339:, 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.
710:, 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.
661:
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,
503:, 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.
165:
246:
22:
189:
87:
53:
73:
236:
215:
97:
521:
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.
655:
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
448:
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
498:
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
520:
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
752:
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
660:
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
405:
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
400:"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."
683:, 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--
480:, 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.
616:
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
727:
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
444:, (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
802:
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
706:. 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:
517:@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.
413:
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
855:
406:
they've left a television series, and
Knowledge 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.
373:"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"
495:. 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.
675:
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
376:"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."
840:
362:, 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
850:
579:, 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--
179:
753:
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.
860:
845:
807:? 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.
875:
306:
296:
880:
870:
487:, 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
174:
63:
835:
155:
145:
268:
272:
865:
830:
540:
512:
793:
536:
418:
of the list? You moved Moni Rai up in the list. Why? What
Knowledge guideline were you following when you made that edit? Thanks,
259:
220:
555:, 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--
445:
33:
724:
703:
120:
110:
58:
754:
21:
551:
The plot section is far too long and detailed, I reduced it to the first few sentences but was reverted. Per
812:
762:
715:
666:
607:
532:
508:
454:
423:
344:
39:
528:
471:
433:
359:
524:
441:
745:
692:
637:
626:
588:
564:
330:
729:
680:
676:
383:
I need a little clarification about your logic, since it doesn't appear to be consistent with
251:
808:
804:
758:
733:
711:
702:
endeavors to provide decade-by-decade summaries, some of them heavily laden with plot, like
662:
603:
574:
504:
450:
419:
392:
384:
340:
264:
552:
164:
824:
737:
699:
684:
646:
629:
618:
597:
580:
556:
488:
245:
102:
816:
766:
747:
719:
694:
670:
639:
611:
590:
566:
458:
427:
348:
267:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
757:. Anyhow, I think I've addressed your issue about the embedded note. Regards,
241:
92:
656:
1200+ episodes. If someone had endeavored to create a list of episodes, the
387:. If a villain is part of the main cast and they leave the show, they would
188:
86:
52:
263:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge articles about
235:
214:
499:
also that "Former cast" is not a valid subsection. We care about the
492:
72:
118:-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the
708:"A longer plot section would be appropriate only if done properly"
115:
602:
What's strange about it, and what would you have preferred I do?
464:
15:
187:
163:
379:"She is a recurring villian not a main character anymore"
856:
Start-Class Indian television articles of Low-importance
799:
484:
477:
465:
What's with the change of spelling from Udaan to Udann?
437:
410:
367:
365:
363:
336:
440:are contrary to existing community guidelines like
651:Actually, now that I think about it, I probably
114:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of
271:. To improve this article, please refer to the
8:
841:Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
19:
522:
209:
47:
851:Low-importance Indian television articles
736:are clear on this - concise summaries --
211:
49:
861:WikiProject Indian television articles
846:Start-Class Indian television articles
707:
399:
7:
257:This article is within the scope of
108:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
876:Low-importance television articles
493:our Manual of Style for television
391:be listed in the Main section per
196:This article was last assessed in
14:
787:Where did the main characters go?
281:Knowledge:WikiProject Television
244:
234:
213:
95:
85:
71:
51:
20:
881:WikiProject Television articles
871:Start-Class television articles
301:This article has been rated as
284:Template:WikiProject Television
175:the Indian television workgroup
150:This article has been rated as
628:17:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)--
349:14:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
836:Low-importance India articles
817:17:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
446:List of Millennium characters
428:04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
172:This article is supported by
794:Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari
767:21:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
748:21:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
720:20:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
695:19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
671:19:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
640:17:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
612:17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
591:16:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
459:17:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
567:17:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
489:our general Manual of Style
130:Knowledge:WikiProject India
897:
866:WikiProject India articles
831:Start-Class India articles
541:11:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
513:04:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
501:entire history of the cast
307:project's importance scale
156:project's importance scale
133:Template:WikiProject India
411:a number of other changes
300:
229:
195:
171:
149:
80:
46:
725:Guiding Light (1950–59)
704:Guiding Light (1950–59)
260:WikiProject Television
192:
168:
28:This article is rated
324:Cast member departure
275:for the type of work.
