Talk:Sana Khan

Disambiguation

There are four different Sana Khans who currently have articles on Wikipedia. I think that a disambiguation page should be created at Sana Khan, with the contents at the current Sana Khan page to move to Sana Khan (actress). Coolcool₂₀₁₂(talk to me) 15:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sections dispute

Following a request to WP:RFPP, I've fully protected the article for one week to give User:Johannes003 and User:Dealtroadd some time to discuss their issues on the talk page. It'd be good if the two of you could post your views as to why the article should be the way you think it should be. Hopefully we can then have some uninvolved third parties have a look at the dispute between you two and help mediate and build consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already listed and explained all changes I made on Dealtrodd's talk page; Dealtrodd, however, refuses to reply/cooperate and continues to undo all edits without even giving any reasons. Just for comparison: This is my reworked version and this the prior version Dealtrodd is reverting back to again and again (whysoever). I would like to know why Mr. Dealtrodd is creating redundant (sub-)sections or why he removes the word Malayali, although it's explicitly stated in the article. This is a petty and rather silly dispute, but Dealtrodd should understand that no one owns articles and respect others' edits as well. Other experienced editors may have a look and decide which version is better. Johannes003 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

'controversies' section

I suggest that those responsible for this heap of garbage familiarise themselves with WP:BLP policy before restoring any of this nonsense. We DO NOT fill articles with tabloid tittle-tattle and vague 'allegations', just because someone is a Bollywood actress. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

content and tone

User:Dealtroadd has begun edit warring to insert this version which violates a lot of policies ranging from manual of style to serious BLP / NPOV issues like reasserting a "controversies" section. (see Andy's note above). While it is all fine and good that people want to write a celebrity gossip paean, you will need to start your own home fan page to do so, when you write here, you have to write formally for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Vital content

1. The term "item number" is used exclusively in India and South Asia. Adding a little explanation adds more clarity to the sentence. 2. The fact that she was raised in a "typical Indian middle class family" has got nothing to do with gossip.

Please stop making unnecessary disruptions or get blocked. Thank you.

applying policy and manual of style to our content is not disruption. Edit warring to remove it without policy basis IS disruptive. Specifically regarding your issues named above (although you have been edit warring over lots of additional content.)

1) we have links to item number if people do not know the word, and "Bollywood parlance"? - you have got to be kidding me! if you think our readers are so stupid they cannot click the link, WTF are they going to do when they hit the word "parlance"?

2) Quoting Sana stating that she came from "typical Indian middle class family" is in fact fluff. Or its Sana attempting to position herself in an appropriate publicity position. Either way, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

More than one Sana Khan?

An IP has indicated that the actress Sana Khan mentioned in this article [1] who died in a car crash is a different actress Sana Khan than our article. Can anyone verify? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. You beat me to it ... the person pictured in the ref doesn't even look the same Kap 7 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

the original report [2] [3] seems to confirm that it is a different person who died, the credits named are not similar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote to hopefully reduce the confusion of editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is still far from clear. The imdb page linked to lists her as deceased and has the same filmography as the article. Is the photo on this wiki page definitely her? The description says it is her bash but it may not be her I guess… Lineslarge (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

IMBD trivia is user generated by the same misinformed people who keep attempting to add it here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Charges

Per our policies regarding living people and policies regarding how much "weight" to give to particular aspects of the subject, criminal allegations that have not been proven MUST NOT be plastered with an entire section of their own. It may be (and probably is) appropriate to mention in brief, but the person wishing to include or re-include MUST attempt to do so in a matter that does not violate one of the primary content policies WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User @Anupmehra: has included only 4 sentences in most neutral way and in minimus words, not entire section. He has used 'allegedly' word, he has not written as if subject was indeed involved in crime. This incident was widely reported in media. In fact, there is enough material in reliable sources to write whole article about this incident. Your argument of UNDUE weight just for 4 sentences is completely wrong. If you oppose separate section, which section is relevant to insert this material? Abhi (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)