Your oppose was there on the FAC and it still got promoted, because many editors disagreed with you and Raul decided that depite his oppose the article is worth to be an FA. If you see the FAC now, your oppose still stands and did not withhold the promotion of the article. I can even contact Raul.
Generally it is not a problem in this particular article. If you still think the images are not appropriate (which is not right, because the rationales explain very well why they are acceptable), it's fine by me, but first please start a wider discussion somewhere. Many featured articles use FU images and this should be resolved once and for all to make it clear to all of us. It's not the right place to do so. Shahid • Talk2me 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the original - highly visible - Oppose remained struck, and it might have been possible that Raul missed the new Oppose which was buried in the thread. Because otherwise, the only other possible assumption is that Raul promoted the article despite the problematic images ... furthermore, the non-free images are, and always have been, a problem in this article, because at least some of them fail WP:NFCC. Seraphim has been entirely correct to remove them, and the claim that they must be OK because the article passed FAC is demolished by the fact that it passed FAC despite it very clearly being stated by myself and others that they failed that policy. Don't get me wrong - I'm not picking on you, or this article alone (or else I'd have removed the images myself), but as I said at the time, it was symptomatic of a FAC process that was broken as regards to non-free content. I'm not going to fight this battle again, because it has been made clear that it is deemed possible - even desirable - to override policy when it comes to non-free images, but the point had to be made. Black Kite 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Black Kite that isn't entirely true. We agreed at FAC that one or two images were permitted providing that they illustrated a significant portion of the article critically. You said yourself that one or two images provind they are used for critically commentary which directly supports the text and is irreplaceable is permitted. The first two images appear to directly address this criteria and are related to two important milestones in her career which free images cannot adeqautely identify. You know this so please don't indicate as if "all non free" images are permitted. You know yourself that they are not irreplaceable so please don't act as if you completely support Seraphims view that free images of an actor in their leisure time adequently relay information that copyrighted career images do. The first two images meet fair use criteria, the third, as stunning as the image is would not seem to help which is what we had agreed on at FAC. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - and I've never said that "all non-free images aren't permitted" - you only need to look at the FAC for that. What I am saying is that too many FAs are being promoted with too many non-free images in them. It's not just this article, there are quite a few - Shahid has mentioned a few others - but it is most noticeable in bios for actors and also articles about video games and other media. Black Kite 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Please, I think Raul was responsible enough to go through all the opposes. You opposed again and it was followed by many replies from users who did not agree with what you said. After all, it was simultaneously discussed in noticeboards and even here you see that I explain why the images do fulfill the criteria. It was even featured on the main page with the images being included. You can't say all the people responsible for this overlooked it.
Dear Black Kite, I really and truly respect you and would never do something to make you or your views look unimportant. I don't mind removing the images. But please, let's make an end to this story. You are welcome to start a discussion somewhere, you must know where, and discuss. I don't think this article is the matter here; the use of FU images in BLPs, it is the problem here which should be taken care of. Many FACs especially on actors use FU images. I want to know if it is permitted or not. I worked too hard on the rationales, discussed it too many times, spent a lot of energy on it, and now I'm exhauted, please let's take this discussion elsewhere, where it can get a broader number of opinions and views. Thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 14:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou. Note that I'm not saying that ALL those three images necessarily fail NFCC - I didn't say that at the time and haven't changed my mind - just that I don't believe they do as a whole. Black Kite 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
A broader number of opinions would be good, hence the FAR suggestion (i haven't reviewed all the images, so no opinion of FA worthiness.) Maybe a RfC would be quicker though? If multiple fair use images are being allowed for FAs, then it would be really useful to know! :-)
My interest is in knowing if such fair-use images are considered acceptable by the general community and for FA. I don't want this article to be demoted, just find out what consensus is (using fair-use shots of living people could make a big difference for getting images for BLPs, so if they are being supported at FA, that will help a lot of editors.) RfC may be less drama, but i think a FAR is more likely to get input from a wider variety of people. I found this article from the Tolkien FAR, which has similar issues, and seems to be being opposed based on the images.
Either such images are fair use, or not, but the current situation is inconsistant, and confusing!YobMod 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)YobMod 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth. That's exactly what I want, consistency. FAR is by no means a place to discuss these issues though. An admin referred me once to RfC and I think it is the right place to discuss it. Additionally, if an FA is added to FAR based on one sole problem such as this, it will be instantly removed by either Sandy or Raul. Furthermore, there are too many articles using FUs. The Diane Keaton one has much more FUs. It will be literally silly to take them all to FAR to get a broader view. For such issues we have RfC. Shahid • Talk2me 16:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy this discussion has ended nicely with all parties agreeing and coming to the same conclusion that the problem is not actually with this specific article but the inclusion of FUs in BLPs (in this case, actors). Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy, Eric Bana, Jake Gyllenhaal are only a part of featured articles using FUs, and somehow this discussion got stuck here. I therefore think it's time to shift the discussion elsewhere. What do you guys say? RfC maybe? Shahid • Talk2me 17:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Zinta and Wadia split

