Talk:Anupamaa

Requested move 27 April 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There exists consensus that the common name in English-language reliable secondary sources is the one ending "aa" and that those sources are not adopting the name ending "ma". (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Anupamaa → Anupama (TV series) – The OTT platform streaming the show states 'Anupama' as the spelling of the name. Also in the video clip uploaded by the verified Facebook page of StarPlus spells the name 'Anupama'. So I think it should be changed. Shinnosuke15, 09:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

From a WP:COMMONNAME perspective, what's the spelling used in reliable sources? I did a super quick scan, and it seems that many sources use the "aa" spelling over "a", including some fairly recent sources. Ravensfire (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This [1] is offcial brodcast of the show which uses Anupama as title The Chaos of Stars (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Shinnosuke15 even I agree with Ravensfire that all reliable sources use "Anupamaa" instead of "Anupama" which is used in prequel series Anupama: Namaste America . Even link to Disney+ Hotstar has same name used. Pri2000 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There isn't mentioned about different spelling of a same name in WP:COMMONNAME. There are some examples, all of them mention completely different name, not different spelling of a same name. Moreover, the show is in Hindi language, so for the English title, I think 'Anupama' should be taken. Also, primary sources available on verified social media sites and official streaming site should be considered most reliable as my thought. Shinnosuke15, 23:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence that English sources more commonly use this other spelling. Andrewa (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we make a separate "Story Arcs" section instead of "Plot" section

@ManaliJain:,@Ravensfire:,@Venkat TL: I want to ask you if we should make a "Story Arcs" section instead of "Plot" as plot have word limit restrictions and plot under those restrictions can't define whole story as it's around 600 episodes. So should we make "Story Arcs" section by taking help from pages like TMKOC and Yeh Hai Chahatein which have well defined story Arcs sections as both of them have 3000+ and 700+ episodes respectively. As I think it would be more easier for a viewer to get a clear consensus if storyline which is extremely condensed at several places. Pri2000 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pri2000 thanks for starting a thread to discuss this. I think something needs to be done. The plot has become too large. Normally such large sections are split into multiple subsections. Since there are approx 500 episodes. It is better to split it into 5 subsections of 100 episodes each. Story arc cannot be made now because it will be tough to split it into small episode groups. I personally do not prefer having a story arc, like TMKOC. You can name the subsections as Episodes 1-100, Episodes 101-200 and so on. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:thankyou so much for suggesting this as the current episode number is 581 and as a regular viewer since Day 1 I almost know whole story In particular 100 Episodic section wise also and as tabular form also. So should we divide it in sections in tabular format or regular format??? Pri2000 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

For now, split into 6 subsections first. When you are done, ping this thread and we can take a look and decide on further splitting depending on how it looks. I believe it would be sufficient. Venkat TL (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: thankyou so much. I'll do it this till tomorrow. Pri2000 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I'm not able to ping this discussion. But I made the changes according to the discussion discussed in this thread. Please check it and inform is it okay or needs improvement. Pri2000 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the discussion means pinging the participants. I see that the plot has been summarized and shortened. I cannot comment on the correctness, will assume good faith. On the length of the plot this is much better. With this shortened length in paragraphs, I think, there is no more need to add subsections to the plot section. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Biz Asia: A reliable source or a non-reliable one?

@Venkat TL:, @ManaliJain: I want to ask you both if Biz Asia is a reliable source or a non reliable one as The Chaos of Stars removed UK Ratings assuming that Biz Asia is a non-reliable source So I reverted his edit and thought of starting a thread here to verify if it's reliable or a non-reliable one. If it's non-reliable then can we remove UK Ratings?? Pri2000 (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont know. Let @The Chaos of Stars reply. If there is no consensus, post a comment on WP:RSN and link it from WP:ICTF Venkat TL (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:ICTFSOURCES any blog should not be considered reliable source and biz Asia seems to be blog. The Chaos of Stars (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@The Chaos of Stars: WP:ICTFSOURCES also doesn't include Biz Asia in blog segment. So I think you should do what Venkat TL suggested and ping the participants of this discussion Pri2000 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Biz Asia hasn't been included as a reliable source on WP:ICTFSOURCES plus it's non-notable too. What's the verifiability of it being reliable or notable? I've been considering it as a non-reliable reference since long back. ManaliJain (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@ManaliJain: thanks for clearing this confusion. As I neither found it in reliable source nor in blogs. So there was a confusion regarding the same. Thanks for this help. Can we remove UK Ratings as a part of consensus for this discussion thread??? Pri2000 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Biz Asia has been a confusion for many. ManaliJain (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If there are any other source(s) that can be used to refer UK's ratings, then you can replace the particular citations. You can ping any other editor(s) for more clarity, if you want. Thanks, happy editing! ManaliJain (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Several Issues that need Work/Restructure

Per a recent edit revert, the edit, that referred to archived discussions on the way information is presented in this article, I found that conclusion inconsistent with the Wikipedia, Television, or Soap Opera Manual of Styles, which should supersede, and am reviving that conversation to bring a master cleanup tag on this article. I was passing by on this article to glean information and it looks like word soup. There are serious formatting and length related issues that are not being addressed.

Examples of Problems:

• There is a premise and plot sections, but the premise is too limited and the plot is too lengthy instead of being truncated or split. This is not accepted convention in the Manual of Style.
• The cast list is way too detailed for an average reader and should be trimmed for notability and/or branched to a new page. See What Wikipedia Is Not page.
• The ratings section has no real detail or context other than rankings with over citation which results in too much detail and should be converted to prose to convey meaningful trends due to length of daily soap operas, or at the very least switched to monthly ratings.
• The article could also undergo a general once over for copy edits. Mjhtcarfan (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)