Talk:Saath Nibhaana Saathiya

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://starplus.startv.in/characters.aspx?sid=30. Infringing 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

History merge
In March 2012, an IP editor copied the contents of this article, without attribution, and pasted it onto another Wikipedia page. This is a violation of copyright, as it does not credit the original authors. Pages are not moved by copying; see Copying within Wikipedia. Instead, consensus must be formed to move the page. See prior discussion at Talk:Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas. The way this was handled created a "fork" of this article.

I have performed a history merge of the articles so that attribution is complete. I have restored the last version of this original document given copyright concerns documented above. While I have not reproduced the work of AnimeshKulkarni, I did use the duplication detector tool to verify that some copying had occurred.

There may be valuable information in the fork that can be restored that does not infringe on the source mentioned above. You can see that version here. Please do not restore content from the character table without ensuring that it does not copy or closely paraphrase the table at the source. See Copy-paste for more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing dispute - incorrect information
I'm writing here following the dispute that has occurred between myself and TheRedPenOfDoom (see here for more info).

I completely agree with this user's sentiments that my table of cast members included some non-encyclopedic trivial comments, such as the relationship between characters. However, I completely disagree with his/her assertions that the table is unnecessary - there is nothing wrong with a simple table consisting of character, actor and duration. To my knowledge, that violates no Wikipedia rules. I am completely against this user's assertion that unknown actors shouldn't have their characters credited. Turning it into a list of actors (with roles mentioned secondly) removes several key characters who appear often enough in this programme to warrant a credit in this article. What is more, some actors who have previously left their roles and replaced by other uncredited actors are incorrectly referenced in the article (i.e. Jyostsana Karyekar who left the role of Janko in 2011 and was replaced by an unknown actor later that year). Readers will either wonder why this character is listed as having last appeared in 2011 when she is still appearing on-screen.

(The fact that some actors remain unknown is surely a problem on the part of the television company. As I posted in the link above, Star Plus has never referenced the names of actors, instead preferring to promote the names of its characters - even it's on-screen identity features promotional stings with the actors introducing themselves as their characters. These actors also collect their prizes from the promotional awards ceremony in full character.)

But seeing as many of the actors are unknown, I suggest that the "cast" list should be restructured as a "character" list. There are other television programmes on this encyclopedia that list characters first and foremost and then actors, if known, secondly - see here for example.

Below is my suggestion for a table of characters. Please offer ideas and thoughts. These characters are all relevant and currently appear in the programme, and sources can be found for each one of them.

Hopefully these issues can be resolved. (I'm refraining from editing the article until the matter is solved, as I don't want to get into petty quarrels with the aforementioned user - and if not here, I'll take the issue further as per the administrator's advice.)

 LBM  | TALK TO ME  19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * suggestion: to replace "cast list" with "character list" so that we can include character for which we cannot verify actors:
 * response: No. WP:V verifiability of content is a prime content requirement. Using a nonstandard format just so we can include unsourced content which without the actor's name is pure trivia and a non starter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * suggestion: ignore the WP:MOSTABLE which says that tables should only be used when organizing content in columns and rows is beneficial to the reader to understand the information presented.
 * response: fine, leaving the eyesore of tables that are impossible to edit is not something that I am willing to continue to push for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is that the characters are known to all, but many of the actors are not. This is why the emphasis needs to be on characters. This is an article about a television series, and creating a list of the characters portrayed in that series is hardly anti-encyclopedic. Your assertions that the character name sans actor name is trivia is confusing to say the least. Do you suggest references be included for characters? It can be easily proved with the appropriate sources that these characters exist. I am willing to dispense with the table as per the policy linked to above (though I disagree completely that it's an "eyesore"...!). -  LBM  | TALK TO ME  20:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * no, WP:MOSTABLE is a guideline that should be followed, but WP:V is a policy that must be followed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ...I'm aware of that, hence my suggestion that characters should be referenced. Whether one likes it or not, some information is just not easily obtainable. However, information that is both correct and verifiable should not be omitted from an encyclopedic article. I still fail to see why you consider a listing of a television programme's characters in an encyclopedic article is somehow trivial - just because the actor's name is not reachable does not mean that a relevant source cannot be located to prove the existence of a character.  LBM  | TALK TO ME  21:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * this appears to be a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. your obsession with including the trivia of unknown characters has surpassed my ability to reply and stay civil. no. if you have other issues you wish to address in other areas, please bring them up, otherwise I am done.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think all you do is search for policies to defend your own haphazard editing! "Uniformity" among articles is good, but it certainly isn't good if it entails removing correct and relevant information. The simple fact is that, whether you can comprehend it or not, your good faith (I assume) edits are leading to some very incorrect information being propagated in this article. I see you're not going to enlighten me on why you think a listing of characters in an article about a television programme is unencyclopedic. I take offence at someone trying to back me into a corner. It was never my intention to expand upon the trivial nature of these articles, in spite of your continued reiterations. I have compromised as much as I can, as is clear to read here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it's clear you're not going to understand - you suffer from the same Oh, I didn't hear that syndrome. I shall leave this particular matter alone for now. --  LBM  | TALK TO ME  22:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * huh, thats a funny thing: editing based upon policies. maybe you should try it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, thanks. I'd rather add correct, verifiable information to an article rather than edit it haphazardly. :) --  LBM  | TALK TO ME  22:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * you can create your own fansite where you can edit however you want, but if you want to edit at wikipedia, i would suggest you edit based upon the policies, or you wont be editing for long. that was pretty much the advice you got from your ANI question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the advice I got was to discuss the relevant issues with you on this talk page, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere because you're not willing to discuss these issues with me - instead, you're merely defending your own haphazard editing and quarrelling with anyone who disputes your viewpoint. Is adding verifiably correct information in breach of an editing policy...? Or is every correct and sensible edit that you don't like somehow trivia? --  LBM  | TALK TO ME  22:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to get told again that we need to follow sourcing policies, we can go to Dispute resolution noticeboard. But I am through beating my head against the wall here.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2013
i want to edit this