Is there any reason why this article evades mentioning this. Aren't there reliable enough sources to back it up? Have they really not split? Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I waited for a published source with Zinta herself stating she broke up. Only today was such a source published.here it is. I updated it. Shahid • Talk2me 11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wise choice. Good find. You know what they say, never mix business with pleasure!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images

A limited use of fair use images are permitted when the image is irreplaceable. If the article discusses something in detail and the image is used for critical commentary then one or two non free images may be used. FAs like this and Cillian Murphy etc passed FA and it was agreed one or two images providing they have a proper fair use claim may be used given that the image is irreplaceable and is used in a way which improves the quality of the articles and the image is a scaled down version. Removing these images and leaving a bare article is nothing but copyright paranoia. It does nothing to improve the article (unlike the first two images which help provide knowledge visually and improve understanding and context in key moments in her career meeting criticial commentary requirements) and it has been discussed previously that one or two fair use images are permitted as films and actors are inseperable. If you think some film company is going to file a law suit for wikipedia using a restricted few images of important moments in the actors career in single screenshot you are wrong.... Threaten me all you want (you haven't got a snowball in hells chance of blocking me) but this has been discussed previously many times.. Even Black kite who is generaly strongly against fair use images has said that one or two fair use images if they are adquately discussed and are of major significance and are irreplaceable then they may be used. You might have a point about three images, personally I would think the third image is the weakest claim of the three and I would be happy with the first two images but that is subject to disagreement.. . I think the first two images can be used under a fair use claim. I said that at the FAC and I still think it now and it would not have passed FAC if is was "abusing copyright". Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to block you either. I don't ever want to block anyone, but when your reaction is to reinsert the images abusing the rollback tool and then rollback the warning as well, I don't see much of a choice. If you're willing to discuss it, I'm willing to tell you why it's going to happen, but please do not mistake that for any question that it is going to happen. I'll get started on Cillian Murphy as well, I did not know this problem was more widespread. Except for extreme cases like J.D. Salinger, where the person is a total recluse, nonfree images of living people are always replaceable. No one, including those who work with featured articles, can override that. One suggestion I might make is that several of these films seem like they would have received sufficient coverage for articles, and generally a single screenshot is allowed in a film article. Maybe make those articles and wikilink them? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well editing warring is not a good idea, it is better to clear it up. Blackkite, who very much shares your view over fair use images has indicated that one or two images may be acceptable. When this went through FAC this was given a vigorous opposal based on fair use images. In the end I believe the first two seemed to meet requirements. I understand where you are coming from, similar to magazine articles not being permitted in biographies unless it is about the magazine but seemingly there are exceptions to the rule. As I've always said, I think the issue should be clarified once and either we accpet fair use images or don't and a clear guideline drawn up. Personally I believe we can use one or two under irreplaceable claims and critical commentary, I did have a lot of discussion with knowledgeable people about copyright law previously. Three, however, may be pushing it... Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think Black Kite shares my views, if I disagree with him (and I've disagreed with him many times, including at the Shankbone DRV). That aside, though, we're not discussing lawsuits or anything like that here—our policies are far more restrictive than what we could get away with under the law. There aren't really exceptions to the rule, there are just rare cases where living person articles follow the rule (I mentioned Salinger, above). But here, it can't—we have a free photo of her already, so we certainly cannot argue that nonfree ones are irreplaceable! So here, it's not a question of how many, any at all would be replaceable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there seems to be some confusion that these images are not replaceable then. Yes we have some free images of her no free image can adequately show her at important milestones in her career, such as debut and filmfare winning role. Images of her in actual films which are widely discussed in the article are obviously not replaceable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, images of hers while she is shooting for a film are not replaceable. One thing is clear, this is not an issue with this particular article. The issue is the use of non-free images in BLPs, particularly on actors. FAs like Diane Keaton, Eric Bana, Cillian Murphy all use non-free images, and they are featured and accepted by the community. I want to know if the use of FUs is permitted in BLPs or not once and for all. Someone has to toe the line, and it should not be discussed here. Other than that, these images perfectly comply with policy. The images should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - that's what they do, and it is perfectly explained in the well-detailed rationale. The article passed FAC with these images, and you were also reverted on the Cillian Murphy page, so you clearly do not represent the majority view. For me, what you do now is just your personal will and no one seems to agree with you. Go and start an organised discussion at a place where we can see what the entire community says. The only thing you do now is edit warring. Shahid • Talk2me 12:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Replaceability requires only that the subject be illustrated by free content, not that every facet thereof be. Zinta can be shown in free content. That's all we need for replaceability. We need not say "Well we can't show her on December 21st, 2007 at 11:55 PM because only a nonfree image is available, so it's irreplaceable." All that's necessary for replaceability is to say "I have a free image of this subject" or "Someone could take a free image of this subject." As this article already contains free content, that is clearly satisfied. That's a common misunderstanding of replaceability, that one may narrow it down to say "But we couldn't illustrate this particular aspect of the subject with free content!", as this would push that criterion into being meaningless—one could always narrow the subject enough to claim that something is "irreplaceable" under that interpretation. Rather, the only thing we're looking at is "Can the subject in the article's title be shown by a free photo?" Here, the answer is clearly yes, she already is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The photos used are not just any one of her in her personal life. Free images can provide for those. You seem to have the inability to understand what acting it and how images of actors at premieres or whatever do nothing to actually provide information about the actual career and work and performance of an actor. You obviously will never realise this. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize your point, but it does not allow for a nonfree image. The fact that she is an actress is quite clearly conveyed by text alone, there is no need for an image to show that. The only thing we couldn't easily demonstrate in text is what she looks like, and the free photo shows that very well. Again, you can't just narrow it down until it's allowable—replaceability is determined by the totality of the subject, not making ever narrower slices until one can be found that irreplaceability can be claimed on. Zinta can be illustrated by free images. Now, certainly, articles on some of her films may be quite appropriate for screenshots, but the main article on her is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The relevant guideline says: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Note that this does not say "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television in an article about the film but not about the actor." This is a distinction that 1) would be silly and meaningless and 2) does not in fact exist. Where did you come up with it, and why do you feel it's important to clearly diminish some of Wikipedia's best articles (even if you believe that your incredibly extreme interpretation is valid, there are bigger fish to fry, no?) against longstanding consensus to conform to what you wish the policy says rather than what it actually says? --JayHenry (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternate text

There are so many images in the article, all devoid of alternate text. Is anyone willing to add it? --Legolas (talk2me) 08:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not needed anymore. Aaroncrick TALK 10:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Good good. Was irritating to add them though. Looks like we need to correct the dead links though. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Article update

