Talk:Alia Bhatt filmography

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Bhatt in 2019

• ... that Alia Bhatt's (pictured) first screen appearance was as the younger version of Preity Zinta's character in Sangharsh? Source: Seventeen years of Sangharsh
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rick and Morty

5x expanded by Krimuk2.0 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Alia Bhatt filmography, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

• General: Article is new enough and long enough Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation QPQ: done. Image is freely licnsed No problems, ready for DYK Nvvchar. 15:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Krimuk2.0 and Nvvchar: hmm, I'm not quite sure this is ready yet. First off, does this really qualify for a standalone article? I've seen filmographies far longer than this that get merged in, and there's nothing in the lead of this article that couldn't be covered at Alia Bhatt. Second, the hook, as it currently stands, is a WP:EGG link, and needs to be reformatted so that people know they're clicking into a sub-article and not Bhatt's article itself. Third, what sets Bhatt apart for appearing in this role? Presumably, it had to be filled by someone, so what makes this unusual? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That holds true for almost all filmography pages, including FL-class ones such as List of Emma Stone performances or Ranbir Kapoor filmography or Bong Joon-ho filmography (which is even shorter than this one). "what sets Bhatt apart for appearing in this role" = is that a criteria for any role any actor plays? Every role needs to be filled by someone. If not one actor, then someone else. But if there's another hook that's more engaging, we can work on that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All right, fair enough, I'm not gonna address what's apparently a systematic flagrant violation of merge policy through this one nomination. But we will need a new hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Krimuk2.0: status report? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  theleekycauldron: Since Krimuk appears to have left the project due to personal matters, I'd be glad to weigh in on the current nomination. I actually think the hook is very good. Preity Zinta is a famous star and it's a little-known fact that Alia Bhatt played her younger version in a film. Moreover, few people might know she actually started her career a a child actor. I think it's quite hooky. To address your WP:EGG concern, we could rewrite it as follows: "... that Alia Bhatt's (pictured) first screen appearance was as the younger version of Preity Zinta's character in Sangharsh"? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shshshsh: It's a neat fact, but I'm not sure it's all that hooky. I mean, someone had to play that role, and it doesn't really do much legwork in terms of inviting people to follow up. When I read the hook, what more do I want to know? I think we need a new hook, or the nomination risks closure without action. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  theleekycauldron: It so happens that Krimuk thinks it's a good hook, and he's already addressed your point about someone having had to play it. Of course someone had to play it, but it doesn't change the fact that she was the one who eventually played it. She is a big star today, and few people know she started her career as a child, that too playing the younger version of another big star. I think the hook is very good, and your point that someone had to play it is not very clear to me. You could say that about every DYK in the world. I also see that Nvvchar found it okay to approve the nomination. I think three editors do like the hook, so if you have further reservations, maybe you want to either a) help this nomination by thinking of another hook yourself; or b) involve another DYK veteran for a fifth opinion. There's no reason to close this nomination anyway, certainly not about something as subjective as a hook. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  theleekycauldron: any update on this? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, on my end, I'm not sure what else I should say – not only do I generally understand star power to be fairly ineffective in terms of hookiness, especially when used rather tangentially (songs written by Kanye West and Taylor Swift regularly flop here at DYK), I also struggle to see how the hook entices me to learn more, even if it is a neat fact that people might not have known. Like, the analogous hook in Western pop culture might be something about Scarlett Johansson being a child actress who played the younger version of an Audrey Hepburn character (no idea if any of that is actually true), and... I dunno. Doesn't really grab me into wanting to know more, despite it being in a topic I'm generally interested in. I looked through this list for other hooks and couldn't find any, due to the article's nature as, well, a list, but I stand by my assessment. My apologies that I can't be more helpful than that – if someone else steps in to say they agree with the hook as written, I'll concede consensus, and I'd be happy to review any ALTs that come up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  theleekycauldron: I see your point even if I disagree with you. Any hook from DYKs from filmographies are more or less the same. Now that you are willing to concede consensus, why isn't three editors enough for you? I mean, Nvvchar, Krimuk and myself, are three editors, all experienced enough. By the way, you stepped into this nomination when it had already been approved by another editor and sort of reverted their decision. I see that you are an active contributor here and I respect your opinion, but consensus has clearly been established by now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Theleekycauldron not sure what the issue is here. It is a filmography, and seems to meet requirements for one and is well-sourced. The hook seems fine to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fair's fair, I seem to be outnumbered here :) good to go with Shshshsh's modified hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do y'all one better – since I wasn't involved in workshopping the final version, which was already approved (more or less) by another reviewer, there's nothing stopping me from putting this hook right in prep! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]