Jump to content

Talk:Kareena Kapoor Khan/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Reviews

Omkara

  • Rediff "Saif and Kareena prove they really need a good director to shine, so can the rest please stop offering them ghastly boy-meets-girl roles and recognise their potential?"
  • Same Rediff "Her character is one of the hardest to essay, as she goes through love and awe, fear and bewilderment, defiance to her father and submission to her man. Kareena doesn't have the lines, but she has moments demanding powerful use of expression, and she delivers."
  • Indiatimes "The cast piloted by Devgan, Saif and Kareena take this adaptation up by more than a few levels...Kareena imbues her part with far more vitality than she has in recent memory."
  • NDTV "Kareena Kapoor is seen in a non-glamorous role and still looks fresh. She brings out the innocence and vulnerability of her character."
  • BBC "Kareena and Konkana turn in an above average performance."
  • MTV India "Equally good are performances by Ajay, Kareena & Vivek."
  • CNN-IBN/IBN Live "Kareena Kapoor is a revelation, making her ever moment on screen truly memorable. She gives Dolly depth and meaning as she alternates beautifully between playful and pained."
  • IndiaFM "Kareena delivers an award-worthy performance. She looks gorgeous even without makeup."

Majority Opinion (Result): Everyone can unanimously see that all the reviews are positive. She had nominations for Best Actress at all award ceremonies as well as won a Filmfare Critics Award for Best Performance and a Star Screen Award Best Actress for her performance. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fida

  • The Tribune "Kareena Kapoor delivers well. She looks tired, but manages to freshen you up with her bitchy smile."
  • IndiaFM "Kareena Kapoor is in great form. The actress gets the best part and must say, she sinks her teeth into it and emerges with flying colours. This is amongst her finest work to date. She looks bewitching as well."
  • Rediff "Kareena has finally moved beyond Poo in K3G and has come into her own. She has portrayed the parts where she is racked by guilt very well."
  • BBC "Great performances enacted by Shahid and Kareena Kapoor in this film."

Majority Opinion (Result): Critics have mentioned that she performed her negative role well. Therefore, the review on the page is okay. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham

  • IndiaFM (Review that is currently on the article) "Kareena Kapoor is one of the main the highlights of the film. She provides the much-needed fun and entertainment in the second half; her performance will be loved by the youth. Playing a cosmetic beauty to the hilt, she is simply adorable."
  • BBC "However, the surprise package for me came in the form of Kareena who I previously thought was highly overrated, her Alicia 'Clueless' Silverstone character, designer gal 'Poo' was excellent."
  • The Hindu "Kareena Kapoor's Pooja, or Poo, as she is so cutely called here, is about as audacious as a heroine can get in a run-of-the-mill role...As Poo, she attracts attention at the first glance."
  • Variety "Kapoor has a great deal of fun spoofing Alicia Silverstone in "Clueless."...Performances down the line are utterly confident...with the equally forthright Kapoor."
  • Rediff "Kareena tries hard to look attractive with the skimpiest possible clothes probably lesser than the length of her role. She ends up being too loud."

Majority Opinion (Result): 4 reviews praise her with only one indicating that she has a small role in the film. However, she received various nominations for Best Supporting Actress. The review on the page is okay. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dev

  • Rediff "But don't write off Fardeen Khan, or even Kareena Kapoor. Both come into their own with this film. She has an author-backed role and lives up to it."
  • The Hindu "...performances make this film worth viewing — especially Om Puri, Fardeen and Kareena..."
  • IndiaFM (Review that is currently on the page right now) "Kareena Kapoor is first-rate. Sporting a deglamorized look, the actress takes a giant leap with this film. Her scene with Amitabh Bachchan [when the latter asks for witnesses to come forward] is an example of superb acting."

Majority Opinion (Result): The reviews and the articles (on Kapoor) clearly indicate that her performance in Dev is one of her best. She had various award nominations for Best Actress as well as won a Filmfare Critics Award for Best Performance. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Golmaal Returns

  • IndiaFM "Kareena does the suspicious wife act well."
  • Rediff "The only other good acting job in the film comes unsurprisingly from Kareena, the heroine frequently shooting her Jab We Met glare while hilariously playing a soap-obsessed housewife -- and all this while looking like a million bucks."
  • Sify "The film largely works because of the cast. Kareena Kapoor is fabulous as Ekta, especially where she melodramatically responds to every situation, inspired by saas-bahu serials."
  • BBC "Kareena Kapoor is charming as the suspicious wife, Ekta..."
  • AOL "Performances wise, Golmaal Returns belong to Tusshar Kapoor and Kareena Kapoor."
  • The Business of Cinema "Kareena's character as the television serial loving housewife is great but the lack of exploring it only has her delivering the lines and emoting in the most stinging manner. An actor, who has grown from her performances film after film, is seen reenacting her emotions from her film Khushi."
  • Times of India "The girlie brigade is completely unwatchable, especially Kareena who seems to be sleepwalking through the film. Again, sad, since she's such a fine actress and had managed to become the nation's fav girl after Jab We Met."
  • Hindustan Times "Kareena Kapoor is criminally wasted in a part which keeps stating that she is addicted to Ekta Kapoor serials."
  • Indiatimes "Kareena fails to impress. Her talent isn’t justified in her shallow characterization."
  • MSN "Kareena Kapoor is wasted."
  • Indian Express "There's nothing particularly new about a suspicious wife keeping tabs on her husband, and there's nothing particularly new in the way Kareena plays it: because it's a Balaji production, she's called Ekta, and all she seems to do is to watch soppy `saas bahu' serials which come from the stable."

Majority Opinion (Result): From the reviews above, 5 are positive whilst the other 6 are negative. However, the point to be noted is that out of the 6 negative reviews, 4 of them criticize the character she played in the film whilst the other 2 critcize her performance (The Business of Cinema & TOI). In conclusion, her performance received mixed reviews by critics; the character she played in the film was criticized but her performance received mainly positive reviews. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Forthcoming films

There have been many news and articles indicating that Kapoor has signed on many films, such as:

  1. Prem Soni's Main Aur Mrs Khanna/Mr & Mrs Khanna  Done
  2. Rajkumar Hirani's Next opposite Aamir Khan  Done
  3. Rensil D'Silva's forthcoming film produced by Dharma Productions  Done
  4. Untitled Shree Ashtavinayak Cinevision Ltd. Production ☒N
  5. Sriram Raghavan's Agent Vinod  Done
  6. RK Banner's Next ☒N
  7. Sajid Khan's Next ☒N
  8. Shaadi Ali's Tevar produced by Yash Raj Films ☒N
  9. Siddharth Malhotra's Next produced by Dharma Productions  Done

