Talk:Bhabiji Ghar Par Hain!

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

Number of seasons must be changed to 1.The show is still going on and hasn't been discontinued. A controversy section should be added separately highlighting the controversy created by Shilpa Shinde and the subsequent CINTAA ban on her.References can be taken from these two sources---1)http://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/television/140416/sheetal-khandal-to-replace-shilpa-shinde-in-bhabhiji-ghar-par-hai.html 2)http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/shilpa-shinde-may-be-banned-on-tv-by-the-industry-body-cintaa-bhabhi-ji-ghar-par-hai/1/641751.html 123.136.250.43 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please note we do not have "controversy" sections. Please also ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Cast cleanup

In this edit I cleaned up the cast a bit. There were a few issues, and some still remain. I've had to flag a number of entries as in need of clarification. This is the English Wikipedia, so we need to be presenting content in a way that's clear to all readers of English. It's not clear what a Launda is. Is that a surname? If so, why is it in parentheses? It's not clear what "Amma Ji" is or why it's in parentheses. Is that a nickname? I'm not sure why we're afraid of writing in complete sentences. We're not limited to jamming random words into parentheses and thinking that's quality work. It's also unclear what a "chacha" is. Where I could, I converted the useless parentheticals into semi-complete sentences. (They're not really complete, but they're better than the parentheticals). Also, the section should be broken into Main characters and Recurring characters per MOS:TV. It's unclear why we were using semicolon formatting for the sub-sections rather than the L3 sections (formatted with equals signs) we would typically use for subsections of a level 2 section. For instance this is correct:

==Main cast==

While this is not correct:

;Main cast

We don't typically use "Supporting cast" in TV articles. We tend to focus on Main and Recurring. See MOS:TV instructions, specifically WP:TVCAST. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Image in Infobox should be changed

Image in Infobox should be changed because Shilpa Shinde has been replaced by Shubhangi Atre Poorey117.201.124.211 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Editorial content

In this edit an IP editor added a block of content that seems to be based on their personal opinion. 1) We don't add our own opinions to articles. Period. 2) Any opinions from professional, established critics needs to be supported by references, and 3) they must be presented as opinions, not presented as facts.

More specific objections:

• "The show delves in a sensitive topic of extra-marrital affair through a more slapstick comedy manner while never justifying it." - Saying that the series never justifies the slapstick, is an opinionated conclusion. It's not our job to decide whether or not a creative choice is justified. If critics feel this way, then let's present their opinions in an intelligent way. "John Doe of ABC magazine felt ____. "
• "The overall response to the show has been very positive in media and viewers alike, with the show becoming a main-stay for the channel." - Says whom?
• "some have criticised the content for being adult based" - Says whom?
• "the show has developed a cult status among the Indian fans" - Overused fluff. Everything ever created has a "cult" following if we go with the literal definition of cult as a small, loyal niche following. It's meaningless, particularly when there's no decades-long reaffirmation of "cult status". For example, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has been considered a cult hit for 40 years, and there are probably thousands of books that go into detail about this. But a 2015 television series? What mass of references detail this show's "cult status"? Additionally, of course fans of the series would like the series. That's why they're called fans. Repetitive and pointless fluff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Users are adding Trivia section and other unnecessary information please do something about it. Sidaq pratap (talk) 17:31 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sidaq pratap: These are issues that people like yourself, who are interested in the article, should be discussing with each other. This doesn't require administrator intervention. That said, I will respond to the comment Zafar left on your talk page, but you should participate as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I am really sorry I will me more carefully in future. Lost the habit of discussion as most users on Indian TV and Film articles are mostly Users who are not here to contribute or the users who wants to contribute but ignore warnings, messages and discussions.I think I am doing the same thing now.Sorry and Thank you for the help.

Sidaq pratap (talk) 4:04 30 January 2018 (UTC)

About Plot section

@Zafar24: I think this information is not suitable for "Plot" section as per WP:TVPLOT Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s) and this statement looks like more fit for other section as it talks more about impact and reaction. I think you should think about creating more section on this page where this information can be easily placed.Sid95Q (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q:Okay dear.Zafar24Talk 22:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The plot section may not be a good place for that information, but "real-world" information about the series like that should be included. It would be best if we could find a source better than BollywoodLife.com, but if this is the only place the interview took place, it may have to suffice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Using the word 'previous' instead of word 'original' in Reception section

