Talk:Zee Café

Gilmore Girls
Why isn't Gilmore Girls mentioned in the list of shows that Zee Cafe airs? I think it should be mentioned, cause it's a very popular show all around the world.

Neutral point of view
I know nothing about Indian television, but the sections about competition, ratings and especially "future" seem a bit opinionated to me. If these are widespread opinions, they should be cited (perhaps with a reference from a cultural commentator or Indian TV critic?); otherwise, they should be deleted. Please see WP:NPOV; articles should reflect facts and notable, cited opinions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the future and competition sections should be deleted and the ratings section should remain only if it is rephrased and cites references for the information.


 * Raj712 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Neutral point of view
I agree with you, but i feel "parsi90" the creator of this page should have a "say" before it's deleted/modified to suit the content. I'm adding "Gilmore Girls" to the list.

-
 * ''' I believe that the section "Future" should be deleted.

--Indyan 09:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zeecafe new.PNG
Image:Zeecafe new.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Program list
I invite and  to discuss their concerns here. I take no position on including this content or not, but there is a difference between a list of programs airing on a TV station and a programming guide for said station(featuring a list of times various programs are on). Also, NOTTVGUIDE does state that "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable", although a list of current programs aired doesn't necessarily seem "historic" in nature. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The page that is being removed is not "a programming guide schedule" but a simple list of former and current programming. Ive stated by opinion below. Thanks. JayB91 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the point in removing Programme Listing? NOTTVGUIDE is being misused to remove programme listing; it refers not making the page look like "TV Schedule". Former and current programming is hardly representative of TV schedule. List of programs broadcast by ABC Television, List of programmes broadcast by TVNZ, List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company are prime example of current and former programming list on Wikipedia; Infact the entire Wikipedia almost all channel page has Programming listing Either written into channel page or created as an individual page. I see no point that this particular channel page, that too so well referenced has been singled out? JayB91 (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @JayB91 has attempted to undo the list removal on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of the programming guides on other television articles should be removed as well. In general these lists are indiscriminate and poorly sourced. The one exception to this is original programming, which does allow for some of these lists to exit - theses are almost always separate to the parent article. For this article there is no evidence that any of the shows being original to this network. Ajf773 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Poorly sourced? The list you removed most of them were heavily sourced by reputable publications. Infact removing the list the page has become from a very well referenced to stub category page. How in world is that a constructive edit? You think if there should be another programming page for the particular channel then I will create one. On basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I will just say that on entire Wikipedia almost every channel page has a programming section and most of non-originals are listed under "Acquired programming" section. You said "Most of the programming listing on other television articles should be removed as well." Should we change the way we generally write Wikipedia now? JayB91 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There were some sources, including facebook posts and blog links which are considered self-published and unreliable - therefore not reputable. Majority of the list was still unsourced, however that is not the point as sourced content does not automatically mean it belongs. The lists are of indiscriminate nature of which is not encyclopdic. WP:NOTTVGUIDE is also relevant, it is not limited to schedules. We should not have Acquired programming sections, Wikipedia is not a television fansite. I don't have time to cleanup every single network article, yours were targeted due to some other edits you tried to undo of mine. Ajf773 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "We should not have Acquired programming sections" Its your opinion not of Wikipedia's general consensus. " I don't have time to cleanup every single network article" Why target particularity this one?. Yes it has some official Facebook links but it also has many links from Times Of India, Daily News and Analysis which are hardly "blog links which are considered self-published and unreliable". Also we don't particlualry source every single programming on Wikipedia; otherwise the page will become one huge gigantic balloon of references which will be twice the size of page content. Fansite details means cruff trivial content which has no relation with the channel page in general; Programming section is NOT "fansite nonsense"; every Wikipedia channel page in general uses them. I strongly suggest you let the programming section be there with "Acquired tags" and remove the the few so called Facebook links but dont just blindly remove the entire section calling it WP:NOTTVGUIDE. JayB91 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't make the assumption that it is okay to add content to one particle because it exists on a similar article. There is no rules against excessive use of references, in fact it is strongly encouraged, due to the fact unreferenced content may be challenged and removed. Programming sections are fine so long as individual programme demostrate an level of important to the particular broadcaster (such as original programming) ... standalone lists of programmes (including acquire) generally are not. Ajf773 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)