# Talk:Vicky Kaushal

Meryam90 Would you explain why you reverted me here? There is no reason why films like Manmarziyan/Love per sq ft, which literally have two lines of text in the body, need to be mentioned thrice - once in the lead, once in body and once in filmography. hemantha (brief) 03:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I respect your point of view but the edit you have made has completely cut the lead by half and deleted several informations that were mention worthy: informations that were approved on the lead section during the GA review itself. You took it from three paragraphs to one and completely undermined previews edits/work, that was not acceptable.
Making improvements is welcomed but completely deleting major points that are valid like education/forbes rankings, that was for me an impulsive edit on your part. So I reverted to the previous version and as you can see I totally agree to the rest of changes you made to the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 2022-01-30T03:32:35 (UTC)

Meryam90, To clarify, I did not remove any information in that edit; they are all still in the body text. I've reverted you since you seem to have misunderstood that edit.
Coming to the issue, I am questioning why things like schooling, supporting roles etc need to be mentioned in the lead. As you can see, the GA approved version had a lead of two paragraphs, half the length before my edit (GA version itself had too many unnecessary details). What is the necessity of mentioning some minor films thrice in the article?  hemantha (brief) 05:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
please refrain from reverting back for now till this discussion is resolved. A bit of restrain a maturity would be appreciated here. Ok?
As for you understanding of my explanation, I said you have shortened the lead TOO MUCH and it is no longer a representation of the body of the article. Because you don't see the point of why some tings are mentioned is not enough reason to take them out. And like you said, the GA version had a substantial lead paragraphs, contrary to the bleak version you have left after your edit. And his career has expanded since so more info have been added. If you have a look at most autobiographies especially those of Featured and good articles of Bollywood actors, mentioning all those notable achievements is a recurrence. Absolutely nothing odd about it. 
if you have removed the names of the films you have an issue with, sure no problem, but you went on an accessible trim that completely undermined the lead section. If you want us to work on it to see where we can agree on the parts that need to be removed, I am more than happy to do so, but the length and quality of the version of your edit is not suitable for the quality of the article or the subject matter at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 2022-01-30T05:32:37 (UTC)

Instead of subjective notions of "undermining", "bleak" etc, can you answer a specific question - why should schooling, support roles be mentioned twice or thrice in an encyclopaedic article? Please don't say look at other articles (GA can and is known to be gamed); but do point to a single FA that mentions an award twice in lead and again twice in body. Lead is supposed to be a summary, not a total repeat of the body. hemantha (brief) 05:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

the lead section is a summary to the whole article. Where has the education or Forbes or his movies contribution been mentioned thrice? All those points have been mentioned in their respective sections and summarized in the lead as per wiki policies. Are you suggesting that what is mentioned in the article cannot be in the body? lol. I am not new here, I've been editing wikipedia since 2010. I am well aware of the editing policies for bios. 
One example comes to mind: Priyanka Chopra (and mind you, her aspiration for an education has been mentioned not even the actual degree she obtained) . So again, I don't understand why you see the need to shorten the lead section so miserably based on your subjective POV. All points that have been mentioned in the lead are the BIG highlights of the career of the actor so far.
Also, GA are what? gamed? we are into conspiracy theories now? if you have so little faith in the integrity of wikipedia and its processes...then, excuse me but I STRONLY disagree with that statement of yours as well...an other example of you undermining yet something else wikipedia related.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 

Please sign your statements. How about the following then?

Specific awards are mentioned. I don't think IIFA/Screen awards are prominent enough to be in lead. There's absolutely no need to mention Manmarziyaan and Love per Sq Ft. Celebrity endorsements are so common that even body text need not have that line. hemantha (brief) 07:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Just add the bit about him being married to Katrina Kaif and we're good to go I say.  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 07:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I respect this process of opening a discussion for collaboration instead of whose version of the section is right. I agree with your comment regarding the awards and also the endorsements and I made the appropriate edits. for love per, it is considered a stepping stone for Bollywood's entry into the OTT world hence the worthiness of the mention. for Manmarziyaan I don't care much about it it was added to round up the reasoning why 2018 was a breakthrough year for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 

Here, I have reworked it a little bit:

Vicky Kaushal (pronounced [ˈʋɪkːi ˈkɔːʃəl]; born 16 May 1988) is an Indian actor who works in Hindi films. He is the recipient of a National Film Award and a Filmfare Award, and is married to actress Katrina Kaif.
After graduating with an engineering degree, Kaushal assisted Anurag Kashyap in the 2012 crime drama Gangs of Wasseypur and went on to play minor roles in two of Kashyap's productions. His first leading role was in the 2015 drama Masaan. He rose to prominence in 2018 with supporting roles in Raazi and Sanju, two of the highest-grossing Hindi films of the year. For the latter, he won the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor.
A starring role as a military officer in the 2019 action war film Uri: The Surgical Strike established him as a leading Bollywood actor. He won the National Film Award for Best Actor for his role. His portrayal of Udham Singh in Shoojit Sircar's 2021 biopic Sardar Udham won widespread praise.

Kaushal has also appeared in Forbes India's Celebrity 100 list of 2019 and was featured in their 30 Under 30 list of 2018.
 Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 07:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

lol I am sorry but why mention his marriage first? it isn't related to his work and career which should be taking centre stage and also, his Forbes wins are really necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 

Yep, KyloRen3 that's much better. hemantha (brief) 07:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Meryam90, the marriage is mentioned in the first paragraph, after the awards. I think that suffices. The first line should accurately summarise both his life and career since it appears on Google search. And I'm not too sure about the Forbes wins since they're usually just promotional.  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 08:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, Forbes India, owned by Swarajya (a blacklisted site) is different from WP:FORBES. Forbes lists might merit mention, but not lists from Forbes India. hemantha (brief) 08:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
They're the same site Hemantha. Meryam90, I have updated my proposal for the lead and added Forbes at the bottom, since it is not as significant as the National or Filmfare Awards.  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 09:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No, they aren't the same. See this as well as the page on Forbes India. I was wrong about Swarajya owning it though; Swarajya editor became its chief. For example, Forbes 30 under 30 2018 list doesn't have Kaushal's name at all. That list might be covered under WP:FORBES entry on WP:RSP but Forbes India lists aren't noteworthy at all (even for the body, I think, but won't argue about that now). hemantha (brief) 09:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the lead, leaving Forbes India out for now, as per the points listed by you.  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 09:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


#### Word length inflation is insulting to the subject
Meryam90, please read MOS:LEAD once and then justify this revert. An unsuccessful movie rarely makes someone established, so "commercially and critically successful" (identified as WP:PEACOCK by MOS:INTRO as well) is redundant. How could you say "garnered further widespread praise" (more peacock words) when none of the previous sentences say anything about praise? Your idea of quality seems unnecessarily focused on word length. hemantha (brief) 01:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sardar Udham , Lust Stories and Love per Square feet are direct OTT movies , there was no theatrical release for them , mention the ott platform of these movies in notes Rhea786656 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding information about his parents and his brother sunny Yunik.salvi (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)