Talk:Shivangi Joshi

Guest Appearances issue

why is the appearances and the actual shows are merger in same column. It's so hard to identify the actual shows of hers. Hope someone fixed it. Sajkam (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Shivangi Joshi at Khushi NGO's 20th Anniversary Celebration (cropped).jpg
• Shivangi Joshi promoting Balika Vadhu 2 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shivangi Joshi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Savydeal (talk · contribs) 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: CNMall41 (talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - User who initiated this is now blocked as a sockpuppet. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, It's always sad to see an article not get to GA not because there's something wrong with the article, but the nominator had some problems instead. Maybe I can take place as the nominator? (I'm actually doing something similar with Xuanwu Gate Incident where the previous nom didn't respond with 7 days for an article that easily could've been into GA status. I've renominated again after getting myself in the top 5 editors) Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 05:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  @CNMall41 - Whatdya think about Yelps' offer? GoldRomean (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say they are free to do as they wish but I am highly suspicious. There are major issues with the page and it has been the target of promotion from numerous socks, UPE, SPAs, and logged out socking. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

And to clarify, not highly suspicious of the editor making the suggestion. I am suspicious of any edit that takes place with that page. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Whether you choose to fail/review is up to you, but this page has been in a kind of weird limbo for a while now lol :). GoldRomean (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you need here. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Either you quick-fail the nomination (which I'm not against) or review the article with me being the "substitute nominator". I don't know what you found confusing in GoldRomean's statement though. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 07:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, one thing I am not confused about the lack of WP:CIVILity in your last statement. I made a statement about the nominator. I am not required to do your "either, or." See WP:SATISFY.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought I was just clarifying what GoldRomean said since you replied to him with "I don't understand what you need here"? Emotions in text can be hard to understand, and I can see how my earlier statement can be seen as badgering looking at it once more. I genuinely didn't mean to be uncivil, so I'm just going to back off this conversation in order to not make this any more awkward. Thank you. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 10:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I see how Yelps’ statement might’ve been seen as uncivil, but I really don’t think it was intended to be. I think the best solution here might be for CNMall to fail for nominator inactivity, and then Yelps can re-nominate as the real nom if they wish later on? Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on the lack of civility in Wikipedia and no one seeming to care as of late, I no longer tolerate even a hint of it. If you did not mean to be sharp, then I understand and thanks for the clarification. As far as asking me to switch out someone as a reviewer, you this is not something you need my permission for. Do as you will. I will say again that it seems strange that someone new(ish) is attempting GA in place of a SOCK but it is what it is I guess. You didn't ask but if you want my opinion on GA status, you will be wasting your time. The article will fail based on WP:PROMO and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean and CNMall41: I am in favour of failing the nomination and having someone else nominate it. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

+1, probably the best way forward. GoldRomean (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition of DOB with reliable citation.

Added Shivangi Joshi's full DOB based on a published article from Times Now, which states that she turned 27 in May 2025. While no detailed biography from a highly reliable outlet is available yet, this serves as a usable secondary source, supported by Joshi's own statements as primary source.

Given that Times Now is a reasonably reliable and trusted source with editorial oversight - and considering that MANY CELEBRITY ARTICLES on Wikipedia include similar citations to support full birth dates - I believe this addition is consistent with existing practices and WP:DOB and WP:BLP.

Please do not revert unless a FAIR and clear policy-based reason is provided. If more precise or stronger sources become available, I'll gladly improve or refine the entry. Thank you.

FlakyCroissant (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Not how that works. WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus, not the other way around. See WP:CIR before citing incorrect policy. She posted on Instagram and TNN reposted her photos saying it was her birthday. No fact check or editorial oversight. For WP:BLPPRIVACY, this needs to be widely cited, not just a social media pick up. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concerns around WP:ONUS and WP:BLPPRIVACY. I added the DOB based on what is currently available, since it is a detail that has been consistently mentioned and reflected in multiple places - even if not through a detailed secondary biography. Similar kind of sources are often used on other celeb pages when stronger coverage is not yet available.

I cited TN temporarily until we find some better citation to include. Leaving her DOB blank does not feel appropriate either, especially when there has already a lot of misleading info being spread - often by the haters. If you know of any such stronger source that we can include here as a citation, please do find and add. Would appreciate the help!

FlakyCroissant (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, not how this works. Adding it because it doesn't look good blank is not an option. Should we just add DOBs in every bio here because WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Wikipedia is also not here to WP:RGW or correct missinformation. Also, who is "we?" What is your relationship with the subject of the page? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I also note her Instagram post does not mention turning 27, only that she is celebrating her birthday with children and elders, so fails WP:DOB. S0091 (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request on 25 June 2025

Shivangi Joshi Media Image pending

Hello fellow editors,

I’d like to propose the addition of an “Artistry Image” section to the Shivangi Joshi Wikipedia article. Many notable Indian actresses, including her contemporaries like Hina Khan, Deepika Padukone, and Alia Bhatt, have similar sections that provide encyclopedic context on their critical reception, public presence, and media portrayal. Given Shivangi Joshi’s recognition, it seems both appropriate and in line with Wikipedia’s structure for public figures of her stature.

