Talk:Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? Ek Baar Phir

Awards
Respected sir Please attached Nomination of Star Parivaar Awards 2014 in award category 120ajithkumar (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Trimming casting section
In this edit I trimmed a section of the quotation presented in the cast section for reasons presented in my edit summaries: While quotations are permissible under copyright law as fair use, we can't build the majority of a section on excerpted text. The deleted sentence tells us nothing about the preparation he endured. Did he read a book on how to be sweet? Did he follow around a pack of sweet boys for a year? It's substance-less and just reeks of promotion. I also flagged the section for expansion because one would expect in a section marked Casting for there to be information on the casting process. Who was considered? Who didn't make it? What were the producers looking for? Where the characters modelled after anybody in particular? There's any number of ideas that could be expressed here, but "I had done a bit of my homework" doesn't say anything. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Gossip"
You need to start opening discussions when edits you make are reverted. That's not solely my responsibility. Bold, revert, discuss is how we do things at Wikipedia.

The first time you removed the reception content, you called it gossip. It is absolutely not gossip, so your removal of this content with that justification was erroneous and inappropriate.

This second removal, especially with the explanation you provided, is entirely confusing.
 * "especially the crackling Barun Sobti-Sanaya Irani killer on-screen chemistry" Okay?? That is a huge dominant statement which is not necessary for this show.

I fundamentally do not understand what your actual objection is here. "Huge dominant"? Huh? What's wrong with a critic describing the on-screen chemistry that two actors have? That's normal fare for a critical response section and it provides context for why the critic finds elements of this other series to be problematic.
 * "Read the article and you would know the statement is not referring to the reception of the show."

