Talk:Candy (web series)

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Draftspace Dispute

MrsSnoozyTurtle I see that you are repeatedly moving the article to draftspace. I have opened this discussion to resolve the dispute. Let us fix the issue here. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Twinkle1990. As per my tags that you keep removing, I am concerned about the notability of the topic and the POV of the article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the references? And The article has no POV issue. If you see POV then point out the POV issue part. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle the web series is Dadasaheb Phalke Award winner. So the web series is notable.. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Twinkle1990. After looking into this further, I don't think I have repeatedly moved the article to draftspace. Do you have evidence to show otherwise? If not, could you please withdraw the accusation?

The POV issue is that the whole article reads like a fan piece, with some token criticisms buried at the end. Regarding the notability, I think it is lacking in-depth coverage in non-WP:ROUTINE sources. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle Don't you see the critical responses? What in-depth you need? I think have are now having doubt about Dadasaheb Phalke Award also. Dadasaheb Phalke Award winners are always notable. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, could you please answer my questions above from 18 January? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your too concerned about notability and POV, as I don't see any edit by you in television and movies, send it to AfD and clear your doubt. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the notability tag - no issue apparent with several referenced full length reviews. ResonantDis_tortion 19:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ResonantDistortion after seeing the GA article Jab Tak Hai Jaan I am into opinion that MrsSnoozyTurtle is badgering this and other Indian TV/Web series article. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The series has not won the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, and you would have known that if you had in fact read that article! The Dadasaheb Phalke award cannot be won by a web series (nor by a film) – it is awarded to one person every year, for long and extraordinary service to Indian cinema. Because it is such an important award, there are plenty of copycat awards using the name Dadasaheb Phalke; that doesn't make the awards notable, and neither does that confer any notability on the winners of any such award. More information in the article about the real award, as well as here. --bonadea contributions talk 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection removing the award as it creates misunderstanding. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The Candy (Indian web series)#Reception section looks a bit WP:WALLOFTEXT. Recommend separation into paragraphs for readability. ResonantDis_tortion 19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of copyrighted image

Hello ResonantDistortion. Could you please explain how the image "make a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone", as required for the use of copyrighted images? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle This is a fair usage of a non-free image particularly {{Non-free film poster}} — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not a film but {{Non-free poster}} - a poster of the series — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DaxServer. Could you please explain how the poster meets the criteria of "provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question" in this case?

I am not very familiar with copyright issues, so am erring on the side of caution. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TVIMAGE is what you are looking for ;) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 01:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle if you are not "familiar with copyright issues" then why you were frequently removed the image? I would like to suggest you to study WP:MOSTV, Web series and Television show so that you can avoid edit wars. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]