Talk:Udaan (2014 TV series)

Cast member departure
in this edit, you moved someone from the Main cast section down to Recurring, adding a parenthetical that the person had left. By what logic would someone who was part of the Main cast be moved to recurring after a departure? If they were part of the main cast, we would still have an academic need to know that. A person doesn't get demoted or discarded just because they leave a TV series. Now if the person was never considered by producers to be part of the main cast, that would be a valid reason to move the person to Recurring, but that would be best explained in an edit summary, so other editors know why you made the change and don't have to query you here. As a general note, parentheticals are extraordinarily sloppy. If someone leaves a series, using complete sentences to explain it is perfectly valid. "Azim left the series in 2017 after a 3-month story arc." (Or whatever the case may be.) Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Cast reordering
Hi, I've reverted your recent changes to the cast section. It's nothing personal, but I need to be sure your edits are consistent with existing guidelines. Re: these edit summaries you say:
 * "chakor and suraj are the main. Since the villain changes every few months once a storyline has concluded, you cannot put a villain as a main. The lead characters are always chakor and suraj"
 * "Imli is a recurring since a villain changes once a storyline has concluded. Imli can no longer be a lead as a villain just like KN was not a lead as the main villain previously."
 * "She is a recurring villian not a main character anymore"

I need a little clarification about your logic, since it doesn't appear to be consistent with WP:TVCAST. If a villain is part of the main cast and they leave the show, they would always be listed in the Main section per WP:TVCAST, which says:
 * "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series."

For whatever reason, this seems to be a real confusing issue for casual editors of Indian TV articles, who seem to (for whatever reason) want to focus on the most current information rather than the entire history of the series. Cast members don't stop being of academic importance just because they've left a television series, and Wikipedia is not an extension of the Colors TV website. If Colors only cares about the most current lineup, that's their business, but we are an encyclopedia.

You made a number of other changes to the cast that you didn't properly explain, for example, why did you move Vidhi Pandya to the top of the list if there's a giant notice at the top of the section indicating that new cast members go at the bottom of the list? You moved Moni Rai up in the list. Why? What Wikipedia guideline were you following when you made that edit? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , your edits here are contrary to existing community guidelines like WP:ANTAGONIST, (also embraced by WikiProject Television) which tells us that we shouldn't be adding interpretive labels like antagonist or protagonist. Properly written prose should be used instead to describe characters and provide context. See List of Millennium characters as an example. It's also totally pointless, in a section marked "Main" to describe cast members as either "main" or "lead". And for heaven's sake, our readers are not space aliens. We don't need to indicate genders as if none of our readers can distinguish between males and females by looking at the screen. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What's with the change of spelling from Udaan to Udann?
in these edits, why have you comprehensively renamed Udaan as Udann, including in reference titles? Don't you think that would be something to discuss here on the article's talk page, particularly when the title of the article is not consistent with that spelling? I certainly do.

Also note that in this edit, I reverted the article to a version from 7 March 2018. Over the intermediate 50 edits the article was brought significantly out of alignment with our general Manual of Style as well as our Manual of Style for television. A great number of misspellings, formatting errors, and other problems were introduced. If you think that some information should be returned, let me know and I'll take a look at it.

Anyone else who's interested in this, note that "Main" and "Recurring" are typically the subheadings of cast that we care about. "Supporting characters" would include everybody who had a role, which is far too inclusive. "Recurring" suggests that we care about significant recurring characters. Note also that "Former cast" is not a valid subsection. We care about the entire history of the cast, not just whoever's on right now. If the series was cancelled, you'd have to move everybody to the Former cast section, which makes no sense. Cast members should be organised according to their introduction into the series, with new cast members being added to the bottoms of the Main and Recurring sub-sections. This means that new lead cast/characters will appear below lesser members of the main cast. Any deviations from community norms must be discussed and a local consensus achieved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb Hi it's officially called Udann. Check the broadcaster website it is stated that their show is called Udann. Not Udaan, since they are official and own the show, you cannot disagree with this. Check it yourself.