 * No request made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014
82.167.22.244 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --   Edderso       talk          contribs  17:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2010
Saathiya is about a young, uneducated girl named Gopi. She is a very innocent girl who believes that she can never achieve in life. Also she believed that her parents died when she was young. Urmila, However adopted her and when she grew up she was treated like a servant. Rashi the complete opposite to Gopi loves to live life to the fullest and also doesn't really like Gopi. When Gopi gets married to Ahem Ji her life changes completely. She now lives in a rich house with Ahem Ji and also Rashi got married to Jigar. What will happen when Gopi get married? Watch saathiya Monday to Saturday only on Star Plus.

86.136.76.235 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 00:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Schedule:
Saath Nibhaana Saathiya is on Monday to Saturday at 7:00PM only on Star Plus even better in HD. Before Saath Nibhaana Saathiya used to be Monday To Friday then due to more viewers Saath Nibhanna Saathiya is now on 6 days a week from Monday to Saturday. Remember to watch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.76.235 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2014
103.242.217.254 (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 02:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2014
saath nibhaana saathiya is a story revolving around two sisters ,the sufferingS AFTER MARRIAGE.... IT IS REMADE IN TAMIL AS DEIVAM THANDHA VEEDU AND IN TELUGU AND MALAYALAM AS WELL.122.167.92.223 (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ No identifiable specific request made. Please state your request in the form of "Please add X after Y" or "Please change Z1 to Z2" and provide a reliably published source to support the change.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Request
I know that Radha (Bhavini Purohit) is the antagonist but now she is married to Jigar. So now she is Radha Modi not Radha Kapadia.Angelina Winget AW (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cast list removal
It is evident that there is problem with false personalities being added to the cast list. As of today (and all edits prior) the cast list is unsourced. As this article has been tagged as in need of sources over 2 years ago, and is an ongoing target for vandalism and contention for verifiability, this list is going to be removed until WP:V policy can be met, by providing reliable third party sourcing for the list. Regards, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生] 16:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting this Page
It is evident that there are users on wikipedia who are acting as watchdogs for this particular page. These users are consistently arguing why their edits should remain in tact (when these edits are poorly articulated and quite frankly very poor summaries of what these users deem the high points of the show). A plot summary of a serial/day-to-day soap opera should capture the broad themes of the series, not a rushed play by play of garbled events. Likewise when a new user attempts to make a creative, literate edit for the page the watchdog(s) initiate hostile communications and excessive edit warrings through what seems to be different user names (but is most likely the same person as wikipedia is a public web source).

Therefore I think it would be best to remove this page. Nobody owns any section on wikipedia, and in the last 5 years nobody has made significant contributions to this page, only desperate attempts to take ownership of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamleshbhabhi (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No-one listened it. 39.38.31.105 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2017
Dai maa 137.97.11.239 (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017
Nutan Rai was part of the Saath Nibhaana Saathiya cast. and. Thanks! 39.38.31.105 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. This doesn't contain all the information we'd need to make this edit. Specifically, where should her name be added?  City O f  Silver  21:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since she had guest appearance in the show, so her name should be written in "Recurring" section and the year (2017). 39.38.46.152 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: - Was this a significant recurring role with a specific story arc, or was it a cameo? One of the sources you mentioned indicated she played a "cameo role of Shanella, Singaporean indian girl friend of the main lead’s son". That doesn't sound terribly noteworthy. "Recurring" doesn't just mean "appeared twice", there's a presumption that the people being listed in this section are significant. See WP:TVCAST: "A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show." Wikipedia isn't IMDb. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * She came to show after episodes reached 2000+ episodes and played Shannela and for sure, she didn't even come in last episode of Saath Nibhaana Saathiya. So can we still say that she had main role? 39.38.16.31 (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How many episodes would you estimate she was in? Was she a significant character in the main storylines in these episodes? Or was she just a person who showed up once or twice, had a line or two, and that was it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018
Tony T121 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your request was blank. Requests need to be in the form "please change X to Y." -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)