Preity Zinta is hosting a show in Colors 'Guinness World Records: Ab India Todega' and has declared that she is planning to make a comeback to Bollywood this year. Maybe you can add this information. Source: http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article1553148.ece Shekure (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It will be added - I already have a written format of that. Shahid • Talk2me 11:33, 25 May 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) 16:41, 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) 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 's doubts

Hey User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz! Made a special space for you to discuss. Now discuss here first before deleting any material from this article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph you always remove has been in the article since this article's FA review. Check this version. Hence if you feel that it violates some policy you have to discuss it here and explain your views. None of the FA reviewers had objected it and if you differ from them, you need to say so. Your edit summary comments are not satisfying me and hence you need to use this huge space available on talk page. I will wait for a resonable time to let you speak here and will not revert your deletion till then. Also to save you some time dont just say "it violates BLP policy". Pick up the line from that BLP policy and then say how it is violated. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree - I can see absolutely no violation of WP:BLP. If anything, I can see user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz indulging in edit wars and wikilawyering. The info is perfectly sourced and is totally essential in a biographical article. Never can it be dismissed as random gossip. Zinta herself has discussed her relationships - a person need not just marry someone so that it would be notable on Wikipedia. She had lived with a person for 4 years in a relationship that was constantly getting wide media coverage and notice from the press. Shahid • Talk2me 19:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

File:PreityZinta.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PreityZinta.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:PreityZinta.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviews

Armaan
  • Taran Adarsh at IndiaFM which makes its presence in the article: Preity Zinta comes up with another superb performance, essaying her part with utmost sincerity.
  • BBC - "Gracy Singh gives a pleasant performance but somewhat gets over shadowed by the superb acting of Priety Zinta."
  • Variety.com? "Most colorful perf, however, is from Zinta who, though playing an archetypal bad sort, manages to make the self-obsessed Soniya an almost sympathetic character through the sheer vivaciousness of her part-child, part-vamp playing."
  • The Tribune - not only is the review title "Preity Zinta all the way" - the critic writes about her: "Preity Zinta has outclassed everyone with her convincing performance in a negative role."
  • The Hindu: "she is just about perfect."
  • Also received various nomination.
  • Hindustan Times (original): "Preity takes over the script and, indeed, the film, unleashing a brilliant act as the deceptively bubbly but manipulative wife, who is obsessed on having Neha out of Akash’s hospital. Indeed, Preity performance stands out in the very effortless élan with which she carries off the role."
  • Mid-Day: "Of the cast, Preity is extremely natural in the role of a spoilt brat — though that hairstyle honestly doesn’t suit her."
  • Khalid Mohamed: "Doubtlessly, Preity Zinta is the peppy scene-stealer, achieving her manic mood swings dexterously."
  • Majority opinion: Well recieved
Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna
  • Rediff here: Preity who? Zinta has barely a walk-on part in the film, her appearances pretty much restricted to the loud and showy songs
  • The same Rediff on the same film here: Preity looks glamorous and in a couple of scenes, manages to overshadow King Khan too.
  • BBC - "Preity Zinta too gives her best. Watching her in the scene where she confronts Rani during the wedding reception makes you realise how excellent she is as an actress."
  • IBN live: "Preity Zinta fits her role to the tee, reflecting just that slight hint of cold detachment that the part requires from her."
  • indiaFM - "Preity not only looks gorgeous, but the dedication to her role shows at vital points. Her penultimate scene with Rani Mukerji, when she confronts her at the marriage reception, is fabulous."
  • The Hindu: "Preity Zinta as Rhea and Abhishek Bachchan as Rishi are backed by well-etched out roles, come out of the film with their heads held high."
  • Express India: "But the actors who walk away with the cake are Abhishek Bachchan and Preity Zinta. The lady has not just looked glamorous but she has walked with poise, sat with grace, smiled with composure and spoke with calmness. Who would have thought that the bubbly girl could so skillfully shed her age-old tag and walk away as the don’t-mess-with-me lass. So all those who are in search of the peppy Preity, well guys you’ve dialed the wrong number this time."
  • Khalid Mohamed: "Preity Zinta elevates her role with intelligence and spontaneity."
  • Subhash K. Jha: "played with endearing equanimity by Preity Zinta"
  • Received various nominations for Best supporting actress.
  • Majority opinion: Well received Result: the reviews on the page are OK.
Chori Chori Chupke Chupke
  • Taran Adarsh in Indiafm: Between Rani and Preity, it is difficult to choose who's the better performer. Both have been given equal footage (length-wise) and importance. Both are incredibly competent in the respective roles, although Preity does go overboard in the initial portions (this is a minor concern)
  • Rediff: Preity Zinta, who clearly has the meatiest part of all, makes the best of it. Her transformation from the cocky and unabashed prostitute to a sensitive and warm person is amazingly believable.
  • Just to note, the refs do NOT give contradicting reviews. Preity Zinta described as the actress with the meatiest role. And indiaFM only supports the claim by saying "Between Rani and Preity, it is difficult to choose who's the better performer". Rani was the leading and Preity is described as equally good, while she is the supporting.
  • The Hindu: "In steps a nautch girl to transform into a good samaritan. Preity Zinta, in probably the second most challenging role of her brief career, puts life into her character of Madhubala as she goes from being a roadside dancing girl to a woman who agrees to mother a child for a price, with elan. However, while she is credible as a to-be mother and exudes the warmth of one, she is not as convincing in mouthing the inanities used by the women of the street."
