Talk:Kusum Dola

Protected edit request on 30 April 2018

@Cyphoidbomb: Dear Admin, I want this article to be protected, sinch various users, especially Sunit Roy are making persistent disruptive edits from fan perspectives of view, degrading the scale of the article. Most users update things according to themselves without providing any relatable edit summary. So, kindly grant my request. With regards, Abir susnigdha 13:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC).

@Abir susnigdha: Request here - WP:RFPP. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary

@Torterra Ketchum 5999: can we please discuss the plot summary. It's huge, full of long run-on sentences, and almost entirely unreferenced despite its level of detail. It's been truncated by User:Capitals00, then User:Cyphoidbomb and User:David.moreno72, then me; {{Long plot|section|date=June 2018}} was placed by first User:Siddiqsazzad001 and then me. (I'm leaving aside the unexplained and disruptive blanking by Sunit Roy, which has nothing to do with any of the editors above.) You've repeatedly restored the over-long plot section, and removed the long plot tags. Your most recent rationale for this was

What consensus? It is clearly stated at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television that for tv show articles having no episode list the plot section can contain upto 500 words per season; Kusum Dola, having officially 12 seasons, can contain upto 6000 words in the plote summary, but contains merely about 3400 words, a little more than the half of it. Despite that, if it looks to be far long to certain people, it can be their approach, but not something I am doing against the guideline

and

removing the template message for which I previously clarified. Dividing the plot into suitable tracks is what needs to be done in this case, as the article totally contains important info which is not unnecessary. If one goes through it, the fact can be better perceived, anyway, if I now add tracks to it for readers' convenience, people will come saying it has become a track shop. Without removing the entire plot, try to contribute something effective for the article's betterment.

The recent edit history clearly show there's a clear consensus against having the plot section the way it is. To avoid further edit-warring, can we please find a way to fix this that is acceptable to all of the editors involved? Thanks, TMG^talk 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Torterra Ketchum 5999: I agree with TMG. Per WP:PLOTSUM, The TV style guideline recommends "no more than 200 words" for television episodes in episode lists, or "no more than 400 words" in standalone episode articles. And we can't accept hotstar.com seasons because those seasons are divided for viewers to make more easily to watch daily episodes. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ex.Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai which is cross over 2675 episodes and 65 seasons per Hotstar. So that's mean is 500x65=32500 words - OMG! Wikipedia is not a guide. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why is the plot summary at Ishqbaaz so long, incomplete and acceptable. There hasn't been any revert edits to just the first introductory line. But for a Bengali tv show article which is far less popular, you can dare to remove the entire data, since you are getting unprecedented majority, BUT NOT AT ALL CARE ABOUT THE TIME AND HARD WORK ONE INVESTS TO MAKE HIS/HER PREFERRED ARTICLE BETTER FOR THE READERS' BENEFIT, EVEN IF HE TRIES TO ABIDE BY THE NOTABILITY GUIDELINES TOTALLY TO THE LINE. You can just remove the entire Plot in one blow, give at least some time to someone so that he can attempt to reduce the size, or even yourself contribute as editors. But all you do is revert one's work, PLEASE APPRECIATE ONE'S EFFORT, I am not having any personal profit in doing this. Thank you very much. User: Torterra Ketchum 5999 10:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the "synopsis" at Ishqbaaz is bloody enormous, so I've tagged that article for long plot too. And it's true that summarizing something long and complex isn't easy. Perhaps breaking the series up into smaller sections bases on storylines is the way forward. TMG^talk 06:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced content

@Torterra Ketchum 5999: I'm unclear on how you can simultaneously be adding large walls of unsourced content about Casting and Production, but be complaining about the position of the maintenance template. I guess the part I'm most confused by, is where you are getting the information. If you are reading things, you should be citing them as you write, since the bulk of the content you've submitted is subject to deletion. If you are using your personal knowledge / opinions of the series to write the content, that would constitute original research and would again be subject to deletion. Maybe a better approach would be to build these sections in your sandbox and get them all properly sourced before bringing them into live space. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:Let me make it clear to you for the casting and production section I added to the article.

First comes development, so I have mentioned that the writer is Leena Ganguly, a fact which all knows is true and is sourced as well in 2 to 3 references added to the article, one at the top and the other attached to the section itself. Then a short intro of Leena's previous known works as mentioned in the reference itself. Then comes the initial concept hich is again sourced by Hotstar (basically the storyline) and the theme published officially has been quoted as well. Non of these is "my original research or opinion" as you are teasing me. All these are present in sources already linked to the article. Also, as an editor, you are supposed to have the minimum knowledge that a single reference is usually the source of a list of generalised points and hence, you don't need to add the same source multiple times in the article as you are making me to do!

