Talk:Diyar-e-Dil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 3 June 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dayar-e-Dil → Diyar-e-Dil –Move was the original name of this template, and we should revert to that. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Sammy.joseph (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dayar-e-Dil → Diyar-e-Dil – A spelling error has been identified in this article, people are having error and conflicts regarding the page, the title if changed can acceptable to the page viewers. The authority itself is saying that the real spelling (New title) of the page is "Diyar-e-Dil" and is genuine[1] all the external sources, references, and other sources too have used this name [2] [3][4][5] [6]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[7]and as Channel claims it being original, it now becomes clear the name must definitely be changed. Looking upon this request would finish the copyright issue, would make the article more applicable and genuine and would be the biggest improvement for the article. Sammy.joseph (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Sammy.joseph (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  1. ^ [[1]]
  2. ^ HumtvDiyarEDil|Diyar-e-Dil
  3. ^ Diyar-e-Dil]
  4. ^ [Diyar-e-Dil]
  5. ^ [Diyar-e-Dil]
  6. ^ [Diyar-e-Dil]
  7. ^ [Dayar e Dil Full Episodes on DramaIndustry]]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non reliable sources[edit]

Most of the citations are not acceptable per WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top 7 / Top 5 - questionable reference = questionable assertion[edit]

I have twice removed content [2][3] that attempts to promote this series by calling it a top 7 or top 5 series, whatever that means. The first time I reverted, the language read: "Before its release it was among the top 7 drama serials". That's clearly inaccurate as this statement is based on a prose-free list by some random person on a website that looks like a blog and doesn't have any obvious sign of being a professional, reliable publication, which we need per WP:RS. And the fact that one source has called this series X, doesn't mean that everybody felt this way. The second time the content was added, I removed it because again we're making a very promotional claim "Show topped on number five among the Top 10 shows of 2015." That's totally sketchy, because the world is a huge place and there are thousands of television shows out there. Even if we were to attribute the claim "Admin at reviewit.pk placed it fifth in the top 10 shows of 2015", we're still dealing with a problematic reference that has no clear editorial policy. For these reasons I think we should omit this content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree. reviewit is user generated content with insufficient professional editorial oversight to be considered a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I fully agree with your statements illustrated above. One thing that wanted to add was that the show was never referred to be "The Top Fifth Show of Pakistan" shows but could be amongst The Top Fifth show of 2015 as the article listed Shows of 2015 and reading the title makes in obvious. Secondly, don't you think we should ad the received TRP rather than the fifth position thing? Do reply here so im sure with its reliability. Sammy.joseph (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to present what the reliable sources present and frame it as they frame it. So we need to follow publications like Dawn or the Tribune not user generated fansites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing of Episodes section[edit]

Users like TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom If you think that Review It is non- reliable, should we add references from Imdb? Diyar-e-Dil has a separate episode summary for it. Sammy.joseph (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy.joseph: It is unclear to me what your question is. IMDb is not considered a reliable source. WP:RS/IMDB, WP:RS, WP:TVFAQ. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMdB is only slightly more reliable that reviewit. The episode itself is an acceptable source for some things ( like the summary of the episode or the director) but ratings and reviews need to come from places with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot template[edit]

In these edits [4][5] TheRedPenOfDoom has added {{plot}} templates to flag excessive plot. I feel the template is being misapplied as there is nothing inherently wrong with the plot length in the list of episodes. All seem to fall between the ideal 100-200 words as guided by WP:TVPLOT. When the List of Episodes section gets too long, it can be broken out into another section if warranted. TRPOD, I don't think I understand your edit summary, "in ADDITION to the "premise" section, the plot includes all of the episode descriptions below" may I please trouble you to clarify? Would you prefer that the premise of the series be condensed and presented in the lede? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the episode summaries are excessive to begin with. If you are going to include an overview AND episode summaries for each episode, you need to be very condensed for each one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The episode summaries are within normal tolerances for WP:TVPLOT. 100-200 words. The overview could likely be condensed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning and Editing of Article as of August 5, 2015[edit]

I have created an entire article of Episodes section and have cleaned all the unnecessary references. In a good faith and effort i urge all the editors please do not make any UNDONE to this edit. This was in the best for the article that i did and that i have done since the article is in eyes of editors. User:Fushan007Talk 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015[edit]

 Not done no request made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

asking about removal of data[edit]

hi, myself gaurav jhammat and i want to say that there was a table earlier in which every epiosode's rating was published as it aired. now there is only one line-table in which average rank of drama is written. is it really need of removal of that table? --Gaurav Jhammat (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Jhammat, please see List of Diyar-e-Dil episodes. Is that the information you're looking for? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cyphoidbomb. I was seriously looking for this content. I am creating it in Punjabi. --Gaurav Jhammat (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why UK dates?[edit]

In this edit I notice Sammy.joseph moving episode content to the article. I'm curious though, why are UK dates listed? If it's a Pakistani series, I don't see a clear reason to include UK dates unless the series aired first in the UK, but that's not clear from the content. Anyone? If there's no valid reason for the inclusion of this content, it should probably be cut, since we only really care about first-run, not reruns. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb there are no U.K dates, the dates are Pakistani dates, the only U.K feature we have are U.K ratings which are along with the pakistani one. Sammy.joseph (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy.joseph - Whoooops. Major brain glitch. I was referring to the UK viewership numbers. Why do these belong in the article? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cymphoidbomb It was supposed to be placed in the reception and ratings section but since the content holds fame in U.K, we placed it in the episode section. Sammy.joseph (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy.joseph Many TV series are popular internationally but we don't go out of our way to list ratings from those nations. Why is Diyar-e-Dil different, and what is the precedent for the inclusion of this information? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb This section was added to show the reception of series in U.K but since each episode had a separate data we fought to add it in the episode article to show the international ratings, If you think was not a proper way I may remove this section. Sammy.joseph (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy.joseph - Meh. I'll yield. I'm unaware of any precedent for the inclusion of another nation's ratings in a TV article, but it's not a high priority for me. Thanks for your notes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Diyar-e-Dil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diyar-e-Dil&oldid=1201572719"