  • The Hindu2: "Priety Zinta who seems to have put her body and soul into the streetwalker's flaming-red dress, making life for Rani Mukherji more competitive than she had probably bargained for."
  • According to Sify (an article of 2003): "When Preity did a Pretty Woman in the notorious film Chori Chori Chupke Chupke she was just as uncomfortable about using all the foul language. Once she entered the zone of the rented womb Preity had a ball. This remains her best performance yet."
  • Hindustan Times: "there is an admirable zest that Preity pumps into every role she does, and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke is no exception. That, by and large, remains the trumpcard of the film, too."
  • Received nominations, including a Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award.
  • 'Majority opinion: Well recieved with the meatiest role, although not as convincing in the first half which is not as significant considering all critics praise her so highly. All of them praise her, so the --> Result: the review on the page is OK.
Mission Kashmir
  • Rediff: Preity Zinta has her moments, and thankfully she is NOT reduced to a prop.
  • The Hindu: "Preity Zinta is her usual cherubic self and lends colour to the otherwise serious proceedings."
  • Both reviews say she was good. Reviews are not so distinct from each other. Nobody says that she has a big role.
  • The Tribune: "Priety Zinta has a noticeable presence."
  • Majority opinion: Well recieved but had a small role Result: the review on the page is OK, only needs to add that her role was small.
Dil Hai tumhara
  • Variety: "Zinta and helmer Kundan Shah previously hit with "Kya kehna" (2000), and present, more formulaic pic is perhaps the young thesp's best vehicle to date."
  • Rediff: "Preity is superb. Her last film with Kundan Shah, Kya Kehna!, won many accolades for her performance. Her spontaneous smile lights up the screen. As the neglected child, Preity does not spend her time crying and wallowing. Due credit for this should go to Shah. Preity is presented as the bubbly, vivacious girl, with a sensitive heart."
  • The Hindu: "She is Preity Zinta, who walked away with accolades in the brave Kya Kehna, and who may just do the same here... Preity Zinta in one of the more powerful roles of her career... Take away Preity Zinta and Dil Hai Tumhaara is a tiresome film in urgent need of heavy editing. Put Zinta in there and it becomes watchable frame-to-frame. Preity is there all through, purely due to her infectious charm."
  • The Tribune: "Preity Zinta has done a marvellous job in the role of the stepdaughter of the local mayor Rekha."
  • Screen India: "Preity Zinta is increasingly showing her ease with comedy, the vivacious tomboy who slides down bannisters and is ever in trouble with her mother. But later in the film she shows her stripes for a dramatic turn, when she reveals all to Khanna, it is done without a trace of melodrama, the tears are shed, but well in control."
  • BBC: "The performance by actress Priety Zinta is simply superb."
  • mid-day: "Preity excels."
  • Khalid Mohamed: "Clearly, this enterprise is a showcase for the hi-energy and scampering spirit of Preity Zinta. She’s fabulous"
  • All the above reviews praise her very much.
  • Again, earned nominations at Star Screen Awards and Bollywood Movie Awards
  • 5 reviews plus one on the article, all of which are positive.
  • Majority opinion: highly acclaimed Result: the review on the page is more than OK.
Veer-Zaara
  • The Hindu: "...there are such good performances, especially from Preity and Rani."
  • BBC: "Preity looks like a million bucks which is expected, being a Yash Chopra heroine. She comes across as a complete natural and it is safe to say that we have finally found a replacement for Kajol."
  • Rediff: "Preity does a good job at playing a Yash Chopra heroine: she looks dreamy and plays her Zaara with grace and restraint."
  • The Tribune: "Preity Zinta, too, has managed to rise to the heights which the script attempts to explore. As a bubbly Pakistani woman treated with contempt by the conservative society, she is immensely likeable."
