Talk:T-Series (company)

Ooo

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Super Cassettes Industries → T-Series – Listing at RM because I need a second opinion Per WP:UCN, the common name and not the official name should be used as the title of the article. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support it does seem like "Super Cassettes" is just the holding company, while T-Series is the visible name to consumers, and therefore much more common. Keep both names in the lead to clarify this, but the hatnote should change to a simpler one, and perhaps the T series dab page changed to blue link the new name and not the old. The company does seem to include the hyphen, even though the web site does not, e.g. http://www.tseries.com Also interesting, the "contact" email goes to tseries.net, but http://www.tseries.net gives an "under construction" web site, and the t-series.com page given in the article seems dead (the top-level http://www.t-series.com just redirects to tseries.com). However, they now seem in the mobile phone business, so the article would need to be updated. See http://mobiles.tseries.com/aboutus-company.asp?links=ab1 Generally of course the article should be beefed up. The company should be covered in the local trade press at least. W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article omits key information

The origin of the name is not mentioned. 93.185.26.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The company name's origin is mentioned in a footnote. Maestro2016 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

The parent company is wrongly mentioned as Balaji Telefilms. Needs to be removed. 103.199.137.23 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the right parent company? Can you link to a reliable source?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added the {{citationneeded}} tag. If after some time there is no verifiable source to back the claim that this is the parent company, reopen this request and it can be deleted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no Parent company. Please refer here. http://www.tseries.com/about-us Balaji Telefilms is another company, with no relation. 103.199.137.23 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

@Shadowowl: I see that you added the {{unreliable sources}} tag to the article. I removed it as I have gone through all the sources and I don't believe any of the listed sources are unreliable per WP:RS, I have already removed and replaced sources which might have been problematic. It would be great if you can discuss here sources you believe are unreliable. Gotitbro (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Source 23 and 33 are unreliable. » Shadowowl | talk 21:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Reference [23] is acceptable per WP:PRIMARY in this case as it simply describes and refers to a YouTube channel of the company with no WP:OR. I have removed reference 33 as a better source is already there. Please discuss the sources here before rather than tagging a whole article for a few unreliable refs . Gotitbro (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2018

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: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

---

T-Series (company) → T-Series – Since the term "T-Series" currently redirects here, it is proof that this is the primary topic. If it isn't, the term should redirect to the DAB page T series. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose not sure what has been going on with moves 08:19, 26 July 2018 Matthiaspaul moved page T-Series (company) to Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited without leaving a redirect, but whatever T-Series should redirect to T Series. T-Series has multiple meanings of which Bentley and MG T-series are far more common in books than the Bollywood music company. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - T-series redirects to T series and T-Series was changed by Maestro2016 at the beginning of the month (which was redirected to the disambiguation page until then). --Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The T-Series page was about the company before it was disambiguated and the company page was moved to Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, I suggested the current page title on a user talk page per WP:COMMONNAME. If this page is indeed the primary topic then it should be moved there (where it previously was). Otherwise should probably redirect T-Series to T Series and not here. Gotitbro (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Maestro's comment while redirecting was, "The company T-Series is the only one to specifically be titled with that format (with the dash and capitalization)." That is one reason why I thought this page should be renamed to that. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The redirect was changed recently and was not appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• The redirect should not have been changed while a discussion is ongoing here. I have undone it for now per WP:CONSENSUS. Gotitbro (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• First of all, that was a revert of a recent undiscussed change. The fact that it's being discussed is no reason to avoid fixing the inappropriate recent change. Second, this is primarily a page move discussion, not a redirect target discussion. Wikipedians are encouraged to proceed with editing of content while RM discussions are taking place. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• That was not editing of content, it was the changing of a redirect which is the sole point of the RM discussion here. Gotitbro (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A false redirect recently created does not qualify for WP:CONSENSUS. BarrelProof correcting/reverting it was completely reasonable. Be that as it may this move is now clearly opposed and the Indian music company should not be the destination. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I only cited that as the RM is about that redirect only and the discussion is still open here. Anyways, @Shadowowl: reverted the redirect to Barrel's, it would be great if you can remove the redirect hatnote from this article as well Shadow. Gotitbro (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