As for now, please do not add any films in her filmography until official confirmation is given by Kapoor & the directors/producers, and until she starts filming for them. Rumours of films are announced here and then, and sometimes some announced films get shelved too, for e.g. Lajjo. For the same reason, pages for these films shouldn't be created either. Currently, her confirmed films are Tashan (post-production/ready for release), Golmaal Returns (filming), Roadside Romeo (filming), Kambakth Ishq (pre-production and she is going to start shooting for the film soon), and the delayed Milenge Milenge (delayed but she has already shot for the film in 2004/2005). --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 20:08, 16 February 2008

Kapoor has just begun filming for Main Aur Mrs. Khanna today. Therefore, it is confirmed that she is in the film. Please take a look at the film's page as a ref. is included there. Note: The ref. is a reliable source from IndiaFM, one of Bollywood's leading entertainment websites. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 20:20, 19 March 2008
As per reliable sources, Kapoor has already begun filming for Rajkumar Hirani's Three Idiots, confirming that she is in the film. Therefore, the film has been added to her filmography as one of her 09 releases. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Sajid Khan has confirmed that Kapoor will not be starring in his next film!! Therefore, the film has been crossed out from the list. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
According to recent reliable reports as well as Karan Johar's official blog, the production work on Rensil D'Silva's Untitled Project has recently begun, which means that Kapoor has already commenced shooting for the movie. Therefore, the film has been added to her filmography as one of her 09 releases. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Every year, Yash Raj Films inform the media on ALL the films they will be producing/directing the following year. Furthermore, their official website is always updated with news related to their films. It looks like Shaad Ali's Tevar was just a gossip made up by the press. If Kapoor had indeed signed the film, there would be news about the film entering into actual production. Till date, there hasn't been any; therefore it can be concluded that Kapoor is not in this film. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Karan Johar and Siddharth Malhotra on Twitter, Kapoor is currently filming for their film thus confirming it as one of her 2010 releases. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Golmaal 3 can be added to Kapoor's filmography according to recent sources. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent reports indicate that the shooting of Sriram Raghavan's Agent Vinod has officially begun, and is scheduled to release in March 2011. The source can be found on the film's page. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ra.1

Shah Rukh has confirmed Kareena for Ra. 1 which will start principal photography this summer. Also, Kareena has confirmed. Does anyone object if I add it to filmography? Copana2002 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As indicated above, it would be best to wait until the film enters into principal photography (WP:NFF). As you can see above, there has been news about Kareena signing all those films but half of them were proven to be false. By waiting until Kapoor begins filming for Ra.1, we would be sure that she is indeed starring in the film. Regards -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
According to reliable sources as well as Shahrukh Khan on Twitter, the shooting for Ra.One officially began on March 24, 2010. In addition to this, the official twitter page for the film was also launched to update the film's production status. Therefore, the film will be added as one of her 2011 releases. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Item no. in DTCBA

"Later that year, she appeared in an item number in Farhan Akhtar's Don - The Chase Begins Again (2006), a remake of the 1978 film Don. Although Kapoor's performance was generally well-received, critics commented that she did not perform the role as well as Helen did in the original version."

I am planning to remove the following information from Kapoor's article for the following reasons:

  1. To be honest, her appearance in the film is quite non-notable. I agree that she appeared in the song Yeh Mera Dil, originally done by the legendary item number queen Helen... but that is not a good enough reason to have it included on Kapoor's article.
  2. In addition to her appearance in the song, she only had two-three small scenes in the film that were not pivotal to the film in any way. This reason further helps prove the fact that her "small" app. in DTCBA is non-notable and shouldn't be mentioned on her article.
  3. As User:Shshshsh previously indicated over here, "Since she had a small role it actually does not deserve a mention in the career section. We are dealing with Kapoor's career, her successes, failures etc, but not with her special appearances. [...] It's a speculation from us to say that she had a role in this film. Don is not the success of Kareena, and she didn't take part in the main cast. It was a hit because of Shahrukh Khan and Priyanka Chopra, not because of Kapoor.
  4. Lastly, Kapoor is a prominent actress today. It is stupid to describe her for her item numbers. It lowers her status.

-- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe just a mention of her appearance in an item number of the movie should do it. The reception sounds too fancrufty. Plus the reasons pointed out by User:B Dreams seem reasonable enough. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

edits explained

  1. [1] WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse to devalue another article. Per WP:EL news articles are not warratned as EL's because they can and should be merged into the articles.
  2. [2] same reason above, -- not a reason to add crap here. -- although maybe another title. what ideas are you coming with?
  3. [3] Fine but add a reason why it is so notable then.
  4. [4] per above the "further reading" is just an excuse to relabel and EL's and should not be here.
  5. [5] is not reflective of the source which gives other information -- better to rephrase it as "bestselling in merchandise" or something of the sort.Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In response to User:Ruhrfisch's comments:
  1. I am not devaluing other articles but I was just explaining that the reason I added further readings to Kapoor's article was because I found it in other pages. During the FAC of other FA articles, nobody said that we had to remove it from the page - this is the first time I came across your explanation. WP:FURTHERREADING states that the contents of further reading include "a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content." I agree that some of further readings did appear in the article but there were also other readings, which IMO could be further used by readers for more information on the actress.
  2. To begin with the title "popular reception" sounds weird it to me. It just doesn't go with the section. And what makes you state that I am adding "crap" to the article? I clearly stated that the title was "inspired" by other FA articles. IMO, "in the media" makes much more sense; perhaps we could change the title to "Image in the media" or "Media image"??
  3. The reason is already provided in the article. Furthermore, sources already found in the article like this, this and this show that Jab We Met is regarded as Kapoor's most notable film so far. In addition to this, there are also other sources [not found in the aritlce] that can be used to source this. Example 1 and 2.
  4. Same reason as the first point.
  5. The first source states, "The eBay Bollywood Barometer provides a fun way to track celebrity popularity and saleability" and the second one states, "Hits, misses, flops, nothing has come in the way of her zooming to the top in popularity or earning power." While the second source explicitly states it, I do agree that the first source gives "other information". However, since Kapoor has "the most sought after celebrity-related items for online buyers", it is shown that she is easily amongst the most popular Bollywood celebrities in India. Perhaps it would be better if we switched the first source with this one. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Note - "In the media" is according to me a better title for this section than "popular reception", simply because it's not only about how she is received in the media but also about several of her activities in the media, so I strongly support to keep the title as it was.
As for further reading, it is a perfectly accepted section of external articles and online publications about a person which would be helpful for the average reader. It's not like EL and has nothing to do with it - it's actually different from EL and focuses more on articles (not news articles but general ones) than profile websites and other sites related to the person. Shahid • Talk2me 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
First, this is not an attack what i said, dont take it that way, i was responding to a call for peer review.
  1. The "further readings" dont become so simply because of the title, the list also is like "external links" per WP:EL if they can be merged into the article they should. Sure put some interviews and the link in EL but the list should also not go on and on with every interview being listed.
  2. fair enough, "popular" reception may not be the ebst (and i was drawing a blank) but something to add the extra caveat like you say above or "in the popular/entertainment media" or somethign like that.
  3. a section entitled "return to films" or something of the sort. Or perhaps break the categories down to years from Refugee till the break and then Jab we Met till present. Throwing options in the air for now. (btw- isnt she "vivacious" in every movie, (chameli included, despite being "serious") how is Jab we met different?
  4. per above the links dont become further readings just because theyre labeled as such.
  5. well, ebay is not the determinant of popularity particularly where the vast majority of the country dont use the internet and even of users most dont use it for ebay. but the 2nd source quote would be better.
per Shahid, EL's too account for articles and the whole list is just articles (news articles) and interviews which are therefore el's. Per the "EL" and "Further reading" they are interchangeable.(Lihaas (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)).
  1. To begin with, I never indicated that your edits were attacks on me. As a matter of fact, I'm always happy to hear from other editors. You voiced your opinions and I did the same.
  2. Firstly, whatever links were necessary in the article, I included them. Second, not "every" interview has been listed in the "further reading" section but only the important ones. Apart from the interviews, I included other important readings like her biography from other sources, etc.
  3. a) IMO, the three headings in the "career" section are perfectly fine the way it is. The first section is her debut and breakthrough (2000-03), and is then proceeded by the turning point in her career where she received critical acclaim (2004-06). The last section can be post JWM (2007-present) - this film is important as it won Kapoor several Best Actress awards and further established her career as a mainstream leading actress. b) Vivacious in every movie?? You must be joking right?? I'm using the term "vivacious" to describe her character in JWM as she was lively and spirited. You would certainly not use the same word to describe her character in films like Chameli, Dev & Omkara. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Chameli

