Talk:Tony Khan

Edit Request: Change the "Executive Producer" link in intro to [Executive Producer] instead of [Glossary of professional wrestling terms#Booker]
The title of Executive Producer (EP) is completely accurate linking directly to the actual EP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migrations~enwiki (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Consolidate "Reception and Legacy" section
Regarding Khan's "Reception and Legacy" section, it feels redundant to list each individual quote for wrestlers praising him. It would be more streamlined to do something like keeping the first paragraph, and then saying something like "Khan has been praised by multiple people in the wrestling industry, including Chris Jericho, Jim Ross, Jon Moxley, Britt Baker, Malakai Black, and former wrestling promoter Eric Bischoff", while keeping the citations for each respective person so that if people want to see the exact praise, they can go to the source itself. I don't think the specific praise holds a place in his overall wiki page, especially since it gets redundant after the third person giving praise. Additionally, the specific content of the Twitter feud between him and Yannick Ngakoue is not mentioned on the wiki page either, which I think further illustrates that consolidating the wrestling praise into a paragraph would make more sense.

My ideas
I want you will be working with me for my peoples.can you available.then I will be share my thoughts with you. 223.123.10.19 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

talnet
u are losing fans cause u are killing your top talent having then lose to nobodies so sad 2601:155:2:5CE0:80C2:3BA:B6A9:D2EA (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Controversy.…
I’ve noticed that the controversy subheading in Tony Khan’s biography appears dense and potentially biased. As someone who values the integrity of Wikipedia, I believe it’s crucial to maintain a neutral tone in all articles. While I may not be a fan of Tony Khan and AEW, I think it’s essential to present the controversy section in a balanced manner, focusing on verifiable facts and notable events rather than personal opinions. This approach ensures that the information is accurate and unbiased, aligning with Wikipedia’s standards. Edwardmiputo (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, the section was absurd. I have not been following this story at all, so I have no opinion if it should be included in any fashion, but this version violated too many guidelines and policies to count.LM2000 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I endorse this. Controversy sections need good justification to be included, and capricious wrestling fans making noise on twitter isn’t good enough. — Czello (music) 08:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)