Talk:Yeh Hai Mohabbatein

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

150.107.179.193 (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You will need to proposed a specific edit request, like "Please change X to Y (here is a source)" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

serial on asianet

Pranayam serial on asianet Shyamssn (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

slub dued

This website is the most awesome one Adrian 4 herb (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Plot bloat

In this edit I chopped the entire plot section. It's massively bloated at 4300+ words when it should not exceed 500 per WP:TVPLOT. This isn't a trivial matter, as excessive detail can present copyright problems as derivative works. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

March 2018 copy edit

Some notes from my copy edit:

• Some of the information in the infobox does not appear elsewhere in the article and should have a citation, particularly regarding BLP issues.
• I'm unsure if MOS:TVPLOT was changed recently, but at the time of my copyedit it said 500 words of plot per season. I've knocked it down to about 1500 words total, with no more than 500 words per section or season. Hopefully that's good enough.
• As per the other maintenance tags, I put the cast list in order of appearance as best as I could determine, and took the Star Parivaar awards out of the charts (but left a short note with all the citations in the prose). If anyone wants to put them back, just look for this date in the article history.
• I left some inline tags where I was unclear of the meaning.

If you have any questions or comments, please {{ping|Reidgreg}} here. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep only one

Hi JayB91,

How many times I told you that non-free poster is only for one article. We can't use two non-free poster in one article. In this case, one poster should remove. Please see WP:NF policy. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 04:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is no Wikipedia rule restricting one non-free poster per article see, Template:Non-free poster. Often long articles include multiple posters of same show for critical, character appraisal among other reasons like Gossip Girl. So kindly I ask you to refrain from POV edits and support NPOV edit here. Thanks. JayB91 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@JayB91: Apart from decoration, what academic purpose does the image in the awards infobox provide? According to the image information page the rationale for use of the second Gossip Girl image is "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration"? The image we are using in the Awards infobox has nothing to do with awards, there is no presentation of critical commentary about the series, or of the image itself. I would posit that the relevant policy here would be non-free content criteria #3A "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." If the only thing the image is doing is providing a screencap of the series with the series logo, the same information is being provided in the infobox, so it seems that we would be in contravention of our copyright policy. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand your valid point but then why does Template:Infobox actor awards and even has image option? I understand individual actor awards page can have multiple free images, but since it is a television show I doubt any logo, screencap, or inter-title can be classified as free content. The image provided is the initial intertitle of the show as opposed to ever changing poster in the infobox. We can try repeating the same image on both but that will look ridiculous. Also putting script logo like File:Yeh Moh Moh Ke Dhaage.png will be better but again it will be non-free content. Had the page been smaller I understand the "decorative purposes" you cited of multiple non free content. But this page is large page with multiple sections like One Tree Hill (TV series) where at least three non free images has been used (I am talking in context here, not how the image has been used in particular page). Thanks. JayB91 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@JayB91: "why does Template:Infobox actor awards and even has image option?" Well, standalone articles would be a valid justification. If you had a "List of awards won by ___" article, then you might want to identify the article subject with an image, and a title card might be warranted there. Looking at the template instructions, I see an image of Brad Pitt, then looking at List of awards and nominations received by Brad Pitt I see an image of Brad Pitt. The soundtrack template also has a spot for an image, but we typically don't use soundtrack images in a film article, because non-free images should be used to identify the article subject. The soundtrack is not the subject of a film article. So, my recommendation would be to omit the second image entirely. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Lets reach a compromise on this matter. Let me create a new "List of awards and nominations received by Ye Hai Mohabbatein" page; the awards section is very well referenced and the page is overlong anyway. In that way we can retain the original interitle image like List of awards and nominations received by Heartland here. JayB91 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@JayB91: I don't think there's sufficient content to justify a standalone article for this series' awards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Majority of articles on Wikipedia have been created with much less content; well coming to original point I still believe neutrally that a logo or intertitle image justifies the particular infobox but since I feel that the consensus here is against that so just remove the image; I won't contest it for the time being. JayB91 (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@JayB91: It's important to me that you understand the rule, because I don't want you to end up at WP:ANI with someone complaining that you're violating our copyright policy. This is not a local consensus issue. The relevant safe rule that we should all be following is that we can only use a non-free image once per article, and only to identify the article subject. When we use the intertitle in the main infobox, our job of identifying the series has been completed. If we use a second non-free image, we are in violation of our copyright policy, because the second use no longer serves to identify the series, it's just decoration. Re: your argument that the majority of articles on Wikipedia have been created with much less content, assuming that were true, that doesn't justify the creation of new problematic articles. I believe that a lot of Indian marketing teams like to create subarticles where they aren't warranted because (in their perception) it helps establish the subject's legitimacy and because it's harder to delete non-notable articles when there are three of them. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@JayB91: Template is for "Infobox actor awards", not for television. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 16:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: We don't have particular template for TV awards on Wikipedia. JayB91 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@JayB91: Here is the Template:Infobox television awards. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 20:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: That is Film infobox also can used for television shows but is hardly used for television shows; putting my original point forward that too has image parameter. JayB91 (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@JayB91: You can use only free file from commons in television award infobox. Not non-free file. Because already a non-free file at television infobox.Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 07:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  18:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Ye Hai Mohabbatein → Yeh Hai Mohabbatein – I wanted to move this page name: Ye Hai Mohabbatein to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein. Per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, where an official name has changed we do give extra weight to secondary sources published after the change. But this applies only to secondary sources. In this case, secondary sources are (Times Now: [1]), (The Times of India: [2]), (India Today: [3]). Also primary source (Hotstar: [4]) said that the show name is Yeh Hai Mohabbatein. Both authors (article and redirect) are blocked for sockpuppet and abusively used multiple accounts. (Bardolivaaro, Chander). I think we don't need to ask them. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support -- Can't see why this shouldn't be moved when the official website and several secondary sources go with 'Yeh'. Thats also how that word is usually spelled even in other contexts.--NØ 12:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:TVCAST

Tudhasomesh Though I notice you've tried to improve the Cast section, I have flagged it for cleanup, because it is not consistent with WP:TVCAST. I have no idea what the Cameos section is about. If these are one-time roles, then they should be cut. Also a cameo is "a minor part played by a prominent performer in a single scene of a motion picture or a television play." It's unclear why we would have so many non-prominent people in this section. An efforts you can expend to bring this closer to community standards would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The cameo section was removed in these edits by TabahiRoy, although the question still remains: are any of them one-off roles? If so, we should remove them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Any idea?

@Mishbir166: With regard to these edits, I'm curious if you have any idea what a quality cast section is supposed to look like. Because based on your changes, which introduce a host of problematic, ambiguous content, I am not confident that you do. What community guidelines were you looking at when you introduced all those slashes, for instance, or removing colons in favour of improperly-spaced hyphens (not even using dashes).

When a reader sees something like "Gautam Ahuja / Abhishek Verma" are they expected to understand what that means? Does that mean that two actors played the character(s) at the same time? Does it mean that they alternated playing the character depending on whomever was available? Does it mean that one of the actors replaced another? Which one replaced whom? You have to actually think through your edits before submitting them, and if the content you are submitting is ambiguous, then you're not actually helping readers learn about the series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://tripplemonline.com/this-is-love-starlife-full-story-plot-summary-casts-teasers/ or similar. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)