To update statistics on this page. Misuru9255 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Request to change an error in the Youtube section

The Custom Play Button is incorrectly referred to as a Ruby Play Button. (I would fix this myself, but I don't have permission to do so). 1a3c5e7g9i (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC) It is a ruby play button — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.37.36 (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Prediction

The predictions were wrong and the sentence should be removed. It's past mid-November and it seems T-Series still needs several days to catch up to PewDiePie. --2001:16B8:31A7:E700:4CFD:DB82:4A13:21B0 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the sentence! It's not up to date. You can't impose the protection just because you are too lazy to maintain the quality of the article. --94.134.89.4 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Now you changed it to December 2020? What makes you think PewDiePie will keep the lead for another two years? Does anybody even review the edits? There is so much vandalism even with the protection. --2001:16B8:31E0:4600:F883:C92C:953D:3FD7 (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The changes you are complaining about were made here by MaxSchnell424877. I have removed them here. I don't know what Socialblade.com is, but it's not our typical policy to add predictions about performance to articles. There is a legitimate argument to remove the predictive stuff per WP:CRYSTAL. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Most Viewed Channel Phrasing

In this article under 'YouTube' it says, "By February 2017, it surpassed PewDiePie to become the world's most-viewed YouTube channel". Okay, this is true, but they would also surpass ABS-CBN Entertainment, Canal KondZilla, SET India, netd müzik, Ryan ToysReview, and WWE (all of which have more views than PewDiePie) along with I'm sure hundreds of other channels below them. Phrasing it the way it is gives a degrading perspective on PewDiePie. Yolojolo14 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yolojolo14: I don't understand your argument, because you're pointing to a recently updated Wikipedia list, when you should be pointing to a viewership chart from February 2017. The reference that appears to support the claim in the article is here. If this is an accurate reflection of 2017 viewership, PewDiePie is in the #2 spot, meaning it was directly surpassed by T-Series. It's unclear how it would be degrading to point out that T-Series moved into the #1 spot above PewDiePie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Looks like we have a bit of a squirrel here because this source says something contrary. Anonymous down below let me know about this. I realize that is views that week, but are you telling me all the channels between T-Series and PewDiePie I listed above got all of their views in the last year and a half? This definitely deserves a change in phrasing seeing as a controversy exists and there's no reason in printing something that may be false and/or skews perspective. Yolojolo14 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pewdiepie wasn't even close in 2017, Ryan ToyReviews has been on top for a long time. https://www.tubefilter.com/2017/06/03/top-50-most-viewed-youtube-channels-worldwide-06-02-2017/ It's just people trying to stir up the beef acting like they dethroned Pewdiepie in anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.46.219 (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yolojolo14: I don't have a dog in this race and YouTube viewership numbers isn't exactly my area of expertise. That said, Variety described him as the "most subscribed channel" in February 2017. In February 2017, IndieWire said, "Since 2014, PewDiePie has been the most-viewed YouTube channel of all time". The Tubefilter article only lists what it believes he had in viewership for that week. It doesn't seem to take a position on who is in first place of all time. Anyhow, I don't know what socialblade.com is. It could be a content aggregator or something--we typically want sources where there are actual journalists looking at stuff, so I don't particularly care whether the content supported by socialblade is removed. That said, I don't know that Tubefilter is any more of a reliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Vandalism it is, eh?

Ok, so today I was searching up T Series on the Wikipedia search bar, and I saw this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/h8aibyrggwzlivk/Photo%20Dec%2002%2C%205%2001%2014%20PM.jpg?dl=0 , So someone vandalized this article by claiming that T-Series is nothing but a- *ahem* sorry, someone called T-Series: “Rubbish”. And I know this is related to the YouTube King war of PewDiePie Vs. T-Series being number 1. Now people want PewDiePie to win, but that doesn’t mean that people should vandal T-Series. Plz, this article needs protection! REALAreesh101 (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@REALAreesh101: The issue originated over at Wikidata.org in this edit on 29 November 2018. I have fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Youtube Headline

Could the headline, "Youtube Carrer(sic)" be changed to something like, "Youtube presence"? Aside from the typo, the use of the word "Career" suggests that T-Series is a person rather than an organization. Cbihun (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cbihun:  Done - Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Crore?