  • tvguide: "Though Chopra's film is emotionally extravagant even by the standards of India's epically unrestrained cinema, the star-crossed lovers bear the weighty metaphorical significance of their travails surprisingly lightly, particularly Zinta's radiantly lovely Zaara."
  • One on the page from "Vartiety" - positive.
  • Nominated; won awards.
  • Majority opinion: positive Result: the review on the page is OK.
Salaam Namaste
  • Rediff: "Preity manages to handle all situations thrown at her, and makes for a very efficient radio jockey."
  • New York Times, starts with Zinta: "Preity Zinta must be the Katie Holmes of the Indian film industry. She is cheerleader-homecoming queen-fraternity sweetheart pretty, so even when her characters are being unkind it's hard not to like her."
  • The Hindu: "Preity especially does a good job with the hysterics."
  • BBC, again starts with Zinta saying: "This romantic comedy focuses on Ambar Malhotra (Preity Zinta) who decides to study medicine in Melbourne." and later on says: "Both Saif and Preity manage to play their parts convincingly."
  • The Tribune: "Priety spices it up with her vivacity as a radio jockey in Australia."
  • Film Jounal International: positive.
  • Variety: positive.
  • Khalid Mohamed: positive.
  • Mid-day: "Zinta (looking great) is equally sturdy as the strong-willed, independent Ambar, a rare Bollywood heroine."
  • Filmfare: "Preity Zinta, who plays an unwed mother once again after Kya Kehna, has gone all out for this role. The actress has delivered a laudable performance."
  • One more review from indiaFM on the article.
  • Nominated for Best Actress at all awards ceremonies.
  • Majority opinion: praised Result: the review on the page is OK.
The Last Lear
  • indiaFM: "Preity is effective"
  • Variety: "...the ultra-popular pair of Zinta and Rampal manage to hold their own onscreen. It's an interesting paradox to watch a star like Zinta deliver a good perf as a woman who's widely known as a bad thesp."
  • Subhash K Jha: "Preity Zinta in her most accomplished performance to date does here what most actors shy away from. She actually listens to her co-stars as they express their angst."
  • Rediff: "Indeed, this is one of Preity Zinta's most un-bubbly roles. As a traumatised soul struggling to hold back a long-due outburst, courtesy her tumultuous, abusive relationship with her man, Zinta is palpably vulnerable. Sadly, her dialogues in English distract one from the seriousness of the situation."
  • Rajeev Masand: "Preity Zinta gets through her scenes competently, never allowing her cute-as-a-button image to take away from the impact she makes here as a conflicted, mature woman."
  • The Hindu: "In comes the fumbling actress, played by Preity with aplomb."
  • Deccan Herald: "Preity compliments her intense character, who is on the verge of a break-up, by giving a marvellously mature performance."
  • Majority opinion: Well received
Heroes
  • TOI: "The film does have flashes of fine storytelling and some noteworthy performances, specially a restrained act by both Salman Khan and Preity Zinta."
  • The Indian Express: "pretty Preity is a war-widow, speaking flawless Punjabi, keeping it together for her old in-laws and a young son"
  • The Hindu: "Disappearing into herself to emerge with a character who is dignified in her tragedy, Preity gives the film's best performance."
  • Hindustan Times: "Karnik is merely interested in wringing tears the old-fashioned way, and not in starting a debate. He succeeds—mainly because Preity Zinta brings to a role a gravitas and dignity that is seen on the faces of ordinary women—this may be her coming of age as an actress."
  • ibnlive.com: "Preity Zinta does a terrific job as the Punjabi widow who assumes the place of the man of the house following her husband's death at war."
  • Rediff.com: "in addition to powerful performances by Preity Zinta and Salman Khan. Of all the three episodes, their story is the most effective and stirring. Preity is a picture of luminous grace and silent spirit. Her restrained depiction of suffering and reliability escalates the depth of her character, as well as performance, to a new level. It's a choking moment, as you witness the changing graph of emotions on her face when Sohail reads out her deceased husband's three-year old letter."
