Talk:Karan Singh Grover/Archive 1

request for tables

Can we please make the filmography and awards section in tables?? please?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikki2177 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it seems unlikely that table format meets WP:MOSTABLE guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no source stating that he cheated with jennifer winget, a lot of unsourced information is written in the biographical article, vandalising the page

I don't think that there is a need to mention the person who replaced him in a show, he should be mentioned in the show's wiki page, but this is a page on KSG's biography

Fair use rationale for Image:717lzlx.jpg

Image:717lzlx.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karan Singh Grover.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Karan Singh Grover.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't think only Qubool Hai should be listed in Karan Singh Grover's main works, since he has done so many, either remove qubool hai or add more! plus the references is not correct, as one reference is for dill mill gayye!

KARAN SINGH Grover PAGE

Can you please remove that paragraph from Karan Singh Grover's page? 3 articles on Qubool Hai? That is too much! This Article is about Karan Singh Grover not Qubool Hai! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkapoor21 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Karan SIngh Grover's Biography is not written properly

please make it better, it is too general and is not written well!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkapoor21 (talk • contribs)

We base articles upon what the reliably published sources have discussed about the subject. What reliable sources do you have? What content that you wish to include? (note that including phrases "He is popular" are not what would make it a better encyclopedia article - Wikipedia is not a celebrity fan gossip page.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the point of writing that KSG played the role of Asad in Qubool hai in the Biography part of the article, as the show is already listed down under his works, what is the point of only including Qubool Hai and not other shows? I really don't get the point of the last sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkapoor21 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that listing Grover's roles both in prose in the lead and in the list in the "works" section isn't helpful. I have removed the redundancy and moved the source down to the "works" section. Huon (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huon--I think this reference would be better for Qubool Hai---http://ibnlive.in.com/news/karan-singh-grovers-exit-from-qubool-hai-who-is-really-to-be-blamed/442371-44-124.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkapoor21 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion piece where we have to be very, very careful to separate the facts from the author's opinion. I have found news articles from India Today and Daily News and Analysis and will use those to write about Qubool Hai. Huon (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that qubool hai should be included in the about me section of KSG's page Huon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkapoor21 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is an encyclopedia article; it does not have an "about me" section. Secondly, the Qubool Hai dismissal seems to have been among the most widely discussed events in Grover's career. Thus it should be covered in corresponding detail. Thirdly, there's hardly enough prose to necessitate a separate section for the controversy. For these reasons I have reverted Nkapoor21's edits and moved the content on the dismissal back to the rest of the prose. Huon (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in addition "controversy" sections are almost always a bad idea and inappropriate structure particularly in articles about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THE LINK DOES NOT GO TO THE PROPER PAGE

it should go to this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Dollie_Aur_Uska_Magic_Bag; but it does not!

Works for me, if you mean the link in the "Television acting" section. Huon (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce

It is undeniable that rumors of infidelity were widely reported in the Indian press, and that the 'assumption' was reported that the divorce was due to these infidelities. You cannot, however, make the defamatory statement that the infidelities 'in fact' occurred without a positive sourced statement from someone with personal knowledge of those events. You also cannot state that his ex-wife filed for divorce due to those infidelities without a source that actually states that she herself said that they were why she filed for divorce. Revent^talk 06:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India isn't quite a "bloggy" newspaper, and it says, quote: "It's official. Shraddha Nigam and Karan Singh Grover's 10-month-old marriage is over thanks to Karan's philandering", going on: "Shraddha and Karan's relationship ran into rough waters when Karan started having a steamy affair with a choreographer, who he met on the sets of Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa 3." All that is in the TOI's voice. If you want "someone with personal knowledge of those events", the TOI cites a friend of Shraddha Nigam thus: "When the list of Karan's girlfriends became too long to bear, Shraddha chose to cut off all ties with him." Personally I wouldn't put much stock in that unnamed friend, but when the TOI says it's because of his "philandering" and his "steamy affair", we're entirely free to report just that. We do not need a primary source to confirm a reliable secondary source's coverage. Huon (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Times of India is not generally bloggy, however, that particular article has no listed author, is reprinted from another paper (the Mumbai Mirror) that doesn't list the author either, and is not written in a neutral tone. It also describes it's sources as various 'unnamed people'... it reads to me much more like entertainment page gossip-mongering than factual reporting. Most of the other sources make it clear that they are discussing rumors. While I have little doubt that the rumors are correct, it is a more 'representative' portrayal of what is said by the majority of the sources to describe it as allegations or rumors. Also, doing so avoids describing it as a 'fact' when the only source that describes it thus makes it clear that their description is based on gossip. Revent^talk 06:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Affair

Per the biographies of living persons policy, specifically WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, the name of the woman that he allegedly had an affair with cannot be added to this article. Please do not readd it without discussion here. Revent^talk 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary removal of information is not allowed, the page is not as long as it is

yet another ranting by the sock

-the information that he got a role via audition is important -the fact who is costarring with him in his latest movie is also important information, even Bipasha Basu page has his name in it, and no one has objected to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talk • contribs) 12:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Grover. Grover had no say in who the costar is. The costar had no say in demanding that she would work with Grover. Hence there is nothing relevant about the subject of the article in relation to the costar. (the fact that other articles have crap that needs to be cleaned out is merely reflective of the fact that other articles have crap that needs to be cleaned out and not a good reason to allow the crap to be in this article where misinformed editors will point at it and say "see there is crap in the Grover article too, there should be some in this one as well!")

in addition the phase "by audition" provides ZERO value to the reader when 99% of acting roles are filled by audition. If it was NOT filled by audition, THEN it would be noteworthy!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is note wothy that a television production house auditioned him and thought he was worthy, as many roles are actually landed due to internal connections, especially in India, it is important wikipedia information, since everyone related to him is mentioned in the article, bipasha basu should be mentioned also, u can remove her if u want it is not like that people will not know that she is the lead actress in the movie, the movie wikipedia page says it, Bipasha Basu page also has his and the movie's name. ThanksIndian editor television (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they are not writing an ENCYCLOPEDIA article about GROVER , now are they? Nope, they are attempting every means in their arsenal to promote their project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I don't get you?? this is a biographical page on Karan Singh Grover? I am very confused, please calm down, I don't think that it is a good idea to remove sources and content from the pageIndian editor television (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if the sources are not reliable, they go if the content is not relevant to the subject of this encyclopedia article, they go. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion, Wikipedia:Handling trivia , WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

his co-star, and the fact that he was selected by an audition by Mtv and Balaji are very much relevant to the article, I also have issues with some of the content, but I don't think it is a good idea to remove it, every information is importantIndian editor television (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Indian editor television is a now-blocked latest in a looooong series of sock-puppets. We do not need to spend time responding to or considering the ideas of an editor who is evading his indefinite blocks. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe photo shoot

I have once again removed the sentence about the "warrior safety men Liberty Shoes" advertisement. As Durr-e-shehwar noted, that's a (routine) part of his job as model and actor. The source didn't bother to write so much as a single sentence about that event. It's utterly irrelevant trivia. We're not a celebrity rag chronicling every thing Grover has done in his life. Huon (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Armaan Malik (fictional character)

This "fictional character" is only a part of the TV series and not notable otherwise. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - character is not inherently notable, and the sources provided barely even mention him (except for the photo saying "oh look he's hot". Primefac (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the content of the "character" article doesn't really discuss the character itself, and neither do the sources. Huon (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoos belong on fanpage

In this day and age there is nothing encyclopedic about the fact that someone has tattoos. It is about as relevant as his favorite ice cream. We are writing an encyclopedia and not Tiger Beat. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if they are so irrelevant why has it been reported by times of india? in that regard nothing in the personal life section even matters?~~

a news paper is different than an encyclopedia. and yes, most of the personal life section that you keep adding back in does not belong either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in an encyclopaedia all information about the living person should be included, but you seem to have an issue with this page or a person, whatever-- DESaka Durr e Shehwar 05:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Red Pen of Doom. There's a lot of celebrity gossip reported that doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. We don't need to chronicle every single item of clothing worn by Kim Kardashian, every party attended by Shah Rukh Khan, every tattoo worn by Karan Singh Grover. Huon (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoos are not "worn" they are engraved, and also both of you seem to have an issue with this page only, it is weird-- DESaka Durr e Shehwar 5:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This shows a list of my most-edited pages. Karan Singh Grover and its talk page aren't even among the top ten. For comparison, here are your own contributions, which show roughly 35% of your edits to this article, with practically every other article in your top-ten list about Grover's films, his collaborators and his (ex-)wives. So if someone has an issue with Karan Singh Grover only, that's you, not TRPoD or me. I think we'd all prefer to discuss the content, not each other.

The interview given as a source for the tattoos is not third-party coverage anyway. It appears the only persons talking about Grover's tattoos are himself and his film partner. Such trivia are unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to fight, you guys do seem to have an issue with this page, and don't seem to change edits on any other indian celeb page, even though they are much more biased and in worse condition, suit yourself, I don't care anymore DESaka Durr e Shehwar 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I DO have an "issue" about this page. Someone keeps trying to turn it into a fan page rather than an encyclopedia article and its a shame. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages are also in similarly poor shape, and I welcome and thank any editor who chooses to fix any of them as time allows. As a volunteer, "not having time to fix everything" is one of the worst reasons to "fix nothing" I can think of. DMacks (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how is this a fan page?? find it hard to understand!? It is an encyclopaedic page! You are being unnecessarily harsh! The infos on Tattoos has gone by the way, But I am sure there are many wikipedia pages on many personalities that have tattoos listed, for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Madden has it listed under personal life, but of course no one thinks that as a fan page, you guys are just biased against this article. DESaka Durr e Shehwar 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. Editors who edit against consensus run the risk of being blocked, so, consider that a warning. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fine be biased against this page, and block me, doesn't change the fact that other wikipedia pages have tattoos under personal life, and yet no wikipedia editor has objected it to be "fan information" or have used language like "trivial junk" some people really have issues.DESaka Durr e Shehwar 18:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]