Talk:List of roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2015Featured list candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 9, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Kangana Ranaut was awarded the National Film Award for Best Supporting Actress for portraying a substance-abusing supermodel in Fashion?

List of roles and awards of...[edit]

There is a proposal to rename another article in the form "[Name], roles and awards" to "List of roles and awards of [name]" which would affect this article. Please see the discussion at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move and particularly under Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#List of roles and awards of John Gielgud. —sroc 💬 02:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I see that this article has been moved back to it original title. As I explained during the FL nomination, I have concerns that this particular format contradicts key Wikipedia policy on article titles, which specifically says not to "use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another". "Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards" looks to me as if it is a subsidary of the main Kangana Ranaut article, and I'm certainly not alone in thinking this – looking over two recent discussions on this very subject (see here and here), I count well over a dozen editors making similar arguments. The closing admin of the second discussion even described this title format (twice) as being "unsatisfactory". If the title that I suggested during the FL nomination is not satisfactory for whatever reason, perhaps there's a compromise title that we could agree on. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was changed by SchroCat when he passed the FLC. I don't have a personal preference here, so I'll let this be the way it is now. --Krimuk90/✉ 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for the change in mid FLC (and certainly not based on the threat to oppose the FLC, which would havebeen inactionable). The title is entirely acceptable as it stands, and the ignorance of British comma use by those who showed up during the discussion was considered no basis for a change. Unless there are any other additional reasons that were not discussed in the previous related discussions, the title remains correct and appropriate, and this remains a non issue. Time to move on to something vaguely useful and constructive, not flogging the same dead horse just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about British comma use. This may well be the most perfect use of a comma that literature has ever seen, but that's not the problem. The prolbem that I (and plenty of other editors) have is that this particular title format violates WP:Naming conventions, which, let's not forget, is the very first item mentioned in the WP:Featured list criteria. And that's why I could never support an article with this title format becoming a featured list: because it wouldn't meet the critera. Just in conclusion, I would like to make the point that the editors opposed to this title format outnumber those in favour of it by at least two-to-one, and also that the closing admin of the second discussion remarked that "Name, roles and awards" has unsatisfactory syntax because it has the appearance of a list. This all suggests to me that this title format is not "entirely acceptable". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So no additional reasons beyond the ones already refuted in the numerous discussions? We're done here, as there is still nothing wrong with this title, despite your reservations. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I wouldn't agree that that the arguments in the discussions were ever really "refuted". Feel free to accuse me of cherry picking, but, from where I was standing, those who opposed the titles gave reasons that were based on Wikipedia's policies (WP:Articles titles; WP:NCLIST; another part of WP:Article titles) and well-established precedents (see the 85,000 articles referenced here), whereas the counterarguments included appeals to external manuals of style and suggestions that Wikipedia policy was badly written. Frankly, when one has this many editors finding fault in one's article titles, there probably isn't "nothing" wrong with them. I will agree that we're done here though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is appalling that our featured lists have such poor titles, or at a minimum have titles that a substantially large number of editors perceive to be poor, and I think it is appalling that SchroCat's bullying tactics on this issue, which shouldn't be condoned, are essentially rewarded by featured list awards (although I know that here SchroCat awarded the prize and didn't receive it.). It should be plain to anyone, especially SchroCat, that there is no consensus to support the use of this title, so it is lame that it's heralded as one of Wikipedia's best. Whether someone specifically objected to the title during the promotion is irrelevant because everyone knows this is an ongoing issue. This article totally could be one of Wikipedia's best if we had an incentive to try to work collaboratively on the ongoing issue of devising a universally accepted title, but instead articles are promoted with titles to which it is known that many editors would object. I have come to realize that the small number of eyeballs that decide whether a list is featured mean that that award is essentially self-congratulatory and meaningless, which is sad because people put a lot of effort into these lists.I am going to try to do a RM for the John Gielgud article soon, though, so maybe if the participation there is wide enough there then we can move this whole group of articles wholesale. Perhaps then these articles would truly deserve their awards. AgnosticAphid talk 00:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards. 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) 04:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards. 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) 13:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards. 