Jump to content

Talk:Kajol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKajol has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2012Good article nomineeListed

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

[edit]

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) 04:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early sources from the archives

[edit]

Sections

[edit]

As I said, the idea that she had only two years of what is called here "widespread success" (this should change too) is unimaginably funny. I personally think that from 1999-2001 she was still successful and a big star even if she had flops (like any actor). But anyway 1995 was a big year for her.

I suggest one of the following:

  • Debut and rise to prominence (1992–1996)
  • Widespread success (1997–2001)
  • Comeback and intermittent work (2006–2012)
  • Dilwale and return to Tamil cinema (2015–2019)
  • Tanhaji and Netflix debut (2020–present)

or:

  • Debut and rise to prominence (1992–1994)
  • Widespread success (1995–1998)
  • Comeback and intermittent work (2006–2012)
  • Dilwale and return to Tamil cinema (2015–2019)
  • Tanhaji and Netflix debut (2020–present)

Generally, if we change "Widespread success" to "mainstream success" or "established actress". ShahidTalk2me 10:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first one. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think DDLJ is part of her widespread success and not part of her breakthrough? ShahidTalk2me 14:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about it; you are right. The second one is better. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert reliably sourced edits.

[edit]

Someone has been repeatedly reverting my correct edits, please stop them. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaVictorDelta0107: indiakanoon is not a reliable source. ShahidTalk2me 12:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Indiankanoon isn't inherently RS or non-RS. It is just a database (like Justia or Encyclopedia.com) and as long as the underlying information/retrieval is true there should be no problem in using it. Court records and minutes are extensively used across Wikipedia for satisying WP:LEGALNAME. Though editors should preferably use {{Cite LIIofIndia}}.
I believe I was the one who initially added the legal name here using a database sourcing from Ministry of Corporate Affairs ([1], another database though I think OpenCorporates is also a solid alternative as well [MCA doesn't allow directly citing its database as of now) which should be fine as well.
PS: Though AlphaVictorDelta0107 has been disruptive otherwise at many articles and I have taken this to ANI. Gotitbro (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]