Jump to content

Talk:Kangana Ranaut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vellaonwiki (talk | contribs) at 12:14, 22 January 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleKangana Ranaut is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 23, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 5, 2014Good article nomineeListed
August 7, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 23, 2018, and March 23, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

Best Female Debut

At Filmare, was won just for Gangster, not Woh Lamhe. This is a mistake in the TOI source. The award ceremony video is available online. ShahidTalk2me 09:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Please discuss what to do with the lead here, Nenetarun. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

i want to add the padma shri award photo of kangana ranaut please Ritgvs (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I'd say I don't completely disagree with Seabirdie's changes in terms of ordering of the media section, but as Krimuk2.0 said, consensus is all that matters here. I see that Seabirdie is not happy with the following:

  • Mention of Ranaut's political views in the lead. I can't see why you think mentioning her political stance is meant with prejudice on our part. To me it says nothing, both because I'm very non-political and because I believe in everyone's full right to expression and freedom of speech (for the record, I don't follow her much so I don't know what exactly she says, everything that's written is based on what sources give without going into the details of her statements). Anyway, we don't present it as anything negative; we let the viewers decide what her opinions mean to them. The comparison to other actresses: I don't know that other actresses are as vocal as Ranaut is on her positions. Anyway, I'm not sure it's mandatory in the lead so I'm willing to go with consensus here.
  • The order of the media section. I actually liked and disliked the order change. I do think more importance should be given first to her career, but then I see you left parts of the public in the first paragraph, making the entire thing all over the place, so how does it go?

ShahidTalk2me 12:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked your edits on kangana's page. Anyway, YOU DON'T CONTROL pages dear. Since I have found bias, I'm starting to edit. We can do this everyday. Thank you. Seabirdie (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia functions. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO. You don't get to decide what's biased and what's not. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
like I said, we can do this everyday. See you tomorrow. Seabirdie (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seabirdie: Please avoid this rhetoric and read WP:EDITWAR. Please discuss the changes you want to make and if you do, you might even convince Krimuk that it's best done your way. Wikipedia works per agreement and consensus, not personal desire - edit wars will take neither you nor this page anywhere. By the way, I did start a discussion above, please cooperate and offer your input. ShahidTalk2me 11:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Female-led

Sounds good but a little banal. What do we mean by it? I haven't seen a lot of Kangana's movies, but do we mean she is the single lead right? Because basically every film (or most of them) has a female lead, and we're talking about women-centered films where the leading lady is the main protagonist, something like a star vehicle, isn't it? ShahidTalk2me 14:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, star vehicle wouldn't do because it's strictly commercial and based on stardom. I understand we're talking here about films where the woman is the single lead, like Manikarnika, Panga, Queen and the likes. So I think either women-centred is a good option but let's keep female-lead for now. Another point about her being one of the best-dressed and so on. I think there's no sense to write that she was considered one before, unless we can show that she stopped being regarded for it and now it's reversed and she is considered among the worst-dressed. That's why "has been" could help us because we do not specify a particular time in the past and do not necessarily say she still is or that alternatively it's over. ShahidTalk2me 14:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Female-led" is an accepted term for films that are driven by the female protagonist. See this BBC source. I'm in agreement with the best-dressed part. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk2.0: Thank you for clarifying this, my friend. ShahidTalk2me 15:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This lead is so overhyped? her films aren't unconventional and we've see female actors doing Dhaakad (action), Thalaivii (political drama), Panga (sports drama), Judgemental Hai Kya (Psychological drama), Manikarnika (period drama) kinda films several times in past.. There are more but these are her 5 last films. Known for her work in female lead films was a much suitable lead. Also almost all her films are very much commercial and promoted on a big scale, ain't no way these are unconventional or something new. See the work of actresses like Smita Patil or Shabana Azmi or Tabu/Konkona Sen Sharma from recent era, These ladies craved parallel cinema with actual unconventional films and work. @User:Shshshsh Vellaonwiki (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking films but roles; actually not even roles but characters. I haven't seen any of the films you've mentioned, I'm basing myself singularly on the sources I've read. And right, her films might not be unconventional, but according to critics the women she's played are. That's what most sources say - I've seen the word "unusual" numerous times, and later in the article this statement receives firm support in the text. I'm not really willing to list her roles/films like you did, because that would just be my POV and our opinion matters less than what sources say, but if I had to, I must say I could understand why some of her characters have been deemed unusual. ShahidTalk2me 23:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Shshshsh huh? If that's the case then literally every character in a female lead film is "unconventional" and there are multiple sources and critics who even noted Alia Bhatt and Deepika Padukone for example for portraying unconventional characters, just Google them with "unconventional roles" and see how many sources pops up. I've seen the main article and i can't find any major reliable source for "strong-willed" and "unconventional" characters and also I've watched almost all her films. She has only one unconventional character which she portrayed in film Queen. Unconventional basically means different and new and there's nothing new about portraying an spy (Dhaakad), politician (Thalaivii), sports person (Panga), schizophrenic (Judgemental Hai Kya), warrior queen (Manikarnika) and before that she did romantic drama like Rangoon, comedy films like Tanu Weds Manu Returns and Simran. Now you tell me how these are unconventional? and strong-willed too coz literally every female character rn is strong-willed barely anyone plays subservient characters lol. I would love if you show me multiple reliable and notable publications and critics backing up your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellaonwiki (talkcontribs) 03:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said is your personal opinion, sorry. Wikipedia follows sources, not users' opinions. And I'm not in a forum discussion to be convincing you of something. I think the sources mean, as I said, not the roles, and not in relation to the film industry, but the type of women she's played, who are often eccentric and unusual. I'm sure an actress who's been awarded four National Film Awards did do some original work, but I don't know enough, and it doesn't matter. ShahidTalk2me 10:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Shshshsh then show me the sources. Tell me the name of publications and critics (4 or 5 atleast) calling her unconventional and strong-willed and if wikipedia works on "sources" then lets do this for other actresses as well because i can show you multiple sources as well for them. This lead is overhyped and its a wikipedia page not hagiography. Also, this has nothing to do with National Film Award lol and if it is lets do this with all multiple National Film Awards winners. But first i need to see the sources, list the name of publications and critics, I'll check myself Vellaonwiki (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]