Chameli released in 2003 but here it says 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.70.234 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

All indications are that it was 2004. What is your source? BollyJeff || talk 13:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming projects

According to recent reliable reports, Kapoor has commenced filming for Short Term Shaadi and Bodyguard. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 16:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Kapoor is currently taking acting workshops to prepare for her role in Reema Kagti's Untitled Project therefore confirming her presence in the film. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been confirmed that she is taking part in heroine. According to this article from Bollywood Hungama, she is doing the pre-production work for it already: Heroine It should be a 2012 release --Meryam90 (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Vaibhavi Merchant(Choreographer), confirmed on twitter that Kareena will be appearing in a song in Bombay Talkies, Rani Mukherji, Priyanka Chopra, Juhi Chawla, Madhuri Dixit shall also be appearing. Which is why i added that to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahak01 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but please wait until she begins filming for it. If you take a look at the other projects, they were only added when principal photography began! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Vaibhavi has been tweeting daily as she shoots for the song with each star. Kareena shot for it on the 28th March (going by date of her tweet) Mahak01 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Karan Johar and Karan Malhotra, the producer and director for the film Shuddhi (respectively) have confirmed Kareena's presence in their film opposite Hrithik. I think the film should be added to her filmography. The link to my source is here --> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Bebo-Hrithik-back-after-12-years-in-an-intense-love-story/articleshow/21483403.cms Please and thank you! GrewalJ (talk) 30 July, 2013. —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It will be added once principal photography begins or the production schedule is locked. --smarojit HD 05:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kareena's Date of Birth

Kareena's Date of Birth as stated on IMDb is 21 September 1977. Her Parents were born in 1971. Karisma, her elder sister was born in 1973, though she has made it to 1974. Kareena was born three years later, as per an Indian Norm, though the references of her Date of Birth can be traced to 1977. I have tried to change it to 1977, but some of her goons keep changing it !

Can the Administrators look into this ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehanafzal (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on imdb, it can be as useful as a chocolate teapot.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Here IMDB says 1980 and 1977 on the same page! - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004626/bio Like I said, it can be wrong. Here is one of her websites 1980 - http://www.kareenak.net/aboutkareena.php. Her father's wiki page also says 1974 and 1980 for the two girls. - Randhir Kapoor. BollyJeff || talk 19:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Change name of Reema Kagti's Untitled Project

The movie 'Reema Kagti's Untitled Project' has finally been given a title. It will be officially called 'Talaash'. I have placed a move request for the movie article. I am unable to edit the article on Kareena Kapoor to update the title. Can somebody please take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchuec2 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch2.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:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Main article: List of awards and nominations received by Kareena Kapoor

Lengthy

Article is good written,but very lengthy,people from small city might feel bore.They would prefer this rather than Ms.Kapoor. one more thing "does this actress exits in Hindi cinema with no controversies?" 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2012

PERFSONAL LIFE: At the set of Fida a film by Ken Ghosh Kapoor has dated her co-star Shahid kapoor and dated about 3 years and a half and even it was decleared that in media it foal all across. In Koffee with karan Kapoor and her sister Karishma kapoor made her first appearence on a chat show and even her boyfriend Shahid kapoor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.23.8 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't add unsourced trivial gossip to articles. --NeilN talk to me 21:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Hi! User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ requested that I take a look at this article. I've read through it up to "Off-screen works". I made a couple of really easy copy edits, but I'm afraid I wasn't up for doing anything big right now. The article is generally clear and well written, but I would suggest getting a more thorough copy edit before FAC. The level of detail is perfect, and it seems thoroughly referenced but please make sure that the information is fully covered in the source. For instance, you can't really say (this is just an example) "Kapoor received positive reviews", but then only source this to one review. Check for anything like this before going to FAC, as it is something that can be closely nitpicked over (and derail your FAC attempt if problems are found. Just a warning! I don't actually know if there are problems or not as I haven't looked.) Some specific comments:

  • The lead should not have references, because - in theory - everything there should be covered and cited in the article body. Check that this is the case, then remove the lead references.
  • "Kapoor was initially scheduled to make her debut..." This is a bit of a strange way of putting it, it makes it sound like her acting career was planned out by someone. I'd suggest just saying "Kapoor was first cast in..." or something along those lines.
  • Paragraphs should not start with pronouns ("she", "her"), or first mention the person in this way. I fixed a couple of these but please do the rest.
  • Not sure I see much point in David Rooney's comment about Asoka.
  • I'd recommend attributing this comment: "Kapoor's performance as "Poo", a good-natured but superficial girl, was described as "one of the main ... highlights of the film",
  • About the Omkara' review in the text box...I think it's a bit inappropriate to boldly single out one individual's opinion. If it was a neutral statement it might be okay, but the fact that it is so positive means it could introduce bias (ie, by influencing people's impression of Kapoor). I think it should be removed, or perhaps replaced with a comment by Kapoor herself.
  • Not sure "distrustful" is a word?
  • "She described the film as "an emotionally draining experience", which did not let her disconnect from her character during shooting." > Awkward phrasing.
  • "Kapoor essayed the role of the quick-witted hairstylist Riana Braganza." > Not sure what this means?

