Talk:Keerthy Suresh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keerthy Suresh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keerthy Suresh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keerthy suresh marriage[edit]

Keerthy suresh husband sathish r confirmed marriage soon Sathish r 12:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SATHISHR1 (talk • contribs)

@SATHISHR1: If you want us to make a change to the article, it would be helpful if you brought links to reliable sources. All content needs to be sourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June month come Fm speak keerthy suresh and menaka suresh Sathish r 09:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SATHISHR1 (talk • contribs)

Keerthy suresh love marriage what reason me speak interview not interested marriage go keerthy Sathish r 09:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SATHISHR1 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019[edit]

Change of Sarkar[1] to Sarkar (2018 film)[2]. UltaPultaNtN (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official link[edit]

Rohit271997 (and his IPs) have been trying to change her official link. On her verified Facebook, she lists the current one as official. The site that the editor is changing it to is obviously not her official site. Oddly enough, at the bottom of the fake official page, links to the "Times of Media" can be found, which is the same site that Rohit271997 has been trying to plug on Wikipedia... Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 19:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apparition11: I agree that the site her verified social media outlet points to should be the one considered "official" until they make a change. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it continues, maybe have it added to the User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList or WP:SBL. Ravensfire (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keerthy Suresh, roles and awards[edit]

Hi! Can I create Keerthy Suresh, roles and awards Eswnav (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any clear justification for this. The entire article is under 31 kilobytes, so there would be no justification based on information density. See WP:SIZERULE. And just to have article sprawl for the sake of having sprawl doesn't seem useful. In contrast, Amitabh Bachchan has a wall of information about his life and history, so it's not surprising to see Amitabh Bachchan filmography, which has a couple hundred roles listed, vs. Suresh's 30 or whatever the number is. And I see looking at the history of that spin-out article, that Þjarkur seems to agree. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient context about Suresh's refusal to do "glamourous roles".[edit]