For casting section, it's simply the prose/written form of the cast and their previous notable works, and thus is sourced from the article's cast section itself, which again is sourced by hotstar app, if you don't believe, you can go through every single episode and see the same persons acting as added in the casting.

For broadcast section, it's common knowledge that hotstar is a premium service app and if you open the site you can see the premium tag. So this is also already sourced by the same source. And the rest of info are already sourced in the infobox, as the same rule applies to the filming section as well, which has got its owmn share of refernece as well! So, I am not making things up in the air, everything is well-sourced and the pattern of MOS TV has been given most importance and strictly followed here in. So, UNDERSTAND AND BE CONSIDERATE IN YOUR JOB!!! Thank you. Torterra Ketchum 5999 13:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: NO REPLY?? I am going to remove the template on the top of the article then, since only the broadcast section doesn't cite any sources but the article is well-sourced as I explained in the long analysis above, to which someone even didn't bother to give a reply!!! Even most popular articles like Naagin 3 has the same issue with sections, but no template has been added to the top of the page to disrupt the view! Torterra Ketchum 5999 20:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Torterra Ketchum 5999: I'm not required to reply within some arbitrary time frame you've set up. I am a volunteer, and I reply when I can. As for your points above, I don't have any objection to the inclusion of uncontroversial content like the name of the writer, which could be gleaned by watching the series, or the names of cast members, which could also be gleaned from watching the series. The issue chiefly involves the inclusion of interpretive and subjective content along with original research.

• "[Rishi Kaushik] made his comeback on TV after about 8 months. Says who? Is there a reference that shows the gap in Kaushik's work schedule?" Or are we just to assume that you have special knowledge of how long this person was out of work? How do we prove a negative?
• Later Rishi described to a leading portal that his character "Rono" is reserved and headstrong like his real-life self This content is attributed to this reference, which doesn't say any of that.
• versatile actress - That's subjective. Doesn't belong in the article. Encyclopedias don't decide who is "versatile".
• Aparajita Ghosh Das ... was the writer's first choice to play ... Roopkatha - Says who? The only reference nearby is this, which says nothing to support that claim.
• ...and was instantly finalized for the role, taking into account her onscreen chemistry with Rishi - Again, not sourced and otherwise wholly interpretive, because without sources, you are speaking from inside writer Gangopadhyay's mind. This source only has an interviewer saying "Your chemistry with Rrishi Kaushik is much talked about..." That doesn't do anything to support the claim that the writer hand-selected the actor based on their onscreen chemistry with another actor. The content is also ambiguous because it could also be interpreted that the writer liked the actor, but someone else made the ultimate decision to hire her.
• Madhumita Sarkar, acclaimed for her portrayal of strong characters - Says who? Prove that the actor received widespread acclaim. Also, were there no negative reactions to this actor? Are we sure we're writing from a neutral point of view? Are we presenting both sides of an idea here, or just writing about the positives?

So these are just some of the issues in the first paragraph of the casting section. There are other issues with the content as well, that sourcing won't fix. Like, how do we decide that someone is a "third main lead"? Can there be two "third main leads"? How do we differentiate between a "main lead" and any other kind of lead? Isn't a lead a lead? What's the difference between a main protagonist and a protagonist? Isn't a protagonist by definition the main character in a story? And why on earth do we need to tell readers that someone is a "female protagonist"? Are encyclopedias usually that didactic when it comes to gender labels? When I look at a Featured List like List of Millennium characters, I don't see any sort of that labeling. Also, are you aware of WP:PROTAGONIST, which is a concept generally embraced by WikiProject Television?

Also, encyclopedias speak in an appropriate tone. People aren't "roped in", nor do they "pen" things. These are slang expressions suitable for film trades. And as for the Broadcast section, it reads like an advertisement for the series and almost certainly contravenes WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Pace down the tone! You are getting it violent. I am no one to set up "some arbitrary time frame" for you to reply within and I have not. I understand as a an admin you are busy and can reply immediately to queries, but since the whole day passed (at least 5 anf half hours), I thought that you have understood my analysis and still to confirm, if you are still on the line I wrote "NO REPLY" (any sort of authorised demand not intended at all!). It was that for how long will I have to wait to discuss or if you have even read my comment or not. Let it aside, thanks for explaining the points to me which you have objection on, but most of that is basically about the tone of language and not much about "unsourced or partly sourced content". Let me get the things clear to you one by one-

1. "[Rishi Kaushik] made his comeback on TV after about 8 months. - Rishi Kaushik appeared last (on TV) in Ishti Kutum serial which went off air in December 2015, so it makes 8 months almost with him returning back on TV in August 2016 with Kusum Dola. He didn't do any other role in between, as if he had done there would have been any article published regarding that, it could have been added to his wiki page then . So, it's common sense. Still if you object I will remove this line.