What do you think "reception" means, particularly when the content is included in a sub-section called "Critics"? The content should be about critical reception. The source provided is a review of the series, and the content you deleted was an excerpted opinion about how that particular critic received the series. What exactly is your issue here? See Sherlock (TV series) as an example of the goal. While the critical reception section could be fleshed out, there is nothing glaringly wrong with the content you deleted. What is your specific objection to this? I'm totally perplexed—unless you just don't want to present any negative criticism of the show, but that wouldn't be a valid or rational reason to omit the content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , "especially the crackling Barun Sobti-Sanaya Irani killer on-screen chemistry"" Seriously? Read that again. Explain to me how the crackling and killing chemistry of the previous leads have anything to do with the critical reception. Critics are part of the reception, it is just a broad term. This is not what critics do. The article was published on September 6 2013 and the show aired on August 26 2013? And Indian Express, I mean Jaskiran Kapoor wants the leads to "pump up"? What kind of organization and voice is this? A total confusing voice. Where did she get this information from? There are no numbers on TRP, no graphs, no responses provided to support that claim. As you said "While the critical reception section could be fleshed out" my main reason is" Article was published Sep 6 2013 and the show aired Aug 26 2013. Literally in like 5-6 days we a critic coming in and providing her nonsense? I cannot even wrap my head around the fact of why this is proper inclusion. I would be reasonable if it was published 6 months later or even a year later to see the overview. But literally in 5 days she is making her criticism? I hope you take this reason into consideration and I am sure you understand why I removed this content.RYLELT7 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The article gives a summary of the first episode and here we have a critic giving her thoughts? Garbage. That is defnieiet not a developed and appropriate critical reception. RYLELT7 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When you said "provides context for why the critic finds elements of this other series to be problematic." It does not. The first week is not the series overview as being problematic. I hope you realized now that this was just poorly criticized. RYLELT7 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you A) don't understand what the reviewer is saying, or if B) you don't understand what critical reception means or C) you don't know what a critical reception section is supposed to look like:
 * Assuming A: the critic is saying that the show, from their perspective, and based on whatever episodes they saw (which might be more than the number that had aired at the time), lacks the chemistry between the lead actors that the previous show had. They also think the pacing is slow, and feel that if the series wants to be successful, it should try harder. If it bothers you that this was based on early episode(s), that's easily qualified with "Early in the show's run, so-and-so described a lack of chemistry between ..." "That is defnieiet not a developed and appropriate critical reception." No, but a section can start somewhere. Where are any reviews of the series six months in? Are there any? If not, then could that be because the media lost interest because of slow pacing and a lack of chemistry? Most reviews of most shows are likely going to focus on the introductory episodes, because that's when all the buzz is generated about a series. When do most films get reviewed? When the film comes out, or six months later?
 * Assuming B: Critical reception describes how critics felt about a thing. The content you deleted describes how that critic felt about whatever episodes they saw. It is suitable for that section.
 * "I mean Jaskiran Kapoor wants the leads to "pump up"? What kind of organization and voice is this? A total confusing voice." You are holding a television review to a standard of journalism that nobody would ever require of a TV critic. Reviews are often droolfests, or they're snarky or pissy. These tones are not appropriate for factual articles about news topics, but that are certainly appropriate when someone is providing an editorial. When people have opinions, they're allowed to have strong opinions. A review can't be excluded just because you personally disagree with the tone the reviewer takes.
 * "Where did she get this information from? There are no numbers on TRP, no graphs, no responses provided to support that claim." Lol, what?! It's an opinion. It's how they feel, it's not supposed to be objective. When would we ever consider graphs and ratings sheets to factor into a person's opinion about the potential of a television series? Wow! "Did you like Avengers: Endgame?" "No, I thought it was too long and boring in parts." "PROVE IT WITH GRAPHS AND DATA SHEETS!"
 * Assuming C: A critical reception section is ideally supposed to summarise the various praise and negative critiques that the series received. Good chemistry, bad chemistry, strong stories, weak stories, good pacing, bad pacing. It has nothing to do with charts and graphs and ratings data. It's almost entirely about opinions.
 * So, thus far, we've seen object to this content for various reasons, and most seem irrational to me: The content should be deleted because it's gossip. (It was not gossip.) The content should be deleted because the show was new. (Not rational. You could opt to flesh out the section with more substantive reviews later in the show's run.) The content should be deleted because the reviewer's tone was inappropriate by journalistic standards. (Not a legitimate reason to delete content.) The content should be deleted because they didn't include any graphs or ratings data. (Not rational.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are any reviews of the series six months in? Are there any? If not, then could that be because the media lost interest because of slow pacing and a lack of chemistry? Most reviews of most shows are likely going to focus on the introductory episodes, because that's when all the buzz is generated about a series. When do most films get reviewed? When the film comes out, or six months later? Your ideas and impressions lack in validity. First off, yes there are. There was another review after the show's off-air in which this critic had stated that "Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?...Ek Baar Phir reviced high TRP in the charts. The actors replicated success of season 1" So this right here just an conceiving example and totally disagrees with your claim that "media lost interest because of slow placing and lack of chemistry" Let's stop right here and go even more in depth. This critic has stated that the actors lack chemistry compared to season one. However, after the end of show she says that the actors replicated the success of season 1. Now, if you can make an impressive interpretation here (she basically said that the leads replicated the chemistry of season 1). This right here serves as a great example of a juxtaposition. This claim came from this same person after the end of the show also stating that it made a new prime time slot". So no, they did not lose interest. Secondly, MOST reviews does not cover ALL reviews as you mentioned "Most reviews of most shows are likely going to focus on the introductory episodes"


 * Secondly, why are you comparing films and television? I am so certain to the core that you have watched at least one film. Let's discuss about this: Films are not released by 20 minute episodes Monday-Friday that cover a span of years as opposed to television shows. It is so ridiculous to present me a rhetorical question by saying that "When do most films get reviewed? When the film comes out, or six months later?" Obviously when the film is done, released, and published to the public, they would have their critics on it. They do not begin critics as the film is in production and neither do they cover the first 5 minutes of it. Now, if we are really going to compare apples to oranges, critics start to come when the film is done. Similarly, critics can also come when the television show is done. Critical reception does not have a firm rule where only in the beginning air dates they have to make critics. This is why there are many critics during the air of the television show because it is not a film that is released in one sitting.