Hello dear @Cyphoidbomb: If Shilpa Shinde is original cast then what about Shubhangi Atre, What we call Shubhangi Atre? If Wikipedia is not to Indiscriminate between anything, then why we use word 'original' with Shilpa Shinde? I know that director of the sitcom has used 'original' word in interview but this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia has the policy to use sequre brackets in quote if word is not good to meet Wikipedia policies. You said, "That literally just describes the people who had the role first." If you are talking about first role then also my edit was right to use the word 'previous'. Zafar24Talk 16:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zafar24, thank you for opening the dicussion. I'm not sure what the confusion is here. Who was originally cast in the role of Angoori? If the answer is Shilpa Shinde, then it is reasonable to describe her as the original cast member who portrayed that character, because original means first. Your change of "original" to "previous" doesn't make the quotation any clearer. We're only allowed to refactor quotations to make minor clarifications for spelling, syntax, or to remove ambiguities (like changing an out-of-context "he" to a person's name). Your change doesn't accomplish this. I don't see what is "insulting" about using the correct phrasing, per your edit summary, but we don't refactor quotations to remove perceived insults. I don't know if this is a reading comprehension issue or what, but Bali is saying that viewers were really invested in the original/first cast member's portrayal of Angoori, and when she was replaced, ratings went down. Can you maybe better articulate what you find confusing? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: but according to Wikipedia is not for Indiscriminaion. By using the word 'original' we are insulting specially Shubhangi Atre because she is the second cast after Shilpa Shinde. I have an another suggestion that we can use the word [first] instead of word 'original'. It is clearly written in Reception section before quote that "In an interview, the show's director Shashank Bali have acknowledged that when Shilpa Shinde left the show and Shubhangi Atre was roped in for the role of 'Angoori', the show's ratings went down". So it make the quotation clearer if we use the word 'first' instead of word 'previous'. Does that make any sense? Reception section is not about who is original or second and also reception section is not about the reviews of Shilpa Shinde and Shubhangi Atre performances. Then we should not give importance to one cast by using the word 'original' which is Shilpa Shinde.Zafar24Talk 17:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: There is nothing wrong in using "Original" word. It is used normally in Film and television related topics. I think you are reacting like this because in our Indian subcontinent we use Original word as a parameter to justify Quality and associate it with Plagiarism and piracy. As we say either this film is original or copied' if we are talking about plagiarism and "original" or "First copy/duplicate" if we are talking about piracy. This case is similar to your "Dear" case where many user objected the usage of this word because it is used differently in their culture. You will find this word normally used in American or other International series where change of actor(s), remakes and reboots are quite often compare to our series that's why I think there are a lot of useless articles on internet like "Original Bhabhji is better than the new one" and I think you are reacting to this word like this after reading those articles. You will find sentences like "originally played by___ in the previous series/film" written in various articles but their they are not discriminating the new actor or giving more importance to the previous actor. So I don't think the word "original" is insulting anyone or it was used in such a way to insult anyone in that quote it's just some readers will interpret it differently after reading it but I don't this issue is big enough that we have to change or replace a word. Sid95Q (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: There is nothing pejorative or inflammatory about the word "original". It literally means "first". It doesn't mean "better" or "best". Changing "original" to "first" in the quote doesn't solve any problem. Again, I think this is an English comprehension issue. Also, while Wikipedia writes in a neutral tone, we absolutely expect that some quotations will be biased one way or another and we provide these biased opinions to help readers understand the subject better. For example, in a film article we might include a review from Raja Sen, who might describe a film as "a complete waste of time". There would be no reason to refactor that quotation. To present balance, we might include a conflicting opinion from someone who said "the film's pacing moved so smoothly, I didn't notice that it was 3 hours." In the case of Shilpa Shinde, we're not even dealing with a hugely weighted opinion. The guy (Bali) is just saying 1) people liked the original actress, 2) when she left, ratings dropped, and 3) they had to win back the audience. There's nothing in that quotation that needs to be refactored. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, and you are basically trying to censor someone's quotation. This is not acceptable. If Bali said that Shinde was "a complete diva; bossy, demanding and mean", there might be an academic value in his opinion and we would not refactor it. For example, at Ozzfest, we have a line that reads: On Iron Maiden's departure, Sharon Osbourne came on stage to make a few statements, telling the audience that she "absolutely loved Iron Maiden" but thought that Dickinson is a "prick." We don't refactor quotations just because they don't suit our personal sense of decorum. We only refactor quotatios to make minor clarifications for spelling, syntax, or to remove ambiguities. There is nothing to compromise about here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: and @Sid95Q: Thanks for explaining. I understood now.Zafar24Talk 05:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• More Shilpa Shinde stuff: @Zafar24: I don't understand at all this edit, when you completely dumped all real-world content about Shinde's participation in the series into some lesser, buried sub-section, as if we're trying to hide the conflict. What does Shinde leaving the series have to do with either concept or creation? You should familiarise yourself with WP:TVCAST, which says "Try to avoid using the [Cast section] as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real-world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series)." Information about Shinde's departure would very naturally belong in her cast listing. See also List of Millennium characters, which describes the concept and creation of various characters and provides real-world content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:Hi, I moved the details in other secion which is 'Concept and creation'. Concept and creation is not a sub-section. My intention was not to hide something as I didn't removed the details, I just moved that details. Here my reason why I moved the details : I wanted the readers to know about the role of Angoori has a long concept till now.