2.'Later Rishi described to a leading portal that his character "Rono" is reserved and headstrong like his real-life self' - The reference you say this attributes isn't like that, the reference only attributes to Rishi Kaushik. The reference that attributes to the statement is reference no. 16 on the page, in which he describes his character. Go check it for verification.

3.If you go through the roles of Aparajita Ghosh Das on wikipedia article, you can see they differ in character. Also in reference no. 19, when the reporter asks her about being typecast, she brings about the versatility (difference) between them. Hence as an intro, I added the tag "versatile".

4.Aparajita Ghosh Das ... was the writer's first choice to play ... Roopkatha - That's totally subjective I agree and will remove that line.

5....and was instantly finalized for the role, taking into account her onscreen chemistry with Rishi - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/tv-show-makers-try-the-hit-jodi-formula-to-gain-trps/articleshow/63558098.cms - This reference (reference no. 6 in article) attributes to the fact. Also for you, I will replace "the writer instantly finalized her" with "she was finalized" to avoid ambiguity as you mentioned.

6.Madhumita Sarkar, acclaimed for her portrayal of strong characters - For this you can relate to this- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/the-most-desirable-women-2017-on-bengali-television/articleshow/63877439.cms. In this reference which I will add later, her characters and popularity has been heavily emphasized, but to write totally from neutral point of view, I have diminished the entire reference to "acclaimed for her portrayal of strong characters". I am saying you trust me there is nothing positive or negative in that.

7. I said "third main lead" only since the name of her character was given later, as any casting is normally done, explaining the significance of the role, instead of its nake Ishqbaaz, Dil Bole Oberoi, Dil se Dil me merely. Also the term "third main lead" is attributed with respect to her order-frequency of appearance on the series, but again she appears on the poster, and hence can't be termed parallel lead. But of you say, I can replace "third" with "another".

8. A series can have more than one protagonist, but the term main is attributed to the dominance of one character over other, based on featured content for that very character. But I will remove "main" if you still disagree.

9. I know you will have problem with "FEMALE PROTAGONIST", and I would have never mentioned it, but has to since the character's name was given later on and to point its significance out of 3 or more protagonists I had to mention the term. Without that, how would I have introduced the role played by Madhumita Sarkar.

10. With the "slang expressions" you say I felt like not repeating "cast in" or "chosen to play" and "wrote down" and things like that, but if these are not apporpriate, I will undo them.

11. And for the broadcast section, I just wrote in prose the chronology, which already has been allotted a space in the info box.

Whoo! Think I am able to get my point clear. After I have done the required edits as mentioned above, I believe I will be able to remove the template. Thank you. Torterra Ketchum 5999 22:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've shovelled out the worst of the unsourced promo. Torterra Ketchum 5999, your edits to date are almost exclusively on this and similar articles on shows by Magic Moments Motion Pictures. Please read WP: Conflict of interest, and if you have a professional or personal connection with the company, you'll need to declare it, thanks. TMG^talk 07:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: WHAT A NASTY ABUSE!!!! I have got it when I have already settled the matter by detailed discussion, you have to barge in and apply this nasty politics to disrupt my justified edits and trick me with a terrible accuse like this, someone who himself handled a COI person in the first place. Listen, I have edited articles like Ishqbaaz, DBO, Dil Se Dil Tak and now, Naagin as well, but I don't need to clarify this to you. You removed loads of content from the page like some unprofessional as per your own sweet will, without providing any suitable explanation, and for a article that was already going to be made as per the standarizations discussed above. I am going to remove everything, taht was not discussed beforehand! Torterra Ketchum 5999 21:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:Verify. As I explained in each of my edit summaries, I removed unsourced promotional claims. Please stop adding them back until there's consensus here for them to be re-added. Thank you. TMG^talk 16:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you citing promotional haah? I am writing generalized things and your calling it promotional without any suitable explanation, doesn't make it promotional got it! Let me work on the article in peace! Torterra Ketchum 5999 22:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please answer: do you have a professional or personal connection with the company? This is important. Thank you. TMG^talk 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No, not at all! Why are you even asking? I am not getting it at all? Is the reason is that I am editing Kusum Dola majorly at this time? Well, it's because I love the show as a viewer, and usually focus at one thing at a time. And I being a student have no question of having any sort of "professional or personal connection" with the production company. To put it forward simply, it's a nasty accuse and totally insensible for you ta have thought so! Anyways, I have made changes to the article as pointed out by Cyphoidbomb and added sources as well. And trust me, it's totally fine as it is now. Thank you. Torterra Ketchum 5999 23:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You've added new unsourced claims, and the article still has a highly promotional tone. Restoring the refimprove tag. TMG^talk 17:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Make it clear what now we have found "highly promotional and new unsourced claims" with your keen observation. As I already told, its just that you are highly relentless, but again your totally off the blue allegaations doesn't make it the fact in the least. Torterra Ketchum 5999 23:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed some of the unsourced claims you re-added. Please stop adding them back until you've got WP:RS to back them: your edits and your combative tone here are disruptive. Many unsourced and poorly-sourced claims remain. TMG^talk 18:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I am tired of the frequent reverts, explaining things and claims and accuses turned abuses, and some IP editor even made me the flagbearer against you. I have backed out of this and will do nothing anymore to cause problem to you and other learned editors of wikipedia. Also,it was very nice of you to inform me of the complaints forum. I appreciate that. Thank You! Torterra Ketchum 5999 11:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You've gone straight back to edit warring, with yet another editor. Please stop. TMG^talk 08:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: He is removing cast members tagging them as non-notable, without any prior discussion on the talk page and not giving any suitable explanation. Am I supposed to just see the entire data on the article gradually vanishing!! Torterra Ketchum 5999

