Talk:Ziddi Dil Maane Na

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

Hello, this page is not updated and I have all the knowledge about the plot of this show, so I am raising an edit request. Iamyankee.007 (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I want to change the wrong information regarding the leads MoRanfaizi (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Ziddi Dil Maane Na Title Card.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Excessive plot description

The revert by user:223.190.91.114 restores a plot that is excessively long. Long by a lot. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not s fan site. The plot should be a summary and not a detailed narrative. If there is a problem with the prior plot, then feel free to fix it, but reverting to this huge plot is not the way to go. @Ravensfire and Natureisablessing: as recent editors for their thoughts. -- Whpq (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Would you mind looking into it and please fix the plot. Thanks, stay safe --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well the prior plot that you are adding is not upto the current happenings in the show, it lags way too behind and if we have to make it upto the mark, it will surely come out long. It is merely the summarized plot and key happenings which are necessary as if it is detailed, it will turn out even way more longer Natureisablessing (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If the plot is too long, it WILL be reverted. You need to follow WP:TVPLOT. Ravensfire (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a TV series. Does it even need a plot section? If it does then, then it simply needs a brief overview, and not a detailed outline. AS an example, see Babylon 5. That TV series ran for 102 episodes over 5 seasons. There is just a short season overview for each season that is a few sentences long. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ravensfire, Whpq, and Natureisablessing:, I believe the TV series should follow WP:TVPLOT, but I only know @Reidgreg: who is doing amazing copyedit and cleanup. He has earlier reduced the plot on my request. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 15:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The series obviously has some die-hard fans, but the level of detail in the plot belongs on a Wikia page, not here. Lost (TV series) is another good example of how an incredibly complicated and convoluted plot is summarized. This show has a single season, the plot should be 500 words at most. There is an enormous amount of WP:FANPOV editing here and while that can be good, it's not helping this article at all. Ravensfire (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I did some work on the plot in September which I think was agreeable at that time. The thing is, with a show that's still airing, working on the plot is like trying to hit a constantly moving target. It's not a stable subject, so you can spend a lot of time to keep it up to the current happenings – more time than I really feel it's worth. The 4400 word plot summary in the reverts, I feel it's a bit too dense for summary style and not really of service to Wikipedia's readers, plus it's not needed at that level of detail to support the other sections of the article. I'd rather see other parts of the article expanded, so far as reliable sources allow. If you can get bigger sections with reliable secondary sources on production, filming, themes, critical reception, etc., that'd go a long way toward justifying any plot section.

The 4400 word plot summary is just too detailed and, without any real-world commentary, criticism or analysis, makes the article look like a derivative work and possibly in violation of copyright. It is similarly a really bad idea to have both a cast section and a characters section – the latter is redundant and just a way to sneak more plot information into the article. Similarly with the Missions section in one of the reverts. I would suggest that the unsourced Characters, Guest cast, and Crossover sections be removed – without reliable secondary sources, the information seems trivial at best. Regards. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I just made an edit in the page and tried adding as many sources as I can for Characters, Guest Cast and Crossover sections. If you find any source unreliable, please edit it. Regards - Natureisablessing (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Natureisablessing: For the critical reception section, the source IWMBuzz.com discloses here that it receives funding from Sony SAB, the programme's broadcaster. This is a clear conflict of interest which could bias the critical review. (Additional info in collapse box about IWMBuzz as unreliable source.) Furthermore, the section directly quotes 92 words from the approximately 520 word piece, which is beyond the 10% fair use guideline and a potential copyright violation. I would suggest either (1) removing all the text from the section, or (2) preface it with a statement indicating that the source receives funding from broadcaster Sony SAB and then paraphrase most of the quotation (as a general guideline, inline quotations should be 40 words or less). (BTW, the same source is earlier used for simple verification of cast information, which is objective and non-controversial, unlike critical commentary.) –  (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

@Reidgreg I have a draft of a Sony Set show Kyun Utthe Dil Chhod Aaye where I cited a review by IWM Buzz for the show and I added this review after getting it approved from a user on Wikipedia's live help desk. So does that means I have to edit that also? Natureisablessing (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC) @Natureisablessing: IWMBuzz has been discussed as an unreliable source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261#Reliability Of IWMBuzz, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1086#Reliable sources for Article, and Talk:Silsila_Badalte_Rishton_Ka#About reference (iwmbuzz.com)) which agree that it is unreliable. I'm not sure why it isn't redlisted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources as a website which should not be considered reliable sources. The draft also has a problem with the overlong quotation (30% of the source text, above the 10% fair use guideline), though that's a bit irrelevant since the source is problematic to use. I understand that it can be difficult to find RSS on recent media. You may be better off to wait a few years, by which point there will either be sources to demonstrate its notability or a lack of sources to indicate that it's not notable enough for an article. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC) References Then which source should I cite? Because without a reception section the draft will be declined and it previously was declined due to the same reason of lacking the reception section and that's why I first asked about its reliability on Wikipedia's live help desk. If the reception is removed, the draft will be declined again. Natureisablessing (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Natureisablessing and Reidgreg: Discussion about Draft:Kyun Utthe Dil Chhod Aaye doesn't really belong here and makes things confusing. You should discuss improvements to the draft at Draft talk:Kyun Utthe Dil Chhod Aaye where editors interested in it are more likely to see it. As well, the AFC reviewers may have the draft on their watch list so they will see any discussion there. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Reception section

I have removed the reception section. The only information there is sourced to IWMBuzz which is not a reliable source, nor independent. Any material in a reception section needs to be sourced to independent reliable sources, and not a web site whose job is to provide promotion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Concur with the removal. In part for the reasons Whpq outlined, but also as it's just a large quote from the article, that's just being lazy and with the length, there are absolutely copyright issues. Ravensfire (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

Please let me edit the production column MoRanfaizi (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

I want to edit the production column MoRanfaizi (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Let me edit the wrong information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.60.55.112 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Block ZoyaKhan

Block Zoyakhan. She is giving wrong information about Kunal and Diljot being main leads which was clarified in the launch event itself that shaleen and Kaveri are main leads and other two are supporting. SaumyaT9999 (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Who is Zoyakhan, and why do you want her to be blocked? ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)