Like, 1. Rashmi Desai was selected but she rejected the role because... 2. Shilpa Shinde left because... 3. And 80 actresses gave audition... 4. Shubhangi Atre selected... So basically, my intention of moving the details is a Good faith edit. Because I didn't new in that time when I was editing. I admit my mistake and but I believe that we should not remove that details in Concept and creation' section because that section is giving details about the character of Angoori.Zafar24Talk 01:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand your rationale. "Concept and creation" are ideas that occur before the show is released. You've still provided no clear reason for why Shinde's departure impacted the concept or creation of the series. If you can't do that, then the content needs to be put back. It's possible to hide things without removing them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I removed it form 'concept and creation' section. Zafar24Talk 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

About addition of genres

@Zafar24: Each Genre mentioned Must be reliably sourced So can you please provide a reliable source to justify these additions. Sid95Q (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q:Okay dear. I removed it and when I find reference then I will add again.Zafar24Talk 22:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q:I added the reference in this edit.Zafar24Talk 02:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

'Controversy' section

Someone removed the controversy section and this is vandalism so this page should be put in protection. Here it is.Zafar24Talk 16:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Zafar, please stop adding this to Bhabi Ji Ghar Par Hai!.

1. "Controversy" sections are not preferred by the community because they unnecessarily draw attention to negative aspects of a subject, which makes it difficult to maintain neutrality. Controversies can be included, but they should be included in an intuitive way.
2. "Left in a lurch" is not proper encyclopedic tone.
3. The content already exists in the Cast section so your emphatic note "This is a part of history and informative! Readers must know the truth!" is already being satisfied. If you want to flesh out the content in the cast section, feel free, but a unique section for a petty dispute is totally pointless.

Also, did you even check the page history to see why it was removed? I thought I explained it fairly clearly. I've removed the section. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I have copy our conversation form my talk page to here in Bhabiji Ghar Par Hain! talk page. See: User_talk:Zafar24/Archive_6#ControversyZafar24Talk 08:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors removed that controversy section that time because it was not well written and was less in content. I wrote 'Controversy section' with reliable references and added some quote also to justify both sides of producers, co-actresses and Shilpa Shinde.Zafar24Talk 08:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Content deletion

@Siddiqsazzad001: re: these changes, I haven't read through them for clarity or for fact-checking, or for any kind of quality control, but you should be prepared to defend the deletion of that much sourced content, and I think your first step would have been to open a discussion to explain why you removed it all. Surely some real-world content belongs in an article about a TV series, right? Maybe you disagree with placement or content, but that was a significant deletion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Yes, you are right. First, I have to open a discussion to explain why I removed it all. Thanks for informing me. First, I wanted to tell you that Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, newspaper, social networking service, or memorial site. I removed the Controversy section because there is most of the information about Shilpa Shinde's personal harassment incident story. Bhabiji Ghar Par Hain! is a television article, not an incident article page like 2013 Savar building collapse. We can use this information in Biographies of living persons article but not huge much. And all the references is about Shilpa Shinde's personal harassment incident related, that's why I removed all. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Hello there, You said that harassment case is a Shilpa Shinde personal thing, you are wrong dear, because Sanjay Kohli is a producer of the Bhabiji Ghar Par Hai, so Shilpa Shinde and producer are involved in this controversy. So this is a controversy of Bhabhiji Ghar Par Hai.Zafar24Talk 16:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Controversy section is not just about Shilpa Shinde but it is about what was the reason that Shinde left the show?, why producers replaced Shilpa Shinde?, as producers of Bhabhiji Ghar Par Hai also involved in this not just Sunjay Kohli but Benaifer Kohli also. You said that controversy section is telling Shilpa Shinde harassment case, I think you should read the controversy section again and you will see that all the things I wrote in controversy section is related to Bhabiji Ghar Par Hai.Zafar24Talk 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: Why we care about Shilpa, who was sexual harassment by producer Sanjay Kohli. That topic is not a neutral point of view for Wikipedia. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 16:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: We care because she was part of the show for one year, She was main lead, Sanjay Kohli was involved in it who is a producer of the show. If controversy section is not written neutral point of view for Wikipedia then we should fix that and @Cyphoidbomb: placed the template of Copyedit, the Controversy section needs copyedit.Zafar24Talk 16:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Controversy section not just saying the harassment thing with show producer but How Shilpa Shinde exit from show happened. Why Shilpa Shinde being replace in Bhabiji Ghar Par Hai. Both, Shilpa Shinde and producers have their own stories and no one knows who is saying the right thing. Thats why it is rightly placed in Controversy section.Zafar24Talk 17:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: If there was a problem between Shinde and the producers that led to her firing from this series, we would absolutely expect that information to exist in some form in this article, and per WP:TVCAST, some of that content would belong in the cast section. How a person was hired and how they left are of importance to us. There is nothing inherently non-neutral about adding this content. The NPOV policy typical guides us on how we present content like this, not necessarily about the content itself. If we say "Shinde accused ___ of sexual harrassment", this is a fact. If we have a contrary position like "___ denied the allegations", that would be fair to enter as well. In contrast if we said, "According to Shinde, ___ is a rapist", well, then we'd have a serious NPOV violation, because it sounds like we're endorsing the accusation. Keep in mind that we often present non-neutral information, ex: movie reviews, but our job is to try to balance the presentation of the information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I agree with you but why we are keeping huge much information. Do you know that this article has detected 68.1% copyright violation, with statement texts. Please see this [1]. I suggest to make it more short. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 19:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Why don't you propose which content should be cut, so that you and Zafar can arrive at a compromise? Note also that using short quotations is not a copyright violation. We are permitted to do that under Fair Use. If we are indiscriminately adding quotations or using large passages that could be truncated or summarised, then we should be careful about that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Quotation too much quotes is not good so I removed the quotes and wrote the sentence by triming unnecessary info in my own words.Zafar24Talk 01:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor Cast