  • DNA: "Of the three, the Salman Khan-Preity Zinta story is best executed and performed, though the Punjabi village tableau is overdone. Zinta does particularly well with a Punjabi accent and delivers a subtle and touching performance as a widow, mother and daughter-in-law."
  • indiatimes: "From the performances, Preity Zinta comes up with the most touching act inducing a lump in your throat with her emotional outbursts."
  • indiaFM: "Preity is outstanding; has spoken Punjabi so fluently"
  • Majority opinion: praised
Heaven On Earth
    • International
  • The Vencouver Sun: "Bollywood star Zinta and her Canadian co-star Bhardwaj are nothing short of genius, given the inherent challenges of the script, and the precarious balance of empathy, but the whole cast is inspired and brings intimacy to each well-crafted dramatic moment."
  • Sun Media: "Bollywood star Preity Zinta turns in a remarkably multi-layered, dramatic turn as Chand. While we immediately sympathize and empathize with the plight of her character, Zinta demands more by trying to deepen the characterization. As played by Zinta, Chand tries to understand and rehab her husband, against all odds, instead of just making a play for that sympathy."
  • Variety: "Cut off from her family and trapped within a system of willing accomplices, Chand becomes a different person in the States -- an opportunity for the beautiful Zinta, who appears in nearly every scene, to undertake a stunning psychological transformation."
  • ScreenDaily.com: "Zinta poignantly plays against the “cool-chick” persona for which she is renowned on the Bollywood circuit."
  • Exclaim!: "Zinta's performance here is a revelation, infusing her role with surprising depth and pathos."
  • JWR: "Chand is beautifully created by Preity Zinta who grows with the role that few her age could master"
  • The Daily Star (Banglaesh): "Zinta gives out a stunning performance at every aspect of her characterization. Whether it is to express the anticipation of a newly wed bride or the cringing woman pulling out a snake from a pit, she never digresses."
    • India
  • Subhash K Jha: "Preity Zinta standing supremely dignified at the centre of the conflict firnishes the theme with amazing grace. She’s the only known face in the crowded Punjabi home of patriarchs, matriarchs, victims and perpetrators of bitter violence. But Preity never lets it known she’s a star."
  • DNA: "The greatest triumph of Videsh is Preity Zinta's performance. Her slow death within and enthusiasm to do the right thing are heartbreaking."
  • Rajeev Masand: "It's difficult to describe just how good Preity Zinta is in her role as a battered young bride in director Deepa Mehta's Videsh. So good in fact, you're almost willing to overlook the film's lapses." ... "But Videsh belongs to Preity Zinta who delivers a career-best performance as Chand, using her eyes alone to convey shock and horror, bringing depth to a character that could so easily become a stereotype."
  • NDTV: "Preity Zinta, playing Chand, a Punjabi girl who has an arranged marriage with a taxi driver in Canada, gives her career’s best performance. Her haunted and fearful eyes convey the brutality and horror of her situation."
  • Sify: "Zinta’s rendering of the abused new bride is heart wrenching. Especially in the difficult scenes when she is unable to tell imagination from real life."
  • Hindustan Times: "Preity Zinta gives more than she gets as she traverses fantasy and reality seamlessly in a marvelous performance."
  • Rediff: "What Mehta truly succeeds at is extracting a landmark performance out of Preity Zinta. The actress immortalised in effervescence erases any trace of happiness she may have previously conveyed with her startling transformation into Chand. Known for her forthright ways and liberated views, Preity breaks away from her real-life image to effectively slip into the wounded soul of her character. Even when she talks to the camera, unexpectedly breaking into grim, trance-filled monologues, there's immense fervour in her convictions."
  • The Hindu: "Preity plays the Punjabi bride with a rare mix of dignity and vulnerability. Giving one of her best performances, Preity curbs her star appeal to bring out the obscurity such women live in."