191:
167:
287:television articles
269:join the discussion
265:television programs
483:Also note that in
193:
169:
34:content assessment
755:Here's an example
681:Days of Our Lives
677:Coronation Street
543:
527:comment added by
321:
320:
317:
316:
313:
312:
252:Television portal
208:
207:
204:
203:
111:WikiProject India
888:
797:
743:
740:
690:
687:
650:
635:
632:
624:
621:
601:
586:
583:
578:
562:
559:
547:The plot section
475:
334:
289:
288:
285:
282:
279:
273:style guidelines
254:
249:
248:
238:
231:
230:
225:
217:
210:
138:
137:
134:
131:
128:
105:
100:
99:
98:
89:
82:
81:
76:
75:
74:
69:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
896:
895:
891:
890:
889:
887:
886:
885:
821:
820:
791:
789:
741:
738:
688:
685:
644:
633:
630:
622:
619:
617:inappropriate--
595:
584:
581:
572:
560:
557:
549:
469:
467:
395:, which says:
356:
354:Cast reordering
328:
326:
286:
283:
280:
277:
276:
250:
243:
223:
135:
132:
129:
126:
125:
101:
96:
94:
70:
67:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
894:
892:
884:
883:
878:
873:
868:
863:
858:
853:
848:
843:
838:
833:
823:
822:
788:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
548:
545:
466:
463:
462:
461:
403:
402:
381:
380:
377:
374:
355:
352:
325:
322:
319:
318:
315:
314:
311:
310:
303:Low-importance
299:
293:
292:
290:
256:
255:
239:
227:
226:
224:Low‑importance
218:
206:
205:
202:
201:
194:
184:
183:
180:Low-importance
170:
160:
159:
152:Low-importance
148:
142:
141:
139:
136:India articles
107:
106:
90:
78:
77:
68:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
893:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
862:
859:
857:
854:
852:
849:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
829:
828:
826:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
801:
795:
786:
768:
764:
760:
756:
751:
750:
749:
746:
744:
735:
731:
726:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:Guiding Light
698:
697:
696:
693:
691:
682:
678:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
659:
654:
648:
643:
642:
641:
638:
636:
627:
625:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
599:
594:
593:
592:
589:
587:
576:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
563:
554:
546:
544:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
518:
515:
514:
510:
506:
502:
496:
494:
490:
486:
481:
479:
473:
460:
456:
452:
447:
443:
442:WP:ANTAGONIST
439:
436:, your edits
435:
432:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
417:
412:
407:
401:
398:
397:
396:
394:
390:
386:
378:
375:
372:
371:
370:
368:
366:
364:
361:
353:
351:
350:
346:
342:
338:
332:
331:Azharmohammed
323:
308:
304:
298:
295:
294:
291:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
253:
247:
242:
240:
237:
233:
232:
228:
222:
219:
216:
212:
199:
190:
186:
185:
181:
178:(assessed as
177:
176:
166:
162:
161:
157:
153:
147:
144:
143:
140:
123:
122:
117:
113:
112:
104:
93:
91:
88:
84:
83:
79:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
790:
657:
652:
550:
523:— Preceding
519:
516:
500:
497:
482:
468:
415:
408:
404:
388:
382:
357:
327:
302:
258:
197:
173:
151:
121:project page
119:
109:
103:India portal
40:WikiProjects
809:Cyphoidbomb
800:these edits
759:Cyphoidbomb
712:Cyphoidbomb
663:Cyphoidbomb
604:Cyphoidbomb
575:Cyphoidbomb
529:Crystal3003
505:Cyphoidbomb
491:as well as
478:these edits
472:Crystal3003
451:Cyphoidbomb
434:Crystal3003
420:Cyphoidbomb
360:Crystal3003
341:Cyphoidbomb
30:Start-class
825:Categories
730:WP:NOTPLOT
278:Television
221:Television
198:April 2015
64:Television
805:WP:TVCAST
734:WP:TVPLOT
653:shouldn't
485:this edit
409:You made
393:WP:TVCAST
385:WP:TVCAST
369:you say:
337:this edit
658:entirety
647:Jac16888
598:Jac16888
537:contribs
525:unsigned
449:screen.
553:WP:PLOT
305:on the
154:on the
416:bottom
389:always
36:scale.
742:16888
689:16888
634:16888
623:16888
585:16888
561:16888
127:India
116:India
59:India
813:talk
763:talk
732:and
716:talk
667:talk
608:talk
533:talk
509:talk
455:talk
438:here
424:talk
345:talk
798:In
739:Jac
686:Jac
679:or
631:Jac
620:Jac
582:Jac
558:Jac
476:in
358:Hi
335:in
297:Low
146:Low
827::
815:)
765:)
718:)
669:)
610:)
539:)
535:•
511:)
457:)
426:)
347:)
182:).
62::
811:(
796::
792:@
761:(
714:(
665:(
649::
645:@
606:(
600::
596:@
577::
573:@
531:(
507:(
474::
470:@
453:(
422:(
343:(
333::
329:@
309:.
200:.
158:.
124:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