@Zafar24: Minor is not a valid section as per WP:TVCAST. Why do you think there is any need for this section??. Sid95Q (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Yes, I strongly believe that we should write this as a common sense that those people was seen very less in episode. I think we are misleading the readers by including those people in recurring cast.Zafar24Talk 14:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: We don't have to add every cast member only the notable one's are added and If an actor plays various characters in a show that does not make him less notable like there a few actors who play different character in different story arc like Naveen Bawa, they should be listed in Recurring section. I don't know who added this character 'Meenal as Anita's best friend either you or @Rishabh418b:. Meenal is character's name in the show not the name of the actor playing it (if it is please provide a source) and we don't add characters like this if we don't know the actors name it should be removed on the basis of notability. Sid95Q (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

When we include "Recurring characters" we don't just mean people who have appeared twice, we are talking about cast/characters with significant roles across multiple episodes, maybe even with their own character arcs. Cast and characters who are even of lesser importance than this, should probably be excluded. Wikipedia is not IMDb. We're not here to document every minor cast member. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There are some Cast members which should be part of Guest section like Sandeep Anand as Puttan (Cameo) and Liliput as Maamulal Chaurasiya as it is cleary writtes in manual of style that A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. So they should be part of Guest section. Sid95Q (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Meenal as Anita's best friend I didn't wrote that. Please do check edit history before claiming that or just remove that edit.Zafar24Talk 15:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: I said "I don't know who added this character" as there was an constant addition ans removal of content on this page an mostly they were either yours or Rishab's edits that's why i pinged him so that we can discuss this thing. Sid95Q (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Okay. I just clearing the doubt of your:) Zafar24Talk 15:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Meenal's addition

@Zafar24 As far as I recall it was added on the page just after I started editing the page, but I did NOT added Meenal's reference. Everything I have added is from a source (mostly). Yes, I have made mistakes here and there in my edits, but this one's clearly isn't mine. Rishabh418b (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rishabh418b: I am not saying that, you added Meenal character. @Sid95Q: said that. I was just clearing my side that I didn't added that.Zafar24Talk 16:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me clear it: [2] :) - Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 04:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on

@Cyphoidbomb: According to the sources The show is inspired from Shrimaan Shrimati (TV series). It is not an official adaptation of that series. I thought this section is only used if the adaptation is officially based on previously produced or published material not unofficial remakes/adaptaions or works with plagiarism issues. Can this parameter also be used for adaptations like this. Sid95Q (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Nope, Based on parameter about the show work and author but not for remake or adaptation. According to T:ITV, Use this field in conjunction with screenplay and story where applicable (i.e. "Screen story") if films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. Ex. Kullfi Kumarr Bajewala is remake version of Potol Kumar Gaanwala, which parameter is not in the "based on" but in the "Related shows". Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 08:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Thank you for answering the first part of the question :). Actually my question was for both Film and TV articles. Sid95Q (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Abot serial of bhabhiji episode

Pls change the role of Annu.... 223.187.154.14 (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)