Shahid • Talk2me 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ishkq in Paris
  • Subhash K. Jha: "Preity brings out the highs and lows in her emotionally awash character without taking flamboyant leaps of on-camera conceit. It`s a beautifully written and directed part, replete wth restrained resonances that give the actress a chance to show her skills in subtle ways."
  • Taran Adarsh: "Preity is exquisite in every frame. Her eyes emanate genuine warmth and her performance is captivating. It's great to see this supremely talented actress back in top form!"

Shahid • Talk2me 10:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Success in 2007?

Which movie exactly was Preity Zinta successful in post her small role in KANK in 2006. This seems like a fan page to me. It must be rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.20 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It is written within neutral guidelines, but I think he has a point about her career decline post 2006. To me it seems she's barely acted. I see a three year gap between 2009 and 2012, delayed projects of late too. The article mentions nothing of this. I'm curious to know why this is so. Rani's career too seems to have declined.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Old women :p--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It's sad that that has happened. The actors (Salman, Shahrukh, Aamir etc) are leading men in their late 40's, while the previous batch of heroines (Rani, Preity etc), who collaborated so frequently with them, are nowhere to be seen. Shows the hypocrisy of the Indian film industry, and the society as a whole. --smarojit (buzz me) 18:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's biology, man... --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, does seem that the industry places an emphasis on female youth... Yet with the male, they gain more acclaim the older they get... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction required

"On June 13, 2014, Zinta filed a complaint with the Mumbai police against Aaamir Choudhary alleging he had molested, threatened and abused her at an IPL match at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai on 30 May.[130][131] Wadia has denied the allegations.[132]"

This is incorrect, she has filed case against Ness Wadia and not Aamir Choudhary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.244.73.4 (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"she has spoke with calmness"

Should we correct this? Or should we add a sic notation? Halet Hob (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe we'd rather have it corrected than attached with a notation which would just take away from the quality of the review in the readers' eyes. Shahid • Talk2me 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preity Zinta. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Preity Zinta. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preity Zinta. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preity Zinta. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preity Zinta. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead picture

Pzindia123, I'm changing the lead picture back to what it was before as the new picture is:

  • badly composed
  • badly focused
  • badly framed

Please do not force your random snapshot into a Featured Article when we already have a perfectly suitable photo. --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Her name is not Preetam Singh Zinta

See - https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/no-preity-zintas-real-name-is-not-preetam-singh-she-explains-the-rumour-1789562 - thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preity_Zinta/Archive_8&oldid=1088448142"