I'll finish in a couple of days. --Lobo (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm back! Sorry for taking so long, but I noticed that BollywoodDreamz wasn't active so I was waiting until he was back. I've read through the rest of the article now, and I think in terms of content and organisation it is excellent. I don't have any specific comments about that. Well done on all the hard work. Here are the main things I would suggest working on before taking the page to FAC (which I certainly think is a viable option, given a wee bit more work. It is close):

  • Try and locate a thorough copy-editor, to really nitpick and perfect the prose. It's not bad, but it is occasionally awkward and I can imagine FAC regulars saying it isn't quite up to scratch. I'm sorry that I'm not able to commit to this myself, but it's something I find pretty difficult and time consuming, so I need to be really interested in a subject, I think, to take it on. There are editors on here who enjoy it though; the ideal place for you to make a request would be the "Guild of Copy Editors".
    • You asked what I meant by one of my points above. When you say her performance of Poo was described as "one of the main ... highlights of the film", I think you should add who specifically said that.
  • Again, I'd advise you to really check that statements are backed up by the sources. For instance, I looked at the ones referencing "Kapoor has gained a reputation for discussing her professional or private life with the press with no reservations", and couldn't really see how this was supported by the sources. This is one of the things that makes FAC so difficult; an article cannot pass until the sources have been spotchecked, so it's worth your while to make sure everything matches up.
  • In the same vein, all the sources will be scrutinised to check they are not only reliable but "high quality" (ie, reputable). I haven't looked, but make sure all the sources meet this (rather vague, I know) criteria.
  • Are there actually any references to the book under "References"? If not, it needs to be removed. And the "Further reading" section is a bit strange...If they are worth reading, shouldn't they be used as sources? If they have been (which I imagine they must be), then they don't need to be added as further reading.

Good luck with everything! I know it is a lot of work and nitpicking, but I hope you'll keep at it and take the article all the way to FA. I can definitely see it making it. All the best, --Lobo (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Kareena kapoor wedding

Please update the wedding information sangeet ceremony on October 14, 2012. The sangeet was later followed by a mehndi ceremony, then their marriage registration, exchange of vows, a grand reception party at Taj Hotel and finally a grand reception in the Capital on October 18, 2012. (Jpbhatt (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC))

Thanks! The article will be updated in the coming days! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal life section

I think this article needs a personal life section--Paniraja (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A personal life section is not needed as all the necessary info is already mentioned in the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor Khan

I don't think that she has changed her name to 'Kareena Kapoor Khan' after her marriage. Media reports continue to use Kareena Kapoor and she was credited with her original name in Talaash. So I think that the statement should be removed. --smarojit (buzz me) 05:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, she has changed it bud. If you take a look at this source, which was before marriage, she explains that she will be adding 'Khan' to her name after marriage. Subsequently after she got married, she has still stated quite a few times: here, here and here. Even at the most recent Filmfare conference, you can see her name plate. It has only been 2 months since she got married and hence people still refer to her as Kareena Kapoor; she has been known as that her whole life and that is why the media reports continue to use her maiden name. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 06:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Sorry, my bad. :) --smarojit (buzz me) 09:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Heroine

This is an analysis of the reviews Kapoor received for her performance in Heroine:

  1. The Hindu - Positive
  2. The Hindu: "As a troubled and lonely actress yearning for success and love, her felicity of face is remarkable. The way her beautiful, expressive eyes reflect fleeting emotions is to be seen to be believed. Madhur chooses plenty of close-ups to capture her face and the way she reacts when others are speaking is captivating. Kareena Kapoor is the sole reason for watching Heroine."
  3. DAWN: "Kareena Kapoor, who plays the title’s heroine, is top-notch as a passionate, emotionally-jumbled starlet, who is contrived and wrangled within conformities of routine-Bollywood. Once a simple-town gal, as the film’s narration tells us, she’s now a depressed diva, who pops pills as if they were flavored cough-drops."
  4. Hindu Business Line: "It’s Kareena who’s entitled to all-out celebrations. She’s the only reason you can sit through this film — she’s a magical confluence of ethereal beauty and superlative, gives-you-gooseflesh acting in her portrayal of the unbearable loneliness of being an actress. Unlike her director, she’ll waltz home with paisa,pyaar, rave reviews and, soon, a clutch of awards. And she’ll deserve all of it."
  5. CNN-IBN: "Mahi isn’t exactly a likeable character, yet Kareena plays the part with utmost sincerity. Matching the film’s over-the-top sensibilities with a deliciously camp performance, she’s the only reason this film is watchable."
  6. Zee News: "As the bi-polar, erratic, insecure and vulnerable fading star, Kareena gives a superb performance. She looks beautiful, glamorous and makes Mahi her own. […] Kareena, who has for a long time been used as a glamour quotient in Rs 100 crore films, gets a meaty role and gives it her best shot. Some of the scenes in the film, although a bit unnecessary, need courage to be enacted and it comes as a surprise when a hard-core commercial actress like Kareena agrees to do such scenes. And then, does them so convincingly."
  7. Reuters Blog: “Kareena Kapoor is the sole saving grace in the film – she is in every single scene and she makes a genuine effort to put some amount of believability in the character. “
  8. DNA: “Kareena steps effortlessly into the shoes of Mahi Arora who tries every trick in the book to regain her lost glory at the box-office. And as she grapples with love, passion, jealousy and insecurity, one cannot help but think that no one else could have done justice to the role.”
  9. Oye Times: “Kareena Kapoor has given the top notch superlative performance of her career in Heroine. She slips into the character with conviction and confidence. Wait for the awards’ functions to happen seeing Kareena Kapoor fetching in all awards for her brilliant performance in the movie. Heroine is Kareena’s film all the way.”
  10. Oye Times: Positive
  11. The Deccan Chronicle: “And the last reason to see Heroine, if at all, is Kareena Kapoor. She is near-flawless, achieving mood swings spontaneously. The screenplay makes her out to be a victim of the Bollywood system, but the manner in which she plays it – with her body language and eyes – she’s to be saluted, not pitied. It’s a brave, tour de force performance.”
  12. Filmfare: “Kareena Kapoor plays Mahi with utmost ease, making each and every characteristic believable. You’ll smile when she expresses her selfless love for Aryan. You’ll ogle at her inimitable beauty when she struts about like a diva. You’ll show concern when she gulps pills and whiskey in quick succession. And you’ll cry when she does, feeling what she feels. Clearly, she’s the hero of Heroine.”
  13. Rediff: “How then does Kareena do in this feature-length showreel? Impressively well. Ever a strong actress, she takes the opportunity to emote her guts out, but has been given far too large and unexciting a stage. She wails and moans and grumbles and huffs and pouts and sticks out her hip and uses those insanely captivating eyes to tremendous effect. Kapoor acquits herself admirably and while the performance is overtly showy, it's more than most of her peers can do.”
  14. Rediff: “I'll make an exception for Kareena though. So, yes, she darts off F-words and other expletives, chain smokes and reveals a fair amount of skin (and dark circles). At the same, she's so effective in the scenes where she appears her most vulnerable and wounded. The actress has never used her eyes this emphatically before; they change their colour and sparkle with the tone of a scene.”
  15. Live Mint: “Kapoor’s performance is the film’s only redeeming factor, although there is no surprise to it. A few scenes are powerful—it is, after all, impossible for an actor of Kapoor’s calibre not to pull off simple dramatic scenes convincingly—but she is limited by trite dialogues and situations.”
  16. Business of Cinema: “Heroine’s main USP – Kareena Kapoor, more than delivers. She sinks her teeth deep into the complex character of Mahi, dominating every frame of the film, and looking like a million dollars through all of it.“
  17. The Deccan Herald: “As meant, it is a Kareena Kapoor film and she performs beyond herself as Mahi Arora. The effort is self-evident but unfortunately, the film pans out rather blandly.”
  18. Komal Nahta: “Kareena Kapoor owns the movie as the, er, bipolar actress Mahi. As much as you would like to appreciate her ability to showcase the mood swings behind the camera, her character badly suffers from hackneyed writing.”
  19. Emirates: “Kareena Kapoor doesn’t disappoint.”
  20. International Business Times: “In terms of her acting prowess, Kareena has dominated the screen. Her performances in each phase as a heroine are unforgettable - from a most happening actress, a lovelorn lady to a fading star and the epiphany of what she lost in her frantic pursuit for fame.”
  21. Gulf News “As star Mahi Arora, Kareena Kapoor drinks and swears like a sailor, and is more tantrum-prone than a fussy toddler. But she does it all with gut-wrenching vulnerability…While the film belonged to Kapoor and her tearful histrionics.”
  22. Indiatimes: “Of course the saving grace of the film is Kareena who not only looks drop-dead gorgeous but is also adept as the girl interrupted.”
  23. The Times of India: “Needless to say, Kareena Kapoor gets the meatiest role and while she doesn't disappoint, her one-dimensional character doesn't offer her enough scope. But within the range, she emotes efficiently bringing forth the angst, anxiety, aggravation and lack of confidence in Mahie Arora.”
  24. Hindustan Times: “Kareena Kapoor works very hard to give Mahi depth. She looks sensational, but is also brave enough to risk being ugly on screen, literally and figuratively.”
  25. Bollywood Hungama: “HEROINE is Kareena's film all the way and she delivers an award-worthy performance. It can be said without a shred of doubt, HEROINE is her most valiant effort so far. Apparently motivated by real-life episodes, this is a role not many actresses would have taken the peril of implementing. Kareena arrests the viewer's attention from Scene A to Z. The triumph and disappointment, the innocence and conceit…, every emotion, every sentiment is projected with sheer brilliancy.”
  26. Subhash K Jha: “Kareena Kapoor in the best performance of her career so far, leads Mahi's character through the murky labyrinth of ambition, rivalry and self-destructive tricks of survival in the rat race. Though her character is inconsistent Kareena furnishes the heroine's character with a rare vulnerability and an exceptional inner life. In the film's rawest moments when the star's mask peels off completely, Kareena's face shows that stricken expression of naked panic and abject solitude that one last saw in the performance of Tabu in Mira Nair's The Namesake after her husband's sudden death.”
  27. Stardust: “Heroine solely works for one reason – Kareena Kapoor. Though Madhur really bogs her down with melodramatic or sordid scenes almost her turning into a modern day Meena Kumari, Kareena still manages to do an exceptional job. Not only does she look beautiful, she also acts really well.”
  28. The Telegraph: “If Heroine manages to stay afloat, it is for Kareena. You can see why Bhandarkar first went to the light-eyed Kapoor beti for Mahi and later retraced his steps to her after hitting the Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (baby) bump. Letting her eyes do all the talking, Kareena breathes life into her role, giving a face and voice to the trials and tribulations of her character. Watch out for the scene at the beginning where she trudges into a police station, broken and humiliated, after being dumped by the man she loved. To top that, she looks like a dream, slipping into one Manish Malhotra costume after another, with Halkat jawaani proving a sight for sore eyes. Yes, Kareena the heroine shines, even if Heroine the film doesn’t.”
  29. Sify “Kareena is an astute performer, always has been. Here, she performs with heart and gusto but is let down by the skewed characterization. It's a pity really. One can only imagine the magic the talented actress could have created with a more honestly and intelligently structured character.”
  30. Pune Mirror: “In the title role, Kareena is in every frame, half of them in close-up. In hindsight, casting her as a diva was probably for the best of the film — she looks like a million bucks, and she gives it her all. She’s the only bright spot in the film. That she’s Bollywood’s leading lady for so many years easily adds to her performance. It’s not always enough to pull up the rest of the film though, and you feel she deserved a better platform instead of a role that asks more of her cleavage than her histrionics.”
  31. The Pioneer: “In that sense, where Bhandarkar trips, Kareena soars. It is an intense character she plays and full credit to her for raising the bar quite a bit to do justice to the role of an extremely insecure star in the hands of drugs, depression, dread, bad relationships, alcohol and a bipolar disorder.”
  32. Daily Times: “Kareena Kapoor […] effortlessly swishes her wand with style and makes this film worth watching.”
  33. The Express Tribune: “Kareena, who is absolutely fantastic in the film. I can say with certainty that no other female actor could have fit the role and done it as brilliantly as she has. With her harrowing eyes and ghostly white complexion, Kareena is every bit the lost soul in a cruel world that refuses to wait until she finds her feet.”
  34. The Express Tribune: “While some witty one-liners such as “Hamari industry mein zip aur zabaan dono band rakhni chahiye” do fare well with the audience, apart from Kareena’s stellar performance, there is not much to remember the film by.”
  35. NDTV: “Kareena is in virtually every scene in the film. She is particularly good when she dons the no-makeup look and allows herself to go with the flow of the emotions. But when she is called upon to strut around like a heroine, she is, surprisingly, far less convincing.”
  36. DNA: “Kareena does a good job, however tries too hard to give a powerful performance, which is very evident.”
  37. Mid Day: “Heroine takes the vivacious, sparkly, irreverent Kareena Kapoor and smothers her into a dull lackluster protagonist. She tries her best though and manages to shine in some scenes.”
  38. DNA: “Kareena is stunningly beautiful as Mahi, and gets many scenes that demand histrionics right. But largely, the effort to act is too in-your-face to be enjoyable, and the lack of a character graph doesn't help her cause. Kareena's impressed much more in films where she's put in less effort than what she does in Heroine.”
  39. India Today: “Kareena surprisingly overacts. Despite being in almost every frame, she never really overcomes the highly flawed character she gets to play.”

Majority Opinion (Result): Everyone can see that majority if not all of the reviews are positive. From the 39 reviews that are posted above, 34 of them are positive, whilst the other 5 constitutes of mixed (3) and negative (2). In addition to these reviews, several articles (1, 2, 3) have stated that although the film has been criticised, Kapoor's performance has been praised. Therefore, her performance in the film was positively received; the review on the page is okay. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 06:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dosti Friends forever

No mention of Dosti Friends Forever is made in the portion discussing her career, despite Bewafaa and Kyon ki being mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahak01 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is because the film wasn't notable enough to mention; her role was small. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Diet Plan

Kareena became a vegetarian after her relationship with Shahid but later she adopted this as her diet plan. For more information on her workout and diet plan, please read this article Kareena Kapoor Workout and Diet Plan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodieslovethis (talk • contribs) 09:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wax Statue

Sorry if im wrong, but is Kareena's wax statue in Madam Tussauds mentioned anywhere? Mahak01 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured article it is! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a tidbit on her waxmodel, under 'other work', as it deserves mention. Please edit :) Mahak01 (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Agent Vinod

I think it is ok to mention Agent Vinod in the text. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

changes of 3 April

Please discuss before making such drastic changes to the article! The article went through several reviews before reaching FA status. What you deem as "trivial", "crap" and "non-biographical" is important. I know you're trying to help the article, but please stop removing important information! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I was intending to contribute to its FA status without realising it had passed. I only just realised, after I had made the changes. But I was questioning myself why/how it passed. The article content meanders excessively into non-biographical detail: the stuff relates mainly to the films themselves, and I believe the reader should be able to, if interested, look at the article by clicking on the relevant adjacent link. Specific points follow, in no particular order:
  1. Use of Americanisms 'mom'[6] and 'dating'[7]
  2. As here, here, I don't feel there's need to go into the storyline or to flesh out the characters in so much detail in the bio - much of that all belongs, if anywhere, in the film's article the storyline.
  3. I believe in keeping quotes short and to the point, particularly inn articles where they are used in abundance, as here. The context already makes that part of the quote self-evident; the preceding sentence already ends with 'Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai'. Thus, "if her debut with Abhishek in 'Refugee' and now 'Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai' are any indication" is better replaced by "based on her first two films" outside of the quote.[8]
  4. The programme is named '1GOAL Education for All'. So it should be immediately obvious it's an educational access charity - it's already linked to, thus detail is redundant.[9]
  5. Another classic example of a redundancy.[10]
  6. Lack of clarity of that it was in fact a family nickname.[11]
  7. I was amazed when reading the shallow mentions about her preparation, because it is the and unwritten prerequisite of an actor entering into any role. These descriptions below seem to me to be severely lacking in depth that they are better left out altogether.
    • she "viewed several Hollywood animated films to analyse how actors deliver their dialogue".[12]
    • "Kapoor was asked by Jha to familiarise herself with the latest global affairs and watch several news documentaries" [13]
    • "she visited several of Mumbai's red-light districts at night to study the mannerisms of sex workers and the way they dressed"[14]
  8. there's the paragraph about her starting her clothing line, which I declared was "crap". From reading the article, it seems this clothing range never materialised, so that paragraph is a vaporware announcement and should be removed; in its stead, you could mention her aspirations in as a fashion designer. To leave it dangling at the ultimate non-comment "those plans were on hold due to prior commitments", is very unsatisfactory, IMHO.
  9. Other problems I sought to address were "a film loosely based on the novel 'Five Point Someone' by Chetan Bhagat" – I mean if people generally want to know the story outline of each and every film in an actor's bio, then so be it, but I fail to see how the book would even merit mentioning, given that it's not a worldwide blockbuster that's being faithfully reproduced?[15]. We already mention the director, the studio. Will we stop at the author of the screenplay? By allowing this book mention, we would seem to be falling victim to Bollywood hyping of the film.
  10. Use of excessively florid language and having redundancy: "Set against the backdrop of Mumbai's red-light districts, it follows the travails of its personnel and principal"[16]
  11. "Described as "[India's] wedding and social event of the year" by 'The Wall Street Journal'" – was a personal comment; the citation is to a journalist's blog on the WSJ website. It could do with better attribution.[17]
  12. I feel that when you have an actor of a certain stature, the critics comment have much less weight than at the beginning of their career, particularly if the film is a hit at the box office, and they get given industry awards. I can see why you might object to their removal.
I hope that you can agree that the rationale for my changes were reasonable or at least worthy of further consideration. I propose to roll back to another intermediate edit of mine, before when I removed the larger chunks, and we take the discussion from there. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe this was promoted to FA status. Who is reviewing at that place nowadays???? Tony (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
To begin with, I'm kinda upset by the comment Tony made. A lot of hard work was put into improving the article, and it's rude to make such derogatory comments. I know that "featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" but no article is perfect my friend!
As for Ohconfucius, what upset me was the fact that based on your own personal assumption, you decided to remove things from the article that were "non-biographical". Now that you provided these explanations, I realized that some of your edits did make sense.
  1. However, I don't see how a) critics' reviews, b) a brief summary of the film and Kapoor's character (for some films), and c) "other" activities she has participated in can be considered irrelevant.
  2. Kapoor is not known to "prepare" for her roles, and that is stated in the article. However, for some films she did choose to prepare (some of them being due to the director's insistence).
  3. Kapoor released her clothing line in India (in association with Globus with who she was the brand ambassador for). After her contract with Globus ended, she had plans of releasing her clothing line internationally, but they were put on hold.
The article was written keeping in mind other featured articles such as Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn and Preity Zinta—no one objected to the content there. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 05:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Madame Tussauds section

Contribution to wikipedia is appreciated but sometime it happens that when 4-5 users contribute to the article they form 'Gangs of Wikipur' and start pushing their own POV. 4-5 contributers unofficially declare article as their private property and stop others from contributing to the article.

Madame Tussauds statue is not made of everyone. As there are only 3 statues and Kareena is one of them, it deserve section or at least few lines somewhere. neo (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that some of the claims made in the added section are not accurate, and are not supported by the source. For example, this link shows 5 Bollywood stars, not including Kareena or SRK. Further, it does not warrant its own section; threre are other honors not covered in there own section.

Bombay Talkies

Though confirmed and shot for more than a month ago, it was removed from her filmography. She has appeared in the stills and numerous articles already. You can decide if it goes in the text area. I think it should, the movie is a tribute to 100 years of Indian Cinema, and she was one of 20 handpicked celebrities. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIsFgOVCAAIaAHa.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIsF2qQCAAAETUk.jpg https://twitter.com/JalwaAurHalwa/status/327476882499072000/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahak01 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by Corey.HamsUSA. Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor → Kareena Kapoor Khan – Full name after marriage. All leading newspapers have started using this name. Recently Aishwarya Rai was moved to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aishwarya_Rai_Bachchan#Requested_move. Same should be done here. If you take a look at this source, which was before marriage, she explains that she will be adding 'Khan' to her name after marriage. Subsequently after she got married, she has still stated quite a few times: here, here and here. Even at the most recent Filmfare conference, you can see her name plate. Corey.HamsUSA (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

...except actually waiting for some discussion. It is done already. BollyJeff | talk 02:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Happy Ending

Checking whether we can include Happy Endingto her filmography.

Article http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Kareena-Kapoor-Saif-Ali-Khan-set-to-return-to-silver-screen/Article1-1106855.aspx?htsw0023

And then the directore @krishdk confirmed on twitter that she does have an appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahak01 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned. --smarojit HD 03:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fancruft and too much praise.......here we go!!!

So, I just checked....hmmm I'm not able to edit this so called "best actress in the world" according to Bollywood Dreamz. Why? Bcoz he must have blocked me....but poor boy....here is the mirror which still can be seen...huh

'What do you mean by unpopular..? Do you mean was praised by critics but was not welcomed by public...OMG!! That film is lunchbox right?? And hello what?? Was criticized by only one critic? Do you want a list??? I'll be happy to do that.

look here Gori Tere Pyaar Mein grossed a very poor 12.50 crore nett in week one and is one of the major disasters of the year

The lead

  • This was followed by a series of repetitive roles, which garnered her negative reviews and little success. ohh really?? Little success?? All films were big duds. Correct it.
  • and earned critical acclaim for her roles in the 2009 thriller Kurbaan and the 2012 drama Heroine.??? I'll definitely make a list for this.....dude you are in trouble now...huh. I'll recheck whole article. The level of fancrufty is high here.

So, I hope Dr. Blofeld you got your answer. And, by the way I'm not always wrong. Others too can be wrong. So, pls clear it out. Coming lots more.—Prashant 17:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the pest is back and it's not a surprise that it started after here—seems like a case of retaliation and personal attack.
  1. For Satyagaraha, I've used a valid source to show that it was a moderate success—you're making it seem as if I didn't you use any sources at all. It's like the case of Fashion and Dostana in Chopra's article. BOI says that both the films were average yet the article has used another source saying that they were hits.
  2. Did I say GTPM was "praised by critics"? And yes, I know that her performance was not well-received by critics. If you take a look at other articles, it's not always important to say. X's performance was negatively received by critics. Critic X said "...". I've mentioned that her performance was criticized.
  3. For the nth time, an analysis of the reviews she received for Heroine was already conducted during the FAC as requested by you. As a matter of fact, you even said that it was okay. So I don't know what your problem is now. Lastly, I have already conducted an analysis of the reviews she received for some of her films, and I could do the same for the rest of them as well.

And someone thinks that he is not able to edit the article "Bcoz he must have blocked me". Please get your facts right before accusing someone. The article was blocked by User:Ymblanter yesterday. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 16:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that as I was the one who asked you for the analysis. But, hello! Citical acclaim and positive reviews are different things!! As, both films are not among her best performances. Also, Chopra's average films were only credited success which you yourself had used in Kapoir article for many films. There is a big difference between average and flops!! So, i think there would be no issue in correcting it. I think a more critical review for GTPM is needed just like Chopra in Krrish 3. If I get any for Satyarah, then also for that.—Prashant 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh really... Critical acclaim and positive reviews are different things? Tell me what the difference is? Lastly, I'm not denying the fact that Kapoor's performance in GTPM was not well-received, but as I said it's not always important to say X's performance was negatively received by critics. Critic X said "...". I've mentioned that her performance was criticized. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Dreamz there is a huge difference between critical acclaim and positive reviews. Will post the difference with the reassessment if you didn't corrected all fancruft. And for negative review, you should have thought the same for Chopra's Krrish 3 act.—Prashant 04:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

STOP dodging my question! You still didn't tell me what the difference is? The article is properly sourced with reliable sources, so I don't "corrected all fancruft"—please learn to speak English. I am more than happy to provide additional sources. As for Chopra's Krrish 3 act that's what I had said: I included the name of one specific critic who criticized her role similar to the case of the GTPM review for Kapoor. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 05:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes Dude, I admit that I don't know how to speak English. You don't have to shout nth time. For your information, I don't have time to deal with a people like you, who only wants to do of his own. You are not even a worth....god why I'm talking to a fan, who is just corrupt.—Prashant 16:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL. How ironic! This is coming from the childish guy who goes around blindly reverting the pages of other actresses. And when he's asked to justify his reasoning he comes up with an excuse. (P.S. Bolding your reply doesn't help at all! :P) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - date formats

In order to remove this article from Category:CS1 errors: dates (and to preserve MOS:DATEUNIFY), could some one please make the following changes to the references:

  • Change reference #43 to |date=May 2006
  • Change reference #82 to |date=22 September 2012
  • Change reference #117119 to |date=March 2002

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done the first two. Could you please check the third one. #117 says January 20, 2013, this is clearly not March 2002.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Sorry, I meant reference #119. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done this one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Kareena Kapoor Khan > Kareena Kapoor

Still, majority of sources cite her as "Kareena Kapoor".. Try using more common name as per WP:COMMONNAME.. I mean we still regard a person as Cat Stevens not as "Yusuf Islam". Bladesmulti (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy Ending cameo

For the multiple socks asking about Kapoor's cameo in Happy Ending, here is the source. Happy? --krimuk 90 14:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good riddance with the sock! Continuing from where we left off, I just wanted to provide sources for two of Kapoor's forthcoming projects like before. As of February 2014, she has two upcoming projects: her cameo appearance in Happy Ending (which she has already shot for) and Singham 2 . Pre-production work has already begun for the latter with principal photography expected to commence on March 10, 2014. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 14:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 February 2014

While the article is fully protected, the PC-tags are still there. I'd have remove the PC protected icon if it was semi protected, but need an admin here. EthicallyYours! 11:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added a gold lock, but as the article is still PC protected (although redundant at the moment) I don't see a reason to remove it, just for it to be added back later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a word

I just read this after a long time. ...... Well, the text changed to she established herself as a leading actress in Hindi cinema after Asoka in 2001. Why don't you mention she established herself as a leading actress just after her debut film. OMG!! this is definitely a fancruft page. Though no one even dare to edit these fancrufty. Instead these people....the less said id better. —Prashant 17:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If you had care to look, sources were provided for the change! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ya Ya, I Know that. You should change to her debut. Like she established herself as a leading actress by starring in just her first movie no? Don't you think for that Jab We Met was responsible. As, no one establishes herself as a leading lady with a period disaster and a brief supporting role.—Prashant 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! (: -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Anand Rai

Removed the Anand Rai project. There has only been one tabloid that reported the project and there has been no confirmation from Kareena Kapoor Khan, her representatives or the director Aanand L Rai as yet about the project. A leading magazine editor(from filmfare) has declared the news as false currently.

Alright, thanks! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is her last name Khan???

There's is no source that her name is currently Kareena Kapoor Khan, even after she married her husband. She is still known as Kareena Kapoor. The entire page was redirected to Kareena Kapoor Khan, its that important of a difference. Also as far as i know the spouses are listed in the box on the top right, but the name that they are known for is what stays. There are also barely any pages called Kareena Kapoor Khan???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.246.149 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

she is now officially Kareena Kapoor Khan and is even credited in films with the surname Khan. Mahak01 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Image

Which image should we have in the infobox: File:Kareena VithU launch.jpg or File:Kareena Kapoor in 2015.jpg. I am fine with both ones, but I think the latter is newer. -- Frankie talk 19:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Bollywood" still acceptable?

Jee. To me Bollywood is a derogative word. Didn't know it is still 'neutral' on enwiki. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the main article is still titled as such the term does not appear to be considered a neutrality issue.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
What does Kareena Kapoor think? -DePiep (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Who the fuck cares? It's the most recognisable term for Hindi cinema to En speakers. Get over it, no neutrality issue here. 86.135.158.125 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The expletive sort of proves my point. British culture viewpoint is not encyclopedic. -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Its called Bollywood in Indian English too. 2.110.98.101 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
"... English"? How convincing. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
In which country do you think Indian English is an official languages? 2.110.98.101 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is out of scope. Since the article on Hindi cinema is titled Bollywood, that's a reasonable term to use in the intro here—especially since we link to the article. This is not the place to discuss changes to that article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
My claim is within scope. (the only escapes I read were a curse and a 'wiki says it so it is OK'). -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
So far the only closest thing to evidence provided to change the term is the personal opinion of one person rargaring the offensiveness of the term. The term is not going to be changed on that basis. A better idea would be to demonstrate evidence form reliable sources that the term has fallen out of favour.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
"So far only one ..." plusvs all "keep" voices that can only rely on English sources. (English by language & culture). That's the issue. -DePiep (talk)
The English Wikipedia does rely on English sources since it is for an English language readership. Assuming I am reading the last post correctly are you suggesting that we ignore English language sources for sources from the country or origin and if so are you suggesting that Germany be retitled Deutschland since German sources use that name.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

To me Bollywood is a derogative word., @DePiep: I am not sure what gave you that idea. While there are certainly members of Indian parallel cinema who would consider being called "Bollywood stars" an insult, that is no different from an art film purist who looks down upon popular "Hollywood" entertainment. Except for such exceptions, Bollywood is no more derogatory than Hollywood and associating Kareena Kapoor with Bollywood is as non-controversial as associating Tom hanks with Hollywood.

And this is true not only for English language sources, but also sources in Indian languages. Here are news article on Kareena Kapoor and Bollywood in Hindi and बॉलीवुड is the third word in Hindi Wikipedia's article on the actress; the first two being her name. Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not replying to everything, but. You say "members of Indian parallel cinema who would consider being called "Bollywood stars" an insult": No, that is beside the issue. I state the the word "Bollywood" itself is negative. Not about derived forms or usage or opinion. Invention of the word itself is weird. So far, only English-culture based couterarguments have been mentioned here. Even at Mainpage talk: The Times of India (how London is that?), and The Hindu (that even has its title image inspired/stolen by/from The [London] Times). I want to say: being an encyclopedia, we should be careful not to present single-culture viewpoint only. That single-culture being eng-us here. -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Times of India is an Indian newspaper owned by the Sahu Jain Family. Its written in INDIAN English. Somebody suggested in your previous discusssion at the main page - give us some links which says Bollywood is a derogative word 2.110.98.101 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You say ownership of a newspaper is cultural or encyclopedic proof or so? -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
NO, I say its written in Indian English and its written for Indian people in India. Btw. give som external links which says the word is derogative. 2.110.98.101 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
"its written in Indian English and its written for Indian people in India" - well, how is that encyclopedic? "The Sun" in UK is written by & for British people &tc. &tc., and has tits on page three every day (I am told). And stop asking me for proofs: for RS, everyone can provide those. Even you. -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photograph

The current one isn't suitable for to be the first picture in the article. Not sure why it is even in the commons. Perhaps this one, which at least Kapoor isn't looking awkward like the other one.Filpro (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

muhammad imran dhangal araiyan Muhammad imran dhangal (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kareena Kapoor. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kareena Kapoor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

188.54.242.28 (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
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. nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

188.54.242.28 (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
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. nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kareena Kapoor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kareena Kapoor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Dance India Dance

Kareena's presence as a judge on Dance India Dance (the entire season) has been confirmed. Should this be added to other work or into the main section on her career?Mahak01 (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

M/F swap

@BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ: I don't understand a small portion of this edit, very specifically the change of Kapoor's parents from Mother and Father order to Father and Mother order. Naturally I don't want to ascribe any questionable motivation to what I'm sure was a good-faith edit, but I'm curious what the justification for this would be, as I've seen this a lot over many articles, and it tends to look like unconscious gender bias to me. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies @Cyphoidbomb:, but I had just reverted to the last proper version. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 23:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Add Category

Hello, could someone please add the newly-created Category:Welham Girls' School alumni to the article? Thank you. FlipsCarter (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@FlipsCarter:  Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you! FlipsCarter (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Please replace the words Bombay with Mumbai . Bombay name no longer exists Raghav Thakar (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. But it did at the time; the first mention even clarifies this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Raghav Thakar: A person can't be born in a place that didn't exist at the time they were born. That should be common knowledge. Saddam Hussein wasn't born in Mesopotamia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kareena_Kapoor_Khan/Archive_4&oldid=1231481688"