User talk:Siddiqsazzad001/Archive 1

Superflous line breaks
Hi there, re: these edits, was there a reason you added all of the unnecessary line breaks to the article? Also, we don't use subjective labels like "antagonist" and "protagonist" in TV articles. (See WP:ANTAGONIST - Though this is a film guideline, it is widely embraced by WikiProject Television) If each of those entries contained proper character summaries, (ex: "Juhi Aslam as Shilpa, Advay's scheming assistant and spy") it would be clear who the good guys and bad guys are. And naturally in a section labeled "Main cast" we wouldn't need to be told who the "main" people are, nor do we need to be told who the males and females are, as most viewers could determine this through visual and audio cues honed throughout millennia of evolution. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC) !-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> —

Interpretive labels
Hi there, please don't use interpretive labels like antagonist, protagonist, deuteragonist, tritagonist, etc. in articles as you've done here. In an ideal world, these character lists would also include useful descriptions about characters as we find at List of Millennium characters. These descriptions would make it clear who the antagonists and protagonists are. I also don't know what the fascination is with identifying who the males and females are, but I see this almost exclusively in Indian articles, and it's totally unnecessary. Can't we tell who the boys and girls are by looking at them? And don't we know if someone is "Main" or a "Lead" if they are in the "Main cast" section? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Ishqbaaaz. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''Diff: You didn't fix any of the issues raised in the cleanup template. There is still a Former cast section when there should not be, there still isn't much content in the Cast section, and it's unclear why you again added dozens of unnecessary line breaks. Please stop doing that.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @Cyphoidbomb I through that it maybe a junk massage. Can you please where is the issues and how or when remove it?
 * Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't read it. The issues are mostly noted in the maintenance template:
 * "This section needs to be expanded to include brief character descriptions (not just family trees) as well as real-world context about casting, departures, etc. Per WP:TVCAST, valid subsections are Main cast and Recurring cast. "Supporting cast" is not valid as it invites an indiscriminate list, where "Recurring" limits inclusions to characters who have appeared multiple times. "Former cast" is not a valid subsection as it fails to indicate whether the cast member was part of the main or recurring cast. Cast members who have left should be incorporated into either Main or Recurring and any relevant information about the cast member's departure should be presented in prose. Per community guidelines, new cast members should be added to the bottom of each list. Seek consensus for deviations. For an example of what this section should ideally look like, see List of Millennium characters.
 * We keep having problems with cast sections in Indian television articles. People seem to think that it's a film cast list, where you basically just briefly mention everybody and move on. On the contrary, the ideal article has lots of information about the cast and characters. You should look at List of Millennium characters to see what the goal is. And if you plan to edit television articles, you should familiarise yourself with our Manual of Style for television articles, as it basically tells you what should and should not be included in these articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Malformed reference
In this edit, you moved content but left a malformed reference behind: {{cite web |url=h/ref> and ttp://www.tabloidbintang.com. This resulted in citation errors at the bottom of the page. Please double-check your work and use Show Preview and Show Changes before saving your edits. I'm reverting your edits, because the additional problem you created, was that you took references that were intended to support the Indonesian air dates and moved them after a malformed Award table. So now the Indonesian air dates are unsourced and the award you added is not supported by the references that follow it. No idea what you were doing, but it's sloppy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb Oh! Sorry I didn't notice that.

Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading comprehension
Hey there, re: this edit, if you don't understand what the problem is, you shouldn't attempt to fix it. The issue in this case was that it was ambiguous what the ploy or plan is. Changing the word from ploy to plan doesn't help to resolve the ambiguity, because the word "it" is the problem. Look: What does "it" refer to? Annika and Shivaay fighting? Did the Oberois plot/plan for Annika and Shivaay to fight each other? Does "it" refer to Annika falling and getting memory loss? In which case, does that mean the Oberois told Annika to fake the memory loss? Another way to address this is to answer the question "what was the Oberois' plan?"
 * Annika and Shivaay fight,
 * Annika falls and suffers a memory loss,
 * but it was a ploy of the young Oberois.

Basically, this boils down to a reading comprehension issue. There's no crime in being so-so in English--I applaud you for helping out at the English Wikipedia, but maybe you should take more time to understand the content you're changing, or you can always ask others for help. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@ user:Cyphoidbomb, Oh ! My another question was "Can I replace plot section to synopsis and make it short?"

Thanks, Siddiqsazzad001 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to change the heading to make it short. Plot and Synopsis both convey the same idea. Typically "Plot" is what we use in TV articles. See MOS:TV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Extra line breaks again
Hi there, re: this, do you see all those + signs with blank lines? There are four lines after the starring parameter, there's an extra line break between Kunal Jaisingh and Shrenu Parikh, etc? I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or if you have some odd browser extension activated, but please stop doing this. This doesn't help anything, and it just makes the article markup take up more vertical space. Not helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@user:Cyphoidbomb, Yes, My browser has some issue. I will fix it soon.

Thank You, Siddiqsazzad001 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Excluding antagonists
Re: this, why can't antagonistic roles be included in main cast? If there is a main villain, it would stand to reason they could be part of the main cast. There is no academic prohibition on antagonists having leading roles. Example: here Heath Ledger is considered as having a starring role in The Dark Knight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a response to this. Did you have a rationale for making this statement? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Most popular"
Re: this, we're not here to promote anything at Wikipedia. To that end, we do not use hyperbolic language, as we are a neutral encyclopedia. Describing something as "most popular" is an opinion that is being presented as facts, and we do not present opinions as facts, nor do we present opinions in such a way as to lead readers to think that it is the only opinion about the subject. We don't describe things as "best", "most beautiful", "most fun", "greatest singer", etc. We don't describe things as "blockbuster", "super hit", "failure", "flop", "disaster", etc. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Cyphoidbomb, Thanks for told me. Siddiq Sazzad   (Chat)     16:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ishqbaaaz (soundtrack)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ishqbaaaz (soundtrack). — usernamekiran (talk)  16:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * @Anupam Thank you so much, Siddiq Sazzad    (Chat)     09:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)