He and others have explained their rationale in their WP:Edit summaries. Please take the time to read them carefully. TMG^talk 08:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have read everything carefully and have given longer and suitable explanations for my point and is also discussing on the talkpage, but they are not! He is tagging those actors as non-notable who are not having a wikipedia page! Like you must be ridiculing me for a senior editor to have that rationale in this regard. I am always explaining thimgs but others are not and are the ones to initialize revertings !!Torterra Ketchum 5999

@Torterra Ketchum 5999: The MOS:TVCAST states that, and I quote 'Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article.'. Generally, if the actor has their own Wikipedia page, or has a reliable source, they are considered notable. I have simply followed the MOS. It is not just my opinion, but the guideline, which everyone is expected to follow. Can you please reinstate my edit so that the article is in compliance with the guideline. If you do not agree with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, may I suggest that you create your own blog. Thank you David.moreno72 08:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

OK Got it sir! restoring your edit and won't be involved in this anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience caused, leading to wastage of your precious time. Torterra Ketchum 5999

Yes, you said that yesterday too. Look how long this thread has become. You've had explanations from multiple editors in the edit summaries, here, at your talk page, and elsewhere, but you disagree with those explanations. It's fine to disagree, but it's not OK to edit war on the basis of your disagreement. Now, another admin has explained at your talk page what you need to do, and what not to do, to avoid a block. I'm surprised you haven't been blocked already. TMG^talk 08:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked already as I have done nothing uncivil or un-editor-like. Currently disrupting the entire article, following the guidelines shown by you and your fellows. Torterra Ketchum 5999 08:59, June 28, 2018 (UTC)

No, please WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. TMG^talk 09:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

i AM NOT DISRUPTING ANYTHING i AM JUST FOLLOWING THE PATH SHOWN BY YOU AS PER MOS TV , in this article and other articles as well. Thank you for teaching me! Torterra Ketchum 5999 09:21, June 28, 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Torterra Ketchum 5999 and David.moreno72: Rather than block you both for edit-warring and violating Wikipedia's 3 revert rule (WP:3RR), which I or any other administrator would be entitled to do, I've fully protected the article for three days. Use this time fruitfully by calmly discussing the article, the changes you wish to make, and try to achieve a version of the article that all involved can be happy with. Please remember you are supposed to be on the same side, working together to make the best article possible for the readers. Thanks. Fish+Karate 09:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already made the article like what they wanted. And there is no more edit war. User:Torterra Ketchum 5999

No, there's still a lot of unsourced claims and promotional language remaining. I'll kick off a new thread for this. TMG^talk 09:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced and promotional content

Some suggestions for reducing the promotional tone: can we please reword phrases like "further make the storyline enthralling to the viewers", "mega serials", and "Rishi described to a leading portal"? Also, the claim in the lead that "this daily soap has consistently topped the ratings chart since its inception" is sourced only by its ratings for January. Many of User:Cyphoidbomb's points above have also not been fixed yet, but I'll leave that discussion there. TMG^talk 10:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)