Re: this content, which was also submitted here and here, there is insufficient context for readers unfamiliar with Suresh to understand why we're talking about her refusal to do "glamourous roles". For instance, what is meant by "glamourous roles"? Do we mean roles where she wears makeup? Roles where she wears diamonds and fancy gowns? Roles where she wears skimpy clothing? "Glamourous" can mean different things to different people. Why does she refuse to do these roles? How has this refusal impacted her work, her ability to work, and her public image? When we fail to consider the Five Ws and provide sufficient context, we're left with vague content that doesn't impart any real information. Further, this likely doesn't belong in the lede, since there's no indication that she is chiefly notable for refusing to do glamourous roles, and the context that is currently missing would be more aptly presented in the article's body. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what does the term 'erotic roles' mean? Does it mean wearing skimpy clothes? Or does it mean doing sex scenes? Or is it none of the aforementioned but the roles having only raunchy dialogues?
Does any actress'page ,having this word 'erotic' ,make such meaningful distinction and give a precise impression of what it means in that context?
Do you think it is necessary to even make such distinction?
Glamorous role is an Indianism word for roles involving anything that may remotely qualify as 'sexual'. And here word 'sexual' has meanings that vary culturally. You can't exactly pin down on one interpretation.In that case itt is fair to assume that reader has enough context to interpret in the intended way.
I don't think it requires an explanation if the cited articles does it sufficiently. She is an Indian actress and it is unavoidable to use Indian cinematic lingo. I think it is fair to assume the reader will have sufficient context to read about Indian actress or at least will make their own pursuit to read about the colloquialism they are not familiarised with.
As far as the public image is concerned, what do you expect? People see her as an actress who doesn't do certain roles. That's it. It is self-evident.How does it affect her work? Same way it affects any other actors who restrict their scope of acting. They don't get featured in movies that require them to do the roles they don't want to do.
All of the reasons you have mentioned are pedantic and ridiculously overstretched.They don't even deserve rebuttals but I am charitable enough to do it. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much qualified to make it into the lede unless it is proven to be false. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, not the Indian colloquialism Wikipedia, so we should use phrasing that is understood globally, to reach the broadest audience, and "glamourous roles" is ambiguous. Sorry if you don't see that, but if an English speaker, including myself, doesn't understand what it is supposed to mean, then the content is ambiguous and should be improved. I'm not responding to the "erotic roles" argument as it is not relevant here or to me personally since I did not add any of it. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely an acceptable defense to keep poorly-worded content. Further, as noted, providing a sentence without context is of absolutely no value, since the entire purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarise key aspects of a topic, and the lede is intended to summarise content found elsewhere in the article, not to be the entire repository of that content. Neither do we add incomplete information to articles on the expectation that a reader is going to follow-up and get the whole story from the references. Note also that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so "unless it is proven to be false" isn't the sole legitimate rationale for removal. Incoherence, irrelevance and many other factors could be fine justifications. One other reason I find the content problematic, is because without sufficient context, the content reads as "virtue signalling", i.e. that we are making a promotional statement about the subject's moral stance. Part of what a neutral encyclopedia would attempt to do is provide academic context and balance so the information doesn't read solely as a wide-eyed celebration of her shining virtuosity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indian colloquialism exists as there are no equivalent standard English terms which have identical meanings. The subject is an Indian actress. You cannot go to a physics page and expect editors not to use scientific jargon and ask them to use words that can be understood by "broader audience". I can try addi g a link to a wiki page 'Glamor' if you insist.
None of your other arguments warrants your unfair edits.
I am not doing any virtual signalling here. It is not that I am talking about the subject's sex life but her conscious avoidance to do certain types of role. And how does that not qualify as an informative piece? How does it not give a uninitiated reader as to what type of roles the actress generally prefers to act in? How does it not pertain to her acting?
I am still not sure how do you want to contextualise it.
None of the references you have made is applicable here as I believe I did not violate any Wiki policy. It is your personal interpretation and you are entitled to interpret as you want. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are a fairly new editor please listen to more experienced editors while you find your way here. You can't add anything backed by sources here, see WP:ONUS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. SUN EYE 1 06:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further you had misrepresented the sources, the source says According to Telugu media, Keerthy Suresh is not getting films like the actresses, who are part of one or two successful films, simply because her reluctance to do skin show in films. Tollywood is known for presenting female leads in glamorous avatars and the 27-year old is unwilling to don skimpy outfits like her peers. while you wrote She is one of the few actresses in South Indian film who refuses to act in glamourous roles. Please see WP:OR. SUN EYE 1 06:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To say that "there are no equivalent standard English terms" is patently myopic. What, you can't figure out a way to say "Suresh is one of the few South Indian actresses who does not accept roles where her character is required to wear skimpy outfits"? You seriously think there is no way to communicate that, and that's why you were doubling-down on the perfection of your ambiguous phrasing? Ridiculous. I still think it's not lede-worthy and should be accompanied by further context, like that it has affected her marketability, as roles she may have qualified for have been offered to other actors.
But more importantly, I'm also not clear about the quality of this information. IBT seems to be summarising content they found at vaguely attributed "Telugu media" outlets. If they're just summarising gossip being spread at Filmibeat and IWMBuzz, then this information would not be suitable for inclusion. Filmibeat calls it grapevine chatter (gossip) and Wikipedia is not a gossip rag and adding gossip would be a policy violation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"What, you can't figure out a way to say "Suresh is one of the few South Indian actresses who does not accept roles where her character is required to wear skimpy outfits""-except that it is not.Merely not wearing skimpy outfits wouldn't make a role less "glamorous" if the character exhibits stereotypes of a "vamp"(again, what Indian audience considers sexual may not be so for a different demography). As I said earlier, using Indian cinema parlance should be fine as long as it is pertinent to Indian cinema artists. If it is totally fine to use scientific jargons in scientific articles, I don't see why it has to be problematic to use Indian cinematic lingo for Indian artists. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, unless of course there is a middle ground. In this case, there is none as cinema of a particular culture may have some peculiar subtexts,and tropes of plot and roles which are embedded in that culture and not necessarily be universally resonant.I can't dumb it down any further than this if you are still too adamant to wield your authority and edit disruptively to pander to your own biases. I am new here and I do not know how to report an admin who is constantly abusing their power. Otherwise, I would report you and have your admin power revoked. Please, exercise some control over your whims and think rationally. It won't hurt.It is perfectly fine to include typecast of an actor in lede as many other articles do and it is also concordant with Wiki guidelines! If not lede, then where? "How does it affect her marketability?"-Shouldn't it be self-explanatory? It will affect the same way it affects an actor who regularly features in a comedy role. People would start associating an actor with stereotypes of the roles they regularly play and that might make it difficult for the actor to find a role that doesn't fit the bill. There is no hard and fast rule as to what an actress page's lede should entail unless the info is not germane to her professional career.If the article provided as source looks dubious to you,ask for a better citation. Do not come up with puerile excuses to buttress your disruptive editing. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you had added in the lead was out of context and as Cyphoidbomb pointed out above it is a gossip and would violate WP:NOTGOSSIP. If it should be in the page, it must not belong to the lead but somewhere in the personal life section if she has said it personally. You are also making personal attacks WP:NPA here.
Cyphoidbomb is not editing disruptively and is not abusing their power and even if you report them you would probably get yourself blocked per WP:BOOMERANG.
There is no hard and fast rule as to what an actress page's lede should entail unless the info is not germane to her professional career. The lead summarizes the article's body, see MOS:LEAD.
You know you are new here and you sure are not well versed in wiki policies. It took me months to even figure out the basic policies. I already asked you to listen to more experienced editors since you are a new user. This WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is only leading yourself for a sanction or a block. Please stop this. SUN EYE 1 16:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing about the poor, ambiguous phrasing you chose is moot if the content is gossip. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cyphoidbomb,It is not gossip as the subject herself confirms her reluctance to act in glamorous role. Do give the following article a read.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/tamil/2016/oct/12/glamorous-roles-are-beyond-my-comfort-zone-1527058.amp
Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent your comments per talk page norms. This makes it easier to see who said what, and to whom they were speaking. See WP:TPG#Non-compliance. I have fixed this for you. As for Suresh, reluctance ≠ refusal. What we know from that interview is that in 2016 she said that she didn't envision herself doing roles that require her to wear skimpy outfits. It doesn't say that she has refused these roles in the past or that she absolutely would in the future. It also doesn't say whether she has been offered such roles. In order for someone to refuse something, it would seem like there would first have to be an offer. And, even if she had said "I turned down skimpy Role A and skimpy Role B", I'd still think it important to explain why. Is it because she personally feels uncomfortable showing her body on screen, or standing around in a skimpy outfit in a studio being leered at by men? Or is it a philosophical objection, i.e. that she doesn't think women should be objectified? Or that actresses shouldn't have to show their bodies to get a job? Context, as previously noted, is important. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keerthy_Suresh&oldid=1210590552"