Talk:Kareena Kapoor Khan

Sources

• Filmfare's interview --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

I am an author of recently published book on Kareena Kapoor. From Nazneen to Naina: 20 years of Kareena Kapoor Khan in Bollywood and what that means for India and the rest of the world has been published by Chetna Parkashan in Ludhiana. The book was officially launched on her birthday in 2021 at Chandigarh Press Club. Will appreciate if you can add this information. Gurpreet Singh Radical (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We're not here to promote your book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Kareena Kapoor → Kareena Kapoor Khan – MOS:CHANGEDNAME: she has primarily been known as "Kareena Kapoor Khan" for over a decade now, credited as such in all of her films since late 2012, from Talaash to her her latest release, and in magazine covers such as Vogue and Harper's Bazar. She also identifies as such on Instagram Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose Just add a section somewhere in the article : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubymza (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment MOS:CHANGEDNAME doesn't apply here. The article title guideline is WP:NAMECHANGES, which states that you need to prove that her married name is the most commonly used, as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Citing two magazine covers and some movie credits is not enough to prove your point. - Ïvana (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Variety
• Vogue
• The Indian Express
• Scroll
• BBC
• Filmfare
• Firstpost
• Femina
• Wired
• Hindustan Times
• The Hindu
• Forbes

That's a dozen different sources. How many more would be need? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Support. As Krimuk has already mentioned, she goes by that name, is credited as such in films and it is commonly used by the media. FrB.TG (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support: This is just like Jada Pinkett Smith and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Per her latest releases and magazine covers. NaanReady (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per the evidence provided in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

If karina Kapoor has not accepted islam then why is khan written in surname? 2409:40D5:103C:A76:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Advert

The more than 3000 edits to this article over 11 years since it gained FA status has made it into something that at times resembles a public relations piece more than an encyclopedia article. - Hipal (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal: How? At least try to be specific. Any particular paragraphs or sentences that you feel might be problematic? Keivan.f^Talk 02:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Tagging BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ who brought the article to FA status and Krimuk2.0 who recently engaged with the other contributor. Keivan.f^Talk 02:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion. Please stop removing the tag, which is there to alert others to help. Removing it undermines the goal of improving this article.

A large part of the problem looks to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

Looking over the FA version, I'm seeing problems there too.

I think we have WP:FANCRUFT problems, though the NEWSORGINDIA situation certainly drives it.

Focusing on the lede: Most of the problems there are in the FA version to some degree, but have gotten worse over time:

It strays from WP:LEDE. It's too long and too detailed.

It has personal information that needs removal or trimming.

There's information that seems very questionable for an encyclopedia article, probably just mirroring the NEWSORGINDIA sourcing, rather than following WP:NOT.

This is what initially caught my eye. It's not in the FA version, though it had been there previously. --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You haven't posted a single valid argument that justifies the placement on an ugly tag, instead removing sourced info from the lead without discussing or gaining consensus, in violation of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Pinging FrB.TG (an FAC co-ordinator), Shshshsh and Fylindfotberserk for their uninvolved comments. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, I'm afraid you'd have to be much more specific. Just citing Wikipedia guidelines without specifying how the article violates these won't do. If you think there are problems with the article, bring them up here but please refrain from adding such tags to FAs. There was recently a similar attempt at Taylor Swift's article where editors unanimously agreed why it's a bad idea to add it to FAs. Instead, we took a different approach, in that we tried to identify the specific problems and accordingly rectify them. The same should be done here. Since you're the only editor here so far who has recognised these supposed "advert" problems, you'd have to gain consensus here for adding the tag instead of edit-warring.

PS this removal of a well-sourced info is problematic. The fact that she's one of Hindi cinema's highest-paid actresses is a major accomplishment and should not be missed in the lead. FrB.TG (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We disagree.

Can we WP:FOC and avoid behavioral problems? (eg "ugly tag", lack of recognition and respect for policy and editors).

We disagree on the example I gave. How about we focus on it? --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring with 3 other editors (namely me, Krimuk2.0 and FrB.TG) over a tag (which you have again reinserted) is not exactly what WP:FOC outlines. The single example you give below is not sufficient to put a huge tag on top of the page. You can tag the part that is problematic without implying that the whole article is suffering from a so called issue. Keivan.f^Talk 19:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

a huge tag on top of the page. The tag is there to get others involved in improving this article. That's what we want, correct? --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles are improved when editors are involved by discussing on talk page, not by you edit-warring. The consensus so far has been 3 against 1 for tagging this article and for removing sourced info about her being one of the highest-paid actresses. If you want more opinions, start an RFC -- that's how larger consensus is established on the website, and not by edit-warring. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Articles are improved when editors work together and work from policy. None of my concerns have been addressed, just dismissed. That's not how articles are improved. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Highest paid actress in lede

Please respect BLP's strict requirement that the onus for inclusion is on those wishing to add or restore the content.

The edit-warring over her being one of the highest paid actresses goes back to the mid 2000s (before any of the involved editors were editing except myself, and I only started editing this article this year).

The content was not in the FA or GA versions of the article.

I see no prior discussion about the content.

There have been similar disputes in other articles: Mahira Khan, Alia Bhatt, Priyanka Chopra. What general consensus that I see from these and other relevant general consensus (eg WP:NEWSORGINDIA) is that we need to be very careful to use sources that are not making statements without context that indicates where the information came from.

List of highest-paid film actors identifies the difficulties in determining actor pay.

In my edit summary I wrote, "doesn't belong in lede - might be considered for inclusion in article body with qualifications - BLP, RECENTISM, PROMO, UNDUE problems." Please address my suggestion and the relevant policies. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So wait to achieve WP:CONSENSUS for your changes per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO instead of repeatedly edit-warring with 3 separate editors. If you have an issue with high paying actors, get consensus for its removal from all articles at WP:FILM instead of targetting one actress' page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Please respect BLP's strict requirement that the onus for inclusion is on those wishing to add or restore the content. This isn't a vote. If no one can make a policy-based case for inclusion, there's no consensus beyond WP:CONLOCAL. --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)