Shouldn't we remove the word Crore and just include millions as it is an English language article and Crore is not commonly used in countries outside of India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HW7 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@HW7: Although MOS:COMMONALITY would agree with you, in my personal experience, it is a colossal waste of time to try to convince Indian editors to abandon these local conventions, and it's actually easier to verify information from Indian references when you don't have to do mental calculations. I'd rather just look and see if the the source says NN crore or NN lakh than have to do math. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

HW7: Just to clarify my point above, I won't stand in the way if it is changed, I'm just pointing out the difficulty of maintaining western labels in Indian articles. But yes, we do write for a global readership, not just for Indians. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Basically, what Cyphoidbomb says. Per MOS, it should be millions. Per reality, it shouldn't. The question kinds gets into who would be reading the articles? From the region or outside the region? Frankly, I'd rather tilt at windmills than try to enforce MOS on this. It' hard enough dealing with everything else. Ravensfire (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Most Indians have not used million/billion for their entire lifetime. Crore is used nationwide in India for all purposes- be it education, business/finance, census, and others. Its a staple of Indian English. Indians don't know the conversions of million/billion to crore, just like how most non-Indians don't know how to convert crore to million/billion. Heck, I am pretty sure there are some of us Indians who have never heard of million or billion. MOS:COMMONALITY advices using terms that should be recognizable to most speakers, but when majority of the visits to India-related pages are gonna be from India, it isn't helping anyone. 2.51.17.28 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, crore is used to a large extent in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, and to a somewhat lesser extent in Persian or Pashto speaking countries. 2.51.17.28 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2019

They surpased pewdiepie and the bro army but the battle lasted a long 6 months. Mickismoot (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting extended protection due to vandalism

Like, yeah. I just undone one edit but I'm pretty sure I'd only get worse as time happens.

Eligio Budde (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

T-Series is no longer the most subscribed channel on youtube, as I am writing this, pewdiepie is ahead by about 6 thousand subscribers. 150.143.138.41 (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor 15:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

T-series is not the most subscribed channel anymore as PewDiePie regained the lead a couple days later. SpicyJungle (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor 15:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

T-Series was raided in Dec 2018 by Indian authorities over suspected tax evasion with the Chairman and MD being questioned and 30 premises searched. This should be included in their legal section, or under a new section --Downfall Vision (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: In the interest of balance, where is the response from T-Series? Or the resolution of raid? Were charges made? Seems odd that we'd include this information, which draws attention to a negative event, without providing some sort of contrary perspective or resolution. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

T-Series has not made any sort of response and there is little positive or negative coverage of this. Seems odd to me that we would leave this information out just because it is negative for T-Series brand and they have chosen not to make a response. --Downfall Vision (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Downfall Vision: The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present a general picture of its article subject, not to detail every new development. If something isn't likely to be of academic interest 10 years from now, there's little reason to include it. If the raid turned into a big legal kerfuffle, that might tip the scale. But I'm just spitballing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Well, let's remember that Wikipedia is not paper. This page (of a large company, mind you) is only 62kb right now. The issue should be neutrality, not high standards of inclusion. Regarding that, I don't think we need a response from T-Series or the person in question for this. It's an official investigation or "raid" on a high-profile company figure (and the company itself)—that in itself is uncontroversial and worthy of inclusion. We also have valid tertiary sources documenting the event so we don't need to draw our own conclusions. The only problem I see is a lack of follow-up. The articles state that more details "will emerge", but I can't find any. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: Length is not my concern. We're talking about information without sufficient context, or follow-up as you note. Without sufficient details that help readers understand what it all means or what the impact was, I don't see how it is relevant now, or how it will be relevant years from now. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we are not required to add information just because it exists and made headlines. If/when other details emerge that put the even into perspective, that might warrant another look. Let's also keep in mind that there's a clear pro-Pewdiepie/anti-T-Series agenda brewing here, and we shouldn't become inadvertent shills for them. Note also that Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, so it is absolutely legitimate to wait until sufficient content exists to write something substantive about the issue, rather than adding incomplete information. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: And I stick with the potential follow-up being important. If, however, there is no follow-up whatsoever, that would in my eyes not make it encyclopedically worthless. A small mention in this article or in Bhushan Kumar's article is still not something I would oppose. It is an interesting point by the way.. I agree that pro-Pewdiepie bias dominates here. On the other hand, Wikipedia has also long had a tendency towards treating businesses and non-political high profile figures softly under the guise of WP:BLP. Political figures and low profile people are typically judged much harsher, and you can bet that if, say, Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul was raided it would be mentioned in their articles. In any case, let's just wait and we'll see if it ever gets picked up again. Maybe another news source will remind its readers of it in a few months. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

It says that at the beginning of the second paragraph that T-Series started its business by selling songs but it doesn't specify weather or not they were pirated and, according to Pewdiepie's latest song, T-Series was founded by originally selling pirated songs, but it doesn't specify weather or not they were pirated. Mrcoolawesomemanguy (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: @Mrcoolawesomemanguy: And what would you have us do without bringing references to support whatever clarification you are requesting we make? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hiding a shoddy past.

Despite what you think of the company, I think it's important to acknowledge the history of them.

Source 15, The Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema quotes T-Series' past selling pirated merchandise, but despite that, @REALAreesh101 had changed all traces of them having a pirated history. While I don't know if this is erasure or just a mistake, I think this should be reinstated as the company's upbringing should be on display as well as how they are now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuckeye (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@REALAreesh101: Please participate in this discussion, as you made a controversial change without discussion or rationale, and there appears to be ample published support of the pirate accusation including:

• Page 68 "T-Series is widely alleged to have flourished in its early years by issuing pirate releases of film music ... One T-Series employee told me: 'What people say about our activities in the early years--it's mostly true.'"
• Page 120 "T Series was also involved in straightforward copyright infringement in the form of pirate releases of popular hits relying on the loose enforcement of copyright laws". Apparently they also did "version recording", where they would use unknown singers to sing popular songs, which is interesting. (And shady.)
• Page 353 "T-Series was a profoundly disruptive force in the Indian music market, in large part because it was a tremendously successful pirate."

Seems like this claim has some truth to it, so it's unclear why you removed this content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Cyphoidbomb, Sorry if I replaced the word “pirated” with “distributed”. Although the “pirated music” sentence had a link to a book which proves it’s true, I didn’t however read it, but it would abously have the word “pirated” in it. I just decided to change the word, since that both of those two words are kinda synonyms.

But the main reason is, in PewDiePie’s Original Song, “Congratulations!”, they mentioned that T-Series started out as stealing music, and shows the Wikipedia article of T-Series (which is this one) to prove it’s right. Now I don’t know much about T-Series, but what I know is that many PewDiePie (and MrBeast) fans like PewDiePie and hate T-Series while they don’t know what kind of music T-Series make. Although I want PewDiePie to be #1, I don’t know much about T-Series (though some of their content I saw from many clips/thumbnails are pretty good), so I’m pretty neutral to T-Series (due to the fact my parents know a lot and listen to a lot of T-Series, while they don’t know what PewDiePie is ;P).

I hope this makes you aware, and I hope that a big incident doesn’t happen to T-Series or PewDiePie. And sorry if I didn’t make a discussion of this before editing, I wasn’t thinking of that, and I thought everyone would get my point in the first place. And for one of the quotes about T-Series’ history from that same book, I now understand some of T-Series history. REALAreesh101 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@REALAreesh101: Thank you for your response. Pirated and distributed are not synonymous. "Pirated" has a very clear, distinctive meaning, i.e. unauthorised distribution, where "distributed" is far less specific, and in the context of "Kumar ... founded T-Series to sell distributed Bollywood songs" just seems more confusing. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

I want to write a thing that I discovered about the T-series stories, about the fact that T-series was a word used a lot of years ago in Italy. Searched in a library in Milan. Exagon Fil (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems tangential at first glance. But you are free to do whatever you want in your sandbox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Remove the Ruby play button from the play buttons that t-series have, that is not an official play button and pewdiepie was given a custom one but t-series does not actually have one. 205.122.102.98 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Pewds disstracks blocked in India

As of now, Pewdiepie's B lasanga and congratulations are now blocked in India--Apersonthatdoesthings (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

T-Series is also referenced to alot as T-Gay or T-Gei

T-Series is called out by the general public many times as T-Gay or T-Gei, I feel like we should not censor that and put that information on the article in the section "also known as" as it is what many people from the general public tend to call the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLordOfMiners8 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheLordOfMiners8:

"T-Series is called out by the general public many times as T-Gay..."

This is a ludicrous claim. There is no reliable source that supports this.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if there were, there's no requirement that we add unencyclopedic, trollish content to an article. Per WP:V, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Lord of Miners, don't waste our time with this nonsense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

t series is a music company who owns most songs in bollywood but he was a mafia in the year 2000 to 2010 and is also a very talented musician Killerasaurus (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: @Killerasaurus: No idea what you are trying to say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

T-Series is now the most subscribed channel on YouTube, with over 94M+ subscribers Wow Towl (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done ML ^talk 11:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

The claim that T-Series began by selling pirated songs's source doesn't claim anything about selling pirated songs. This means that the source should be removed as it is innaccurate. DecstarG (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: I'll add some references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@DecstarG: Also, had you searched the book for T-Series using the built-in computerised tool, you would have found the statement on page 20 (not page 44 as the reference says.) "Songs made a triumphal return to mainstream Hindi cinema with the success of the music of a low-budget Mahesh Bhatt film, Aashiqui, which was produced by T-Series, a small-time company that had begun life peddling pirated Hindi film songs." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

86.28.239.201 (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done please be specific what changes you want to make. Tolly4bolly 10:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

founded T-Series to sell pirated Bollywood songs before the company eventually began producing new music. Roshan5262 (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gangster8192 12:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Highly biased view of tseries.

This discussion has run its course and is now closed. If there are specific changes to the article which still need to be discussed, please create a new thread, stay on topic, and avoid personal attacks. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The editor @Cyphoidbomb added a section from a source which is unreliable and biased to the history of tseries. Additionally he included only the negative part of the history of tseries and ignored the positivepart from a source which is unreliable. The editor is obviously biased because of the war between tseries and pewdiepie. I suggest that it be removed. Editors take note. 103.221.233.15 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Cute, but 1) I don't give a shit about the asinine "war" between T-Series and Pewdiepie. 2) I didn't add a section. Content about the company's history of piracy was already in the article and since DecstarG complained above that they couldn't find the proof, I fixed a reference and added three more references (published books) and a quote from one of these books for context, as the piracy claim was vague. I look forward to your cogent arguments about how poor these three published references are. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've checked the sources two of them didn't load properly and the third one is unreliable there is no documented proof that tseries were involved in piracy there are no articles supporting this claim. Just random books whose authors are not known and unreliable. Next time add at least three reliable sources to backup your edit. I agree it should be removed. And on a side note there was no need for that kind of language follow the rules. 185.203.122.19 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh good, a "moving the goalposts" argument, and a fun one at that! Let me retort:

1. "I've checked the sources two of them didn't load properly" I'm not responsible for how the pages load. They work for me. They may not point to the specific page, but that's something you can resolve by noting the page number in the citation and manually paging through, and/or using the "Search in this book" tool that Google Books makes available. Or, