# Talk:In My City

The article has been created since reliable third party sources like NME magazine has confirmed that the song has gone for commercial release in iTunes music stores. Hence commercial viability is a testament of it being a single. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not every single should get a Wikipedia space. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
When it passes WP:NSONGS, yes it will. Both songs/singles can have their own articles and when passes third party notability with its commercial release, promotion etc. then it is fine to have an article. Plus added being that the subject/artist itself is of high notability. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it meets "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The clause does say that "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", but we don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your point mentioned above regarding charts, although in hindsight, its released to iTunes, its gonna chart somewhere soon enough. I'm not crystal gazing, but its gonna do it anyway. What do you suggest should we incubate it? We have another problem of somebody from Chopra's record management editing this article, so it will get on created every time. Suggest whatever you have in your mind. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh and WP:109PAPERS does not apply here. The third party sources are indeed varied I see. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Redirect was good enough. Chopra's own article covers the song in necessary details. Even if it ranks top in "Best In My City song and sung by Priyanka Chopra", that can also be included in her biography. What ever happens to the song, there is no way that it won't be mentioned on the main article. Then why duplicate it? To solve promotional problems, the redirect can be permanantly locked, other similar redirects can be deleted and salted. There would be other charms and curses that admins know. By the 109PAPERS i meant that not everything that gets covered is worth keeping here. I couldn't find any better essay. Do you know one? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, except that when information overflows regarding the article, we have to have a separate article. Singles usually have their own article if it gets other notability like music video, chart performance, live performance by Chopra etc. Tell you what, since the song was released to iTunes, let's wait 2-3 days to see if it really charts (per NSONGS), then we can keep it, else I will redirect it. Sounds good? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Fine! Lets wait. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 02:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

For Them who are against the article ,I want to say that the single had charted,it even topped national charts like nokia(problem is iTunes is not available. In India). morever ,it had charted #89 to #80 and later to #71.go and check ITunes top 100 pop songs.Chopra is also shooting official music video browse you will get the news.following are links which shows that the song had charted

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-09-21/news/34002270_1_universal-music-india-priyanka-chopra-debut
http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/priyanka-chopra-in-the-top-80-on-itunes/&sa=U&ei=qYB1UMmjA4jsrAey4IEo&ved=0CBoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHaVzeoUI5Uz0ZahVKX6GYrmzARxA

http://ipad89.com/entertainment/priyanka-chopra%25E2%2580%2599s-in-my-city-is-available-on-itunes-1-29-ranked-in-100-songs.html&sa=U&ei=qYB1UMmjA4jsrAey4IEo&ved=0CB0QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNEQHFiB3-E63quag50aZQObGPQkMg
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DQOdKzr71uCU&sa=U&ei=qYB1UMmjA4jsrAey4IEo&ved=0CCwQtwIwBg&usg=AFQjCNGYtQBN9IxAtQiryU9xp5x8LTSb1A
Even Chopra had posted on her twitter account which contains charts photos
Link http://twitter.com/teampriyanka/status/253184317524697088&sa=U&ei=qYB1UMmjA4jsrAey4IEo&ved=0CCAQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFilkL4ZUJzBU8E31ZkUTMBKA_mlA

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/person/priyanka-chopra-priyanka-chopra-in-the-top-80-on-itunes-video-QOdKzr71uCU-9883-1.html&sa=U&ei=qYB1UMmjA4jsrAey4IEo&ved=0CCYQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNFQGmQBY56nbBrCQNI80oIxwp8K9A
http://buzzcinemas.com/2012/10/02/priyanka-chopras-album-in-my-city-ranked-in-top-100-itunes-songs/.html&sa=U&ei=qYB1UMmjA4jsrAey4IEo&ved=0CCkQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNFmIfW2U0-EWVnux8FpWJGkOXSvmg

iTunes is not a valid chart per WP:BADCHARTS. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So the policy is to delete the article when it does not meet notability criteria,GO AND OPEN KATY PERRY album article KATY HUDSON and on her article it is clearly written "HER ALBUM KATY HUDON FAILED TO CHART" still her article is not deleted and a single which has charted few positions can't have one(Pks1142 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

Katy Hudson received enough third [arty notability because of Katy Perry herself being a world-renowned singer. PC as a singer is not established at all. Stop trying to make mountains out of mole-hills. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, there are some potential problems with the contents being added by Pks1142. Continuously adding content not supported by sources does not lead to a verifiable article. Sources which are dubious like Digital Spy etc are not exactly reliable, also adding content which are WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NPOV violation and WP:WAX. So those should be removed. Share your thoughts. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For your kind information Digital Spy is a very reliable source ok,check famous films article they use reviews from Digital Spy as reference.(Pks1142 (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
Well Digital Spy is very famous website and reliable sorce and for your kind information the other sources include Hindustan Times,India Today,The Asian Age,Bollywoodlife,Times of India,iTunes,Billboard,Nokia,Universal Music,Artist Direct,Celebuzz,Spin,Desihits, Radio and Music,Economic Times,DNA all are reliable,you can't point out finger towards my addition to the article,as I had added according to reliable sources.(Pks1142 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
Please I can't give you more details andinfos about reliability,I'm dying.Pls let bury our problems and lets be friends.What's say.(Pks1142 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
If I may interject, it would probably help for you to list here the specific information you'd like to include, and the sources you would use to verify it. There are a number of statements and sources involved, and a simple list would make it easier to discuss them. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but you can check all sources given by me are reliable,he's saying digital spy is not reliable.but you can check(Pks1142 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
Actually, DigitalSpy is not a reliable source; DS rehashes stories from other sites on the Internet. Your whole list of "sources" is ridiculous; BollywoodLife is a gossip blog, Hindustan Times is another unreliable website and I wouldn't count on the Asian Age either. 74.89.4.215 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)HUH
Nobody said you add unreliable sources. You basically add content without backing it up with your sources. I have explained you before also that it is the onus of the author to add sources, not for the reader to find them. A Digital Spy is only preferable when no other sources is found regarding the matter being discussed. It is dubious, not wholly unreliable. Makes sense? The problem at hand is your continuous violation of crystal ball content and non-neutral point of view, glorifying Chopra like a fancruft would exactly do. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Ya I understand,don't worry.I am sorry for my edits.Ok,now it occurred bcoz ,I add my lines and then I saved without sources.after that I added sourced which is quite bad.Ok now I'm understanding the rules of Wikipedia slowly.thanks I'll work on that.(Pks1142 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC))

Material not supported by the sources claimed
Release history
1. India September 14, 2012 Digital download
Claimed source: Singh, Prashant (2012-09-08). "Priyanka Chopra to release debut song for Indian fans first". Hindustan Times (HT Media Ltd). Retrieved 2012-09-14.
Problems
Digital download is not mentioned in the article
Source states, "The release of the full song and accompanying video for "In My City" are expected later this year."
Source states, "Chopra will be the featured artist for Thursday Night Kickoff which begins Sept. 13" - This is not a 'release' but a 'licensing deal' to be used for a TV show. 'Release' means being available to purchase.
2. India September 14, 2012 CD single
Claimed source: Raghavendra, Nandini (2012-09-12). "Priyanka Chopra releases single 'In my City', trends to number one position on Twitter". The Economic Times (The Times Group). Retrieved 2012-10-11.
Problems
Article is dated Sept 13
CD single is not mentioned in the article.
"Universal Music releases the single tommorrow for sales in India while Nokia India will provide exclusive downloads and Blenders Pride has chosen the song to be a key feature in their upcoming multi city tours." - The Universal Music portion seems good at first, the others are more of a 'promotional use'. But even the Universal so-called here 'release' must just be a portion of the song as later statement shows "Although the full song and video for 'In My City' are expected to be ready later in the year...".
3. Restore an ACTUAL release source for US (iTunes). A REAL release source SHOWING DATE available for purchase (release date) is better than any other that just says it is being sold.
That last comment brings me to my MOST concern regarding releases in India. Since it now in the past, why can't there be ACTUAL DIRECT sources shown (with the dates available).—Iknow23 (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts in pointing these out but there are references in the article clearly pointing out the release of the song to physical and digital retailers. Added to it are other references which, since you are into Semantics, talks about the single being "released", like Zimbio too, though I felt no need to add it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank You.  The Tribune and Zimbio sources are clearly stated. The prior two are confusing as they state that the full song was not released. So what were they saying was released? To me anyway it meant they were saying it was a 'snippet' or 'preview' of what was yet to come. Perhaps they meant ONLY to say that the 'full video' will be out later in the year, (not the full song also) but they didn't say it that way? And yes, wikipedia is about semantics aka verifiable information. A source not stating for instance CD single cannot be used to reference such material.
Are you two serious? Zimbio is NOT a source. It's a site where anyone can post articles up. The person you're responding to was correct. The full song was NOT released for sale that day. 06:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Huh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.4.215 (talk) 
Also can't a REAL release source showing release date be used, since it has already occurred?...for example the US iTunes? DIRECT actual release source is better than news reports of such, as release dates are frequently pushed back or even totally cancelled. News reports say it happens (or will happen) but that still doesn't make it so.  The US ACTUAL RELEASE source is like them standing there waving a flag saying, "Yes, we sell it and did so starting on xx date."  No better source than that.—Iknow23 (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
You won't believe how shitty the Indian Music Industry portals are. Songs and albums get certified but have no proof in the actual website. That's the main problem since India does not have an official song chart. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear it is so bad about sales sources and charting.—Iknow23 (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI for anyone not knowing this, please don't add references to the lead section of the article, when the same info is reliably sourced in the article body, as per WP:LEAD. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The above user just removed a whole chunk of edits from the article, giving reasons as "not needed". Well simply "not needed because they are present in body/another article" is simply not a reason for removing content. Please see WP:WAX. The contents removed were all verifiable by third party reliable sources and present the basic flow and the chronology of the events taking place related to this song, which is released recently. As time goes and more information is available, the present info will also change. Pre-emptive action based on WP:CRYSTAL is not appreciated here. User:Pks1142, state your reasonings here and reach a WP:CONSENSUS. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My explanation is that ,I was just toning it down as it doesn't need that much infos.The whole contract info was present in both introduction and background.What is the need of her album details in single writing????.No need of commercial views in commercial reception??? Pls read all featured article of songs and edit according to that.
Hello the question wanna ask to IndianBio is that why you were demanding references to each line for my edits.you were asking ref in introduction,but you don't give that,who said ref is not needed in introduction,only ref are not required in infobox .Single ladies article is an example.(Pks1142 (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
Please follow indentation while writing. Now firstly, stop using "Single Ladies" as an example, there is no hard and fast rule in wikipedia per WP:WAX and each and every article is different. There are tons of other FA song articles like "Rehab", "Imagine", "4 Minutes" etc which follow different structures. Per WP:LEAD which I have stated above, "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.  The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." So you see, neither there is challengable information and nor there are repeated references in the lead.
Regarding commercial views, if a video or a release receives enough third party notability in terms of its commercial views, like those on YouTube etc, they are worth mentioning, not stating WAX but see videos like "Gangnam Style", "Friday" etc.
Secondly, why I have asked you to add references? Are you serious? Each and every edit you do, you don't add reference and then claim that you forgot. If a content is not sourced in the article body and present in the lead, then it needs to be sourced there, as is the case with "Single Ladies", where only quotations and challengable material like the total sales have been sourced.
And I hope these clear your understanding. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Whatever you do, work it out.  I've closed the ANI discussion as no intervention by admin is needed.  If you can't work out a compromise, then you need to take it to WP:DRN, not WP:ANI.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with IndianBio that the removal wasn't appropriate. This looks fair enough revert to me since large amount of content was removed without any consensus. The argument that 47 refs for 41K bytes doesn't weight as far as the content is sourced and encyclopedic. I would certainly go against the removal and support IB here. Yes, the grammar might be a bit off at places but it is nowhere near a disaster; I'd c/e in future. As far as the argument rests that what is the need of such info? Refer to articles like You belong with me- They certainly have good amount of info. I'vent dug in more. I won't comment if this article has "irrelevant" content or not as I'vent read the article still but just seen what was reverted (which according to me needs to be mentioned). TheSpecialUser TSU 17:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd also agree that the article certainly has just a bit more off-topic things which were removed and restored and should be removed. TheSpecialUser TSU 17:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ya I was saying the same thing,In fact I also edited some unwanted portions but IB reverted without looking to it.I also gave explanation with my every edit but he reverted them all.I think It should be better to tone down unwanted portions.(Pks1142 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
I'm willing to have a consensus on matters pointed out keeping in mind Wiki rules and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And only if these idiotic ANI complains and dick-like behavior stops. I think a serious case of WP:COMPETENCE is at stake. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of "Erase" as a next single, which was added by Pks1142. As per the link provided, no where it says that "Erase" is the next single from Chopra. Its just a song recorded with The Chainsmokers, and is being released to iTunes. Might be even promotional. This is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I found this reference from Bollywoodlife.com, which kind of calls "Erase" a single. I'm still on the bench about this, so would like input from others. Bollywoodlife.com does not seem a very reliable info. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
How about we just call "Erase" a song for now. If and when its officially released as a single, then we can call it a single. But for now its just one of her songs at this point. Caden cool 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what I felt. Thanks Caden. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Per Express India, "Erase" is still not positioned as Chopra's second single. I agree with them since there is still no Radio adds, or official word of it from labels etc. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Does mixed reviews mean 4 negative and 1 positive????? I don't know if he is criticizing the song or applauding it.It gets bad impression from reception which says only negative things for songs.Positive for chopra's vocals suits for Chopra article.Fake accent??? Well Does it is Indian song

No
Its an English made with American accent In mind.How editor knows its fake,well had she ever seen her speaking.What reviews  has to to do Indian lyrics ,does it need to be included in English song.Is there any rule that every artist from respective country must use their native language.It doesn't make sense though.(Pks1142 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

I have stated countless times, your views on the song does not hold a candle. Critics and reviewers' analysis of the song is presented and they are more knowledgable than you. It is also the representation of third party reliable sources that make it notable and verifiable. And everything is presented in a neutral point of view, concept which is hard for you to grasp I see. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok but what this mean "However, the reviewer wondered if Chopra would include more Indian lyrics and music in her follow-up singles".This doesn't. Have to do with review.Its reviews choice they can talk about anything,can crack jokes in between the reviews but I doesn't mean that those jokes will be included in the reviews.I corrected your Globalpost wrong inclusion.I just want to say that a review of 1 page,we can't include everything.ok....
We should include overall thought for the song Your recent edit which says Its success will be based on promotional campaigns doesn't make sense as A song becomes hit only depend on listener.its has bad impression .(Pks1142 (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

You are right about the quoted part, hence I did not revert it. See, this is how you should discuss and come to consensus. Not remove and then revert. A review of one page, even from a reputed publisher is acceptable. And the fact about "promo campaign" is not my thoughts. Its the reviewer's thoughts about how the song is being handled. This "has" every right to be here. You seem to think that any negative review is not acceptable. I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
well I had added neutrality template to the reception.We should discuss through neutral point of view.First of all ,the Global post source is not review.(Pks1142 (talk))  —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Says who? You? I cannot accept that. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
If you don't accept.How can you expect the same from me.?? (Pks1142 (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC))
Because I am writing what reviewers have said, not trying to push my agenda in the article. Remember, Wikipedia does not include truth, only content "verified by third party reliable sources". If enough third party reliable sources say that Jesus was born in Uzbekistan, Wikipedia will report it as so. Your opinion and my opinion does not matter. Its the critic's opinion. What matters for us is whether what we add are from reliable sources or not. And you have stated in countless places that I have added unreliable info. Care to point that out? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Really then why your comments were just opposite on Chopras article talk page,where I suggested some inclusion with reference.Two faced,ok.I know you wanted to be a respectful Wikipedian but it doesn't mean you do of your own.Well do what you have to.Ill continue wditing when I'll see something again like globalpost.(Pks1142 (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC))
First of all, I gave valid Wikipedia policies as to why they can't be included. SEcondly, WP:WAX applies here. Don't drag Chopra's bio article here. Thirdly, refrain from the personal attacks, else I will be forced to call for administrative intervention. Fourthly, if you continue reverting I have to report to 3RR when discussion is still going on. So I suggest, you base your arguments on Wikipedia policies and don't ramble on. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Deccan chronicle. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
DNA —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
LA Times  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.177.144 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok let's discuss.(Pks1142 (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

I'm not willing to discuss untill you revert your changes and reach a consensus. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Look at that edit which was saying history of promotions.That is not needs.It only has to do with live promotions.Only live promotions are counted.(Pks1142 (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC))
Again, who said that only live promotions are counted? Where does it say only live promotions? What is your basis for removal? You removed a whole section without discussing, without quoting any Wiki policy, falsely accusing a reliable source and without basic principle of achieving a consensus. As I said, I'm not discussing anything more with you, unless you revert your changes and state your reasonings based on policies. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I mean to say it doesn't matter who said what,who planned what,history behind someone's thought to transform an artist as respected artist.Soneones suggestion or predictions doesn't. Count as promotions.(Pks1142 (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC))
What do you mean who? The article clearly states that the promotional campaigns are thought by her music label. And labels only decide about promotions, not the artist. Are you aware of that? You still haven't given me any policy which persuades the para you deleted to be not there. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Take a look ,first it make sense
Seeing that many pop artists use music and reality-based videos to create awareness around their upcoming releases, Chopra's team planned to create different promotional contents, like interviews of the artist, and behind-the-scenes footage with long-and-short documentaries, that would be released to the internet. The videos and interviews would focus on Chopra's journey in becoming a pop artist. Since most of the top ten hits in India are mainly songs from Bollywood films—where the actors lip-synch to the song—Chopra's label wanted to promote her as the first Bollywood actress who can also sing. According to Lee Hawkins from The Wall Street Journal, "If Chopra is able to convincingly establish herself as a respected singer, she will be a pioneer in South Asia. Throughout 2011, Anthony Saleh, one of Carter's partners at Atom Factory Inc., worked closely with Chopra for several weeks. Beyond selling music, the team planned to use Chopra's popularity and tap into ancillary revenue streams such as corporate sponsorships, high-fashion modeling, film and television, concert touring, and music publishing. Saleh added that they also "plan on developing [Chopra] as a songwriter

So where is promotion here.Does it say Chopra performed somewhere.(Pks1142 (talk) 11
46, 16 November 2012 (UTC))
Did you get the gist that the section talks about promotional campaigns? The strategies being placed for promoting "In My City"? Not everything has to do with Chopra performing the song. Please see similar articles on songs and albums from the FA category. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
And the fact that you are blindly unaware that it is an artist's label decides and talks about promotion, makes it all the more weird. You are deleting a perfectly plausible paragraph just because you are not able to see how well it fits with the whole promotional campaign about the song. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Since you are unable to procure any concrete thoughts, I have to ask others to weigh in their thoughts. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article from editing for one week.  This isn't an endorsement of the current version, I just froze it in place the way I found it.  Either work out a compromise here or at WP:DRN, or expect blocks if this keeps getting dragged to ANI, AN, WT:AN, etc. Don't bother addressing me, address each other and either work it out, or walk away.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 19:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't do complain IndianBio did.Also,he wants to be owner of In My City,bcoz nobody complain about me,only he do.He wants to be the owner of article.Ok I'm not gona say anything to anyone nor even I will again edit this article.
So become happy Mr. IndianBio bcoz now it's completely your article.

the user had added video counts as commercial performance and simple articles as reviews.gosh
He was unhappy with my English so I wanna tell him that I did all my edit through my Windows phone.So I can't write like him bcoz typing with a cellphone is tiring.I write in parts on talk pages in short as its kills my fingers writing in details and formatting all links.If you think you are a good writer.....change the world Bio,write novels then....hehe....Indian ho Indian raho...(Pks1142 (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Please discuss before reverting to previous versions. The previous versions were not neutral,too large and had excessive details. The background section was directly copied from Chopra's article from her music career section.The contract details were talking about whole album and not this song in particular.The reviews which were added were either prediction or un neutral.Times of India,Hindustan times sources used for reviews were not reviews.Contract details should be included in album article.pls discuss further(Pks1142 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

We really need a reliable source for this claim.  The one source is dead and the other one defining TP is confusing.  Plenty of sources say 100,000 in a week, but no sources claim 600,000 total sales. BollyJeff | talk 02:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead? This one is opening fine for me though :S I have removed that claim for sales of 600,000 copies since we need reliable info for it. Thanks for pointing this out. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it was dead yesterday, but its back now. BollyJeff | talk 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:Iknow23)
Hello Iknow. Regarding this edit, the reason it was hidden was the song "Erase" is not a next single, that chronology is only for the officially released singles as I can infer from the template document. Hence kept it hidden until reliable third party sources come listing it as such. What do you say? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I re-checked it. The tab is for officially released singles. Not for any release. Sorry that needs to be reverted. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No. It's a single. It is being sold (a release) independently of an album. Price shown $1.99, Release Date 2012-11-19, Label 4AM, Catalog # 00602537250837. She is shown as featured artist (which means something she participated in) in the url, artwork, track list.  Sorry, but I don't see how you can call it 'not a single'?—Iknow23 (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"In My City" is NOT will.i.am's single either. But he is a featured artist on it, just like Chopra is featured on "Erase". So just call them chronology, not "Singles chronology".—Iknow23 (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
My point is that its not an officially released single, which are via the record label, or the artists themselves. And this link states that its not a single release for Chopra. I fail to see your logic frankly. By your comment it seems that anything released to a retailer will be a single. No its not. Any song can be available for download separately, or as a part of an album. Maybe you are confusing with a promotional single? Anyways, the point was how is this a part of the singles chronology when Template:Infobox single clearly indicates the tabs only for official "single" releases? As I said, by your logic "The Edge of Glory" would have been a single, however it was not. It was a promotional release until the label decided to make it an official single. I checked its history, the infobox was changed accordingly. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"Erase" shows a Release date with a Record label and Catalog number. Even the Article subject song ("In My City") source http://www.indiancddvdonline.com/users/full_detail/id:13315/media:1 doesn't show release date and catalog number. Yes, "Erase" is not her single as it is not released by her or in her name by her record company, It is 'The Chainsmokers' single, just like "In My City" is not will.i.am's single. That's why the word 'single' is not in their chronologies, because NOT ALL of the items within are their singles. They have participated in them however, so part of their life or chronology.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You are missing my point again. The tab where the word "Erase" links is NOT for any release. It's onloy for official single releases. I know its not Chopra's single like will.i.am is not to be billed for "In My City", but the fact is that the chronolgy is for official releases, not any flash-in-the-pan release. Again, by this logic of yours, all the releases of any musical artist should be under one chronology, which is clearly not the case. I see this sometimes happening with albums, not with official singles. Infobox albums at least has a provision for it. Infobox single doesnot and it says here: "The chronology section should link to the previous single on the left and the next single on the right. Songs should be ordered based on the first release dates of their official singles." You get the drift. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. Not a 'single'. See [1] Beatport is a DJ source, not a public release.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I was coming here to post exactly that which I found today, but you beat me to the punch. I guess this is a consensus on this issue. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hold the thought. The song is indeed released to iTunes now via Interscope records. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Now that we just agreed that it's not a single, it is! Ok, you found it, you can have the honor of making the appropriate changes.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hehe, already done, sealed and delivered.  —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello guys, I think the time has come to prepare the article for GA. We'll have to be very critical about each and everything written in the article. IndianBio and I had worked for months on this article and now we are ready to take the challenge.Pks1142 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking and preparing it for GA at this moment would be immature since the song still awaits its music video and the promotion to radio in the United States. If it is indeed promoted and the song charts significantly, then much information would be added, making the GA unstable. Hence I would say wait the time out till its music video and promotion ends, then we can start on the GAN work, otherwise this will be a prematured article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I know that but I'm not saying to apply for GA, I mean to say that we should copy edit it and keep updated. I know about its instability. We will take it to GA after it becomes stable. Also radio airplays are going on and the song was sent for airplays way back in October, but irony is that media hadn't reported that.Thanks and don't worry, it will be sent for GA after all work will end.Pks1142 (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's correct that it was sent for radio adds, because it was not listed under CNM in All Access, neither reported by FMQB. SPS spins are not recorded by stations and won't add to the tracks airplay. Mediabase also does not report any airplay tracked for it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It didn't even chart on the Billboard Hot 100! 01:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Huh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.201.211 (talk)  

Text about the album per WP:COATRACK - doesn't belong here but maybe useful elsewhere:
By 2012, Chopra began traveling between India and Los Angeles to work extensively with Interscope to complete the album. She collaborated with artists such as Sam Watters, Matthew Koma, Jay Sean and producer RedOne. The album is currently in the final stages of mixing and production and is scheduled to release in December 2012.
Text seems to be about the album cover artwork, though newzstreet.tv shows the single cover but talks about the album. Go figure!
On 10 September 2012, Chopra released the cover art for the single, through her Twitter account followed by the message, "For ur eyes only...my single cover! Say whaaaaa?" The cover is described as a glamorous close-up of the artist, in her side-profile and having the color scheme of gold and black. A writer for the Hindustan Times felt that the cover art did justice to the genre of the music that Chopra was exploring, and portrayed the "glitz and glamor" associated with that of the image of a popstar. The writer also complimented the choice of using a close-shot portrait for the cover art and felt it would tally with the current international production of Chopra's album. Another writer for NBS News felt that Chopra looked like a diva on the cover and it was "indeed a pleasant departure to see the fashionista Priyanka back in the forefront again, especially after her new look for her upcoming film Barfi where she plays the character of an autistic girl and sports short curly hair." The back cover of the album showed Chopra baring her legs in the image. Art direction and design for the cover was done by Julian Peploe, while the photography was done by Stevie and Mada.
She was the artist for Thursday Night Kickoff which began on 13 September with the 185th meeting between the Chicago Bears and the Green Bay Packers, the most-played rivalry in NFL history.

This review is transcluded from Talk:In My City/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kailash29792 (talk · contribs)
I will be reviewing this within the next 24 hours. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


### Lead
Seems all well, but there is one bare reference in the third para. I don't even think it needs to be there, as this states that the lead section does not need sources.
 Done: Removed.—Prashant 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Although the lead has three paragraphs (which is suitable enough), is it possible to extend the first and third para's? If not, never mind.
 Done: Extended a bit.—Prashant 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"one group complemented Chopra's vocals, while the other group criticised the generic sound of the song." Who are the groups?
 Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


### Critical reception
The majority of reviews, such as Janhvi Patel's review and The Hindu do not contain any quotations by the reviewers. I believe some can be added.
I think its has adequate quotes.—Prashant 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Bollywood Life a reliable source? If yes, then it can stay.
Yes, It is reliable. Its a part of Zee News and DNA.—Prashant 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


### Commercial performance
"In My City" was a commercially successful in India. What grammar is that?
I feel this section needs only a little more minor copyediting.
 Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


### Promotions
Is there any better name for this section? Or is this the best that can be? Or will "Marketing" do?
Are you intending on creating an article on DJ Nash? If not, please remove the link as it is red.
 Done: Removed redlinks and i didn't found a better name as Chopra was promoting. So, i think it fair.—Prashant 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


### Music video
A behind-the-scenes video documenting the making of "In My City" was shown during an NFL game on 13 September 2012. "behind-the-scenes" sounds colloquial, and the term is not in the supporting source. Also, is there any alternative for the term "shown" which sounds juvenile?
The video (directed by Joseph Kahn) was released on 29 January 2013. I'd prefer The video, directed by Joseph Kahn, was released on 29 January 2013.
I would like the term BMW linked, as it refers to a fancy car that is not known to just everyone.
 Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


### Overall
These are the only comments I have. Once they have been resolved, the article can pass. Other minor issues have been taken care of by me. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Final verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Congratulations Prashant! I'm also happy that I could finish this review in less than 24 hours. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on In My City. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102062607/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Priyanka-Chopra-s-singing-debut-releases/Article1-929790.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Priyanka-Chopra-s-singing-debut-releases/Article1-929790.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105043853/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Music/Priyanka-Chopra-the-new-rockstar-in-town/Article1-929342.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Music/Priyanka-Chopra-the-new-rockstar-in-town/Article1-929342.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520220100/http://circlescercles.com/2014/04/priyanka-chopras-new-dance-track-i-cant-make-you-love-me/ to http://circlescercles.com/2014/04/priyanka-chopras-new-dance-track-i-cant-make-you-love-me/
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) 15:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)