Justification:

• Media image: Regularly featured in prominent media rankings and fashion features by The Times of India, Pinkvilla, India Today, and Eastern Eye. Notably included in annual desirability and glamour lists.

All references supporting this content are from reliable and verifiable sources, including The Times of India, Eastern Eye, India Today, Times Now, Pinkvilla, and The Indian Express—in line with Wikipedia’s standards for sourcing biographical material.

Context:

I understand that a similar section may have been removed in the past, possibly due to issues related to sockpuppetry or sourcing concerns. However, this proposal is rooted in reliably sourced content, written from a neutral point of view, and adheres to Wikipedia's notability and biography guidelines.

If helpful, I’d be happy to share a proposed draft version of this section here for collaborative review. I welcome thoughts or feedback from other editors.

Thank you! This is the only thing that is pending in her article . . . In UK-based newspaper Eastern Eye's List of 50 Sexiest Asian Women, she ranked 17th in 2017, 5th in 2018, while she ranked 7th in 2019. In 2020, same publication ranked her 26th in Top 50 Asian celebrities list, and also featured her in their dynamic dozen for the decade list. In 2022, same publication also featured her in the Top 30 under 30 Global Asian Stars list. In 2018, Times ranked her 5th in the Top 10 Popular Actress in Television. In The Times of India's 20 Most Desirable Women on Indian Television List, she ranked 7th in 2018, 8th in 2019 and ranked 9th in 2020. In 2023, she ranked 9th in Times Now "Popular Television Actresses" list. 2407:1400:AA20:94A0:5D09:9B23:FD:F5A3 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: there is a long and consistent history of this exact content being challenged and removed from the page for being overly promotional. Please seek consensus before making an edit request. This request also seems to be using the exact wording of previous sockpuppets. SI09 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@SI09: Thank you for your comment. I’d like to clarify a few points.

The media recognition section I proposed is based entirely on **well-documented, reliably sourced content** from prominent outlets such as Hindustan Times, Eastern Eye, The Times of India, and The Economic Times. These are established media sources, and the content simply reflects **public rankings and accolades** Shivangi Joshi received over multiple years. These are not minor mentions — they are consistent, recurring recognitions.

This type of content is routinely included in the articles of **many other television actors**. For example, actors like Hina Khan, Nia Sharma, and Erica Fernandes have detailed “media image” or “in the media” sections listing their appearances in similar rankings, including the same lists from Eastern Eye and The Times of India. Why should Shivangi Joshi be held to a different standard?

The language can be **neutral and factual** — and I am happy to work with editors here to ensure that there’s no promotional tone. The intention is not to promote, but to document notable, verifiable milestones in her career.

As for your concern regarding sockpuppetry: I would like to make it clear that I am **not associated with any previous accounts**, and I’m simply a good-faith editor trying to ensure factual content is included based on Wikipedia’s own notability and verifiability policies.

Would other editors be open to discussing a **neutral, trimmed version** of the section to reach consensus?

Thanks, 2407:1400:AA25:B48:B9E1:5E9D:F3F:3B67 (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@SI09: I understand your concerns, but I’d like to respectfully clarify a few things.

The content in question — covering Shivangi Joshi’s rankings in Eastern Eye, The Times of India, etc. — is **not new**. It was **previously included in her Wikipedia article**, as confirmed in the edit history, and was supported by **reliable sources** throughout. My intention is to restore that **verifiable, well-sourced information**, not introduce unsourced or promotional content.

While there may have been past abuse from sockpuppets, I am editing in good faith and have no connection with any of those previous users. It’s possible the similarity in wording exists because the sources and facts are specific and widely cited across the same outlets.

This type of media image recognition — when properly cited and neutrally worded — is **commonplace** on Wikipedia bios of actors in the television and film industries. Numerous articles (e.g., Hina Khan, Nia Sharma, Erica Fernandes) include similar sections using the **exact same types of lists and sources**. There’s clear precedent for including such material when properly formatted and not written with promotional language.

I’d like to reach consensus on re-adding a **neutral and trimmed version** of this section that reflects Joshi’s recurring public recognitions in a factual tone. I’m open to any suggestions to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s tone and sourcing policies.

Thanks,

2407:1400:AA25:B48:B9E1:5E9D:F3F:3B67 (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Similarly I have noticed that, almost all actors and actress of television have these media ranking in there page also Bollywood actors but why this assume as promotional in shivangi joshi case. It is well referenced. I think it’s mostly because of bias editors who assume it’s a promotional. 2407:1400:AA25:B48:EDE9:9295:AF6:B1EC (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Annabelle of indian television

She is widely acclaimed as the deserving Annabelle of Indian television ~2026-42950-74 (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Source??? Mohammed07102007 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)