 * To ease of your work and mining into this, you do not have to worry about "proposed" B and C assumptions. And why are making Wow! "Did you like Avengers: Endgame?" "No, I thought it was too long and boring in parts." "PROVE IT WITH GRAPHS AND DATA SHEETS!" seem like a text message conversation. OMG LMAO. If that was your purpose, you did a great job. I still object this to go into the article because that critic is still way too early in. Think about, it takes a month for the show to finally start developing. And if this article was published on 6 Sep 2013, she obviously had to watch the show, make her stupid critics, edit it, and finally publish on her Indian Express website. So, she most likely even made her criticism before 6 Sep. If you want a critical reception so bad embedded into this article, let me find an actual proper one instead of this garbage.
 * (Additional note, these websites seek to get views on their article!) RYLELT7 (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not have various reason for this to be exempt. I had one reason and I clearly indicated that it was provided too early. And if you think that's not rational. You said flesh out the section with more substantive reviews later in the show's run. I get it, it's not gossip.RYLELT7 (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it is substantively false that you only have one reason, since you've provided numerous reasons, and your first reason had nothing to do with it being too early. But assuming you're abandoning the weaker reasons and doubling-down on the argument that the review is "too early", I'd love for you to point to the Wikipedia content guideline that allows us to disregard critical opinions because they are "too early". There is no such guideline that I'm aware of. But please feel free to look, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of your research.
 * "There was another review after the show's off-air in which this critic had stated that "Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?...Ek Baar Phir reviced high TRP in the charts. The actors replicated success of season 1" Fantastic! I mean, the TRP aspect is meaningless in a section on critical response (which is chiefly interested in OPINIONS) unless it's being used as context, but I'd love to see what reliable source said that, because that could be a fine thing to include to balance out the negative opinion of the early reviewer. "Critic A felt X, but that wasn't felt by Critic B who said conflicting-thing-Y". So if there is a contrary opinion, and your assertion fills me with great optimism, then it makes sense that the section should be built, instead of being tossed entirely. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Reception - Critical response
Hi Cyphiod, regarding MOS:TVRECEPTION, it says it is best to seek critical reviews that look at the series as a whole and They should not just be descriptions of the episodes, and preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic. If I am interpreting this right, the manual is saying that whatever critic is provided, it should cover the entire series as opposed to 5 episodes. So, the previous inclusion of the critic was inappropriate for inclusion because that critic criticized the "chemistry of season 2 leads" based off 5 episodes and compared that with ENTIRE season (398) episodes for the first season. If we think about this more practically, no series will show intense romance and intimate scenes in the first 5 episodes. Oh ya, and neither will they show "the sizzling crackling chemistry". Had she given her critiques 6 months later the show aired, or even when it off-aired and given the same opinion, with that context she provided of the chemistry of season 1, then that would be acceptable for inclusion. Although critics can be added, it still supposed to be somewhat reasonable for inclusion. Hence, this does not comply with the the manual of style for television critical reception. I know that critical reception are exempt with the Wikipedia tone of voice and more, but that does give that particular section all liberty for inclusion. I have provided a critic for the show that is appropriate and reasonable. Regards, RYLELT7 (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you should get some clarification about that from the people at WikiProject Television, since you're basically arguing that no form of critical response should be included in television articles until the reviewer has seen the series "as a whole", which, according to you, requires that reviewers wait six months. That seems arbitrary and probably not actually the spirit of what the guideline wants. I'm sure the folks at the WikiProject are wise enough to know that most reviews for a project are going to come early on. Frankly, your objections seem like efforts to suppress criticism of the series, which I hope isn't the case. There are ways to present the early criticism, along with retrospective analysis: "Early in the series, Reviewer A felt ___, but later on, Reviewers B and C felt that the leads' chemistry had developed well, and The actors replicated success of season 1." As for your repeated objections with "sizzling crackling", you should ask about that too, because I don't think it's as ridiculous as you seem to think, to include some amount of quotations, and there is no requirement that quotes be stuffy and meet your high bar for journalistic standards—opinions are often exaggerated in critical writing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Completely addresses and narrows about inclusion of critics in the statement it is best to seek critical reviews that look at the series as a whole that seems like you are avoiding this. No further consensus needs to be reached if it answers my questions and concern. It says right there bluntly with no confusion in the manual of style. Astutely chosen statement in which I have effectively maintained a valid connection in my response for the problem. It's your misunderstanding that I am saying that no form of critical response should be included. I have read my response more than once and I cannot comprehend where that claim of yours arises from, so it might be helpful to clue me in by highlighting what I said in which I am saying no form of critical response should be included. I said Although critics can be added, it still supposed to be somewhat reasonable for inclusion. Hence, this does not comply with the the manual of style for television critical reception. I know that critical reception are exempt with the Wikipedia tone of voice and more, but that does not give that particular section all liberty for inclusion. not once have I even indirectly said no form of inclusion. Context provided by the critique fails to support what they are actually criticizing on. You will never in a million searches find anyone criticizing 5 episodes of a show while bringing in the entire show of another; maybe that's where this statement comes from. The MOS also indicates that They should not just be descriptions of the episodes oops, looks like the critique did in fact make her claims by describing the early episodes as per the actual article. I am sure that I have no misunderstanding here. And your thinking that "my objections are efforts to suppress criticism" no they are not. I have to follow guidelines set out by Wikipedia. Another thing I want to point out: your and there is no requirement that quotes be stuffy and meet your high bar for journalistic standards, I don't know about my high expectations but there are definitely, to some extent, requirements for the addition of critiques that are set out by the MOS:TVRECEPTION in They should not just be descriptions of the episodes. That's why I also added "they don't have all liberty" for inclusion. She literally looked at the first episode and began to type. I'll just put that nonsense article for you to look at so you are aware that I am not suppressing objects based off arbirty action removal of content. Additionally and most importantly, reaching consensus is not determined by votes but rather on the strength, validity, accuracy, and comprehensive position that entails all aspects in the presented argument. Done, no need to seek consensus. Case closed and time to wrap it up. RYLELT7 (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but in a situation where two parties disagree, one party doesn't get to declare victory and close the discussion in favour of their own POV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's stated in the MOS, we must adhere to it. If we don't follow the MOS, then what's the point to have it for guidance? It becomes useless for Wikipedia to have. MOS are constructed based off community preferences. I believe that I was deliberate in my position. Let's try to capture the bigger concerns such as vandalism, sockpuppetry, disruptive edits, and copyright violation. We better catch those on the loose! RYLELT7 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You've moved the goalposts numerous times, making different irrelevant arguments for why the content should be excluded instead of working toward building a more fleshed-out section that better approximates community preferences. The result, is that an article about a series you've described as "the best" lacks any criticism. Your latest goalpost finally acknowledges that the community might have an opinion, but I happen to think you are selectively interpreting what the guidance says in order to win a discussion, rather than using the guidance the MOS provides to build that section. From my perspective, you seem to be taking an all-or-nothing approach, i.e. either there is no critical reception section, or it should be fully realised in adherence to the MOS. Unfortunately, and maybe with your lack of experience editing here, you don't seem to get that this is not how most articles are assembled. Content has to begin somewhere for it to be built upon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how and why you are calling my arguments irrelevant. If I provided a MOS that settles the disputes, how and in which angle does that become irrlevalet? I'm going to backtrack here for a second to make sure that we are not forgetting anything, bare with me:
 * A critique for the article was provided.
 * I removed it initially calling it gossip.
 * You reverted the edit and said it's not gossip
 * We had a minor conflict in the edit summary
 * You opened a discussion to resolve the dispute. In that dispute, you explained how it was not gossip. I then looked at the article and said it was too early. You then said that does not matter since it's preceded by "early in the episodes run" following which, I explained how its inaccurate several times by saying she is comparing the entire season with the first 5 episodes.
 * I opened another discussion after a search for the MOS. In this discussion that we are currently on, I provided a statement that now at this point, should've been settled. You said it doesn't matter if it's early. In the quotes that I provided it says its best to seek reviews that look at the series as whole and should not be descriptions of episodes. <-- This right here in this [nonsense article] she made her criticism off the first episode.
 * You then insisted me to seek consensus even after the MOS indicates what critical response should include
 * I then thoroughly went over my stand here and you said that I am moving goalposts several times and said arguments are irrelevant as to why it should be removed