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) 03:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to standard, consistent format Kangana Ranaut filmography per Necrothesp, despite all the brouhaha. No such user (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards → ? – Current title is not consistent with MOS. However, unlike most similar "filmography" or "awards" lists, this one contains both, so I do not know what a better title would be. Leaving this open for the community to discuss. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Leave as it is, which is self-explanatory and simple. Despite the above claim, it’s also not against the MOS, which a discussion further up the page makes clear. This seems to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis for change. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is a sentence fragment not against MOS? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A title is not a sentence: it does not have a subject and predicate, a main verb, a full stop at the end. It is important to understand the difference. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is there a comma? The way it is right now looks like a reference in a book index or an almanac. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comma is there to make it grammatically correct. And it doesn’t look like a reference to me, it looks like a title that explains what is in the article. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kangana Ranaut filmography. See Category:Actress filmographies and Category:Indian filmographies. This is clearly not the usual format. Nor does it make any sense in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is not an uncommon format (there are several others in the same format), and yes, it makes sense in English. I value the comments of Tim Riley in the thread at [[1]], where he opines on the sense of the title. You’ll note it’s another article in the same correct and understandable format. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it looks like a list: Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards equates to "Kangana Ranaut and roles and awards" in English. "Kangana Ranaut: roles and awards" would be more correct, but still not the standard format. Consistency is best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it doesn’t do anything of the sort (unless one tries to make it look like one). It is a “standard enough” format to be used on several pages, and is grammatically correct, as those on the identically-formatted Gielgud page have demonstrated. Referring to some of the British style guides I have to hand (Fowler and Hart’s), there is nothing that says this usage is in any way wrong, or that such use demonstrates a list (which is what the colon specifically does do). 109.249.185.75 (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Change uncommon title to something like Kangana Ranaut (Filmography and accolades) or spli/merge parts of the article back to Kangana Ranaut, as there's quite some redundancy. Str1977 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing admin to note: this editor had stalked me to here from another disagreement. This low-level harassment is far too common on WP, but it shouldn’t be allowed to stand. 109.249.185.62 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? You hadn't commented here before. Are you using a sockpuppet? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... talk about a staggering lack of AGF...! I admit I should have been clearer in my comment, but please don’t jump to the worst conclusion without any thought. I am on a dynamic IP, and have commented and !voted above as IP 109.249.185.75. Please don’t always assume the worst about IP editors! 109.249.185.62 (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again I tell you: heed your own advice. You are right to demand AGF from AllegedlyHuman, but you are not right in your complete disregard for AGF and NPA in your own postings. Str1977 (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you can stop stalking me from a previous disagreement to this one. Harassment is a horrible, horrible thing, and my AGF evaporates with people who magically ‘appear’ at other talk pages or articles I’ve been on. You are happy to use ad hominem comments against others and stalk them, so please don’t try and preach to me about things you are utterly guilty of. 109.249.185.62 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not harassing you. It is actually you who has heaped insult upon insult upon me. Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith, now that you've explained the scenario. I have a low level of technical knowledge and legitimately did not know that what you are talking about was a thing. Thank you for clarifying. I now ask that you assume good faith to other editors. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do assume good faith, but I know when I’m being stalked to a separate thread by an editor I am in dispute with elsewhere. AGF only goes so far when the evidence points the other way. 109.249.185.62 (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then please re-read your very first edit summaries in reference to me - and also edit summaries reacting to others. That didn't read like AGF to me. In any case, I have just as much right to issue an opinion here on this matter. After this, I will no longer respond here as this thread is supposed to be about the proposed move, not our conflict. Str1977 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop stalking me. You have followed me to yet another article this morning. You have !voted in this thread simply because you have followed me: you need to stop. As your standing is so low as to follow me around, I have no good faith in your actions here (particularly as you were also edit warring to force in uncited and incorrect information), and many of your edit summaries have also as bad or worse than anything I have said. If you don’t want people to mirror the level of your comments, don’t dive into the gutter to start with. 109.249.185.62 (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_roles_and_awards_of_Kangana_Ranaut&oldid=1208289419"