Secondly, vikas bhalla has confirmed along with the show itself that he is no longer in the show and his character is dead. This you cannot disagree with and should check the show by watching it you will understand. Perhaps your not a regular viewer. Lastly the character of pakhi is a recurring as she has no significant lead on the show. There is a leap so perhaps she will not even be shown anymore. But regardless she is not and never has been a lead on the show. She is not credited on the montage of the show and the actress is continuously changed. You should watch and keep up with the show to have the right to change information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystal3003 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The plot section
The plot section is far too long and detailed, I reduced it to the first few sentences but was reverted. Per WP:PLOT, it is too long, therefore if anybody wants to reduce it down to a sensible amount please do so, or I'll just remove it again-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , gotta be honest I find it really strange that you would restore a note saying the plot can't be more than 500 words, to a freshly restored plot thats about 3,500 words-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What's strange about it, and what would you have preferred I do? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't find it strange adding a comment to not make the plot section too long and to follow TVPLOT, to a plot section that is far too long and blatantly ignoring TVPLOT? Surely you must agree that the plot section on this page was completely inappropriate-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)-- Jac 16888  Talk 17:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, I probably shouldn't have restored that note, because 500 words is probably not a reasonable limit for a show like this. Indian entertainment articles are an imperfect science. Many of the people who edit have zero comprehension of community standards and norms, e.g. that it's normal to create an episode list. There are 1200+ episodes. If someone had endeavored to create a list of episodes, the entirety of that content (and then some) would be in that list. If Indian TV shows don't observe western "season" beginnings-and-endings, and a 1200+ episode show is considered one season, are we going to deprive people of academic information just to follow a guideline that was written with western TV structure in mind? That seems like we're penalising India for doing things slightly differently. And anyway, all someone would cleverly have to do is just change the section heading from "Plot" to "Series summary" or "Plot by year" or something that would no longer be controlled by the MOS. While I am a fan of structure and rules, there are times when we need to be flexible for the sake of providing information. So is 3500 words too long for a 4-year-old series? Yes. But 153 words is probably way too short. I'd think that something in the 1000 to 1200 word range would be more reasonable. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A longer plot section would be appropriate only if done properly. Being a long running show is nothing unique to Indian entertainment, this show seems no different to soaps such as Coronation Street or Days of Our Lives, reading those articles they both have an overview of plots woven with real world context and references. Udaan's plot section may as well have been written by the network to promote it, a minimal or no plot section if vastly more appropriate than what was there previously-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Guiding Light endeavors to provide decade-by-decade summaries, some of them heavily laden with plot, like Guiding Light (1950–59). So it seems that the crime committed here, was that casual editors unfamiliar with community standards failed to create a child article for Udaan episodes or something that more closely resembles the Guiding Light format. Re: "A longer plot section would be appropriate only if done properly", there is a total dearth of competent editors who are interested in Indian television articles, so you're making an unreasonable demand of editors who simply don't exist here. Who's going to do it properly? Most of our strong Indian editors are interested in headier things like politics, history, religion, culture, etc. Of the ones who are interested in Indian entertainment, most are interested in film, not television. Further complicating matters, there are virtually zero WikiProject Television editors who are interested in Indian television articles. Anyhow, from my perspective, plot shouldn't be castrated merely because it doesn't fit the letter of the MOS. If the Udaan producers had decided to use western season numbering, that plot section could be up to 2000 words long and we'd be having a different conversation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Guiding Light (1950–59) is a perfect example of a massively overbloated article that is pretty much entirely plot and is of little encyclopedic value. If no editors exist to make good content, then very little content is better than a mass of terrible content. Both WP:NOTPLOT and WP:TVPLOT are clear on this - concise summaries -- Jac 16888 Talk 21:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you may have noticed that I wasn't the one who restored the content, so there's really little I must do to defend the restoration--this is a fight you and anon are going to have. I do, however, think that if you were to raise the subject at WikiProject Television, assuming anybody cared to respond, you'd likely find some editors who might feel that 500 words is a bit restrictive for this circumstance. It's not like I haven't had this discussion before. Here's an example. Anyhow, I think I've addressed your issue about the embedded note. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Where did the main characters go?
In these edits you removed two main characters from the main character section, but didn't explain why. What was the rationale for this? I find it hard to believe that a drama series has one credited main character. Are you editing according to WP:TVCAST? I assume you are not, since you randomly dumped these cast members into the Recurring cast without regard for when they were introduced into the series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)