 * By calling my arguments irrelevant even after I provided the MOS, you are actually saying that the MOS is irrelevant because 50% of my argument is supported by the MOS. I honestly don't know what's going on here, Cyphoid. I thought that the MOS is for editors to follow it and its constructed based off community preferences. Am I misunderstanding something here? Please inform me. The next time someone provides me with a MOS, is it ok for me to say "your arguments are irrelevant"? I am sure that's not what we do. Even after I provided a new critique into this article, the discussion is ongoing. You have a significant amount of more experience here at Wikipedia than me and you are much more familiar how this works, and I expected that you, as an admin, would understand where I am coming from. Your consistent throwing my arguments away most likely implies that you are avoiding to hear me out. Articles like Breaking Bad, Lethal Weapon, Mad Men, American Horror Story, Game of Thrones, etc... all follow the MOS regarding the critical reception. (The critics are looking at the seasons and not the episode Pilot) I don't understand how this show, the MOS becomes exempt from it. Anyway, I am glad that "[my latest goalpost location on the field] finally acknowledges that the community might have an opinion." RYLELT7 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another thing I should point out is that when you brought in my labelling as "best" from my talk page, that now becomes irrelevant (just like how this portion becomes irlrvant since it has nothing to do with working towards the critical reception) because that was a conversation between me and you that has nothing to do with discussion. That was my opinion and not once have I brought my fandom here on Wikipedia articles. RYLELT7 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you'd like to think that I have all the time in the world to spend on you in particular, but I don't. You initially removed the criticism on the basis that it was "gossip", which was a demonstrably bullshit reason, which you later acquiesced after you couldn't cling to it anymore. And since then, you've flung numerous arguments for why that one specific criticism should be removed, moving the goalposts further and further away at each step of the process. I have no more time to debate this with you, but 1) you have no consensus to remove that content and 2) if you were to open the discussion to further input from the community, you might find that they agree with you in some aspects, but disagree with you in other aspects. But your patent refusal to discuss this in an open discussion just solidifies my growing belief that you are here to own this article and decide unilaterally what content should be presented. I'd love to be proven wrong. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, neither do I have a world of time to spend arguing on this issue either. You constantly bringing up the gossip just reveals that you have no more fuel left to further this debate. In which I clearly mentioned THAT I GET IT, IT'S NOT GOSSIP. You telling me that I have provided numerous reason for this, let me inform that no I haven't. Gossip was long ago and throughout this entire discussion you just kept bringing that up over and over again which is just a plain stupid and weak reason to think that I have numerous reasons to move this goalpost. Move on from the  gossip, you cannot keep bringing that in every response you provide. I have only one reason for this removal since the opening of this discussion. I don't need to conenus for removal and let me tell you that contributing to articles while following MOS is not owning articles. LMAO. Admins cannot take advantage of your given privileges, WP:ADMIN, aight?  So don't come at me with such a stupid and garbage claims. I came to conclusion that you have just ignored everything in this debate but still have that "gossip" in your mind in which you are trying to strengthen your response, I'll tell you its not working. And if you think that I think you have the time in the world, I said lets move on and focus on the bigger concerns long ago such as vadal, cv, disrup edits, etc If you read my responses instead of occupying your mind the gossip you would have realized that...You are rude and one disrespectful admin. Proven wrong and farewell. RYLELT7 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2021

 * 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: Not moved. No such user (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? Ek Baar Phir → Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?...Ek Baar Phir – WP:COMMONNAME the image first of all says it all that this is the actual name. Second is that there are many reliable sources saying the same. ,, , ,  User:Fizconiz don't deny on this because you also know you were wrong its a common name that is used everywhere. Once a requested move in up you can't revert this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.41 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2021 (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.
 * Leaning oppose. Searching through Google hits gets a mix, certainly with some using ellipses, but also with many not using them. BD2412  T 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per BD2412. Searching through Google and many sources don’t use the ellipses. It’s not an official part of the title. Some sources use the dash instead, some use a colon, and others don’t use anything. This serves as a discrepancy as there’s no consistency with sources., , , ,.

Director sir,please create the 2nd part of islyaar kokyanaam doon 2 iam addicted tho that series please sir its my request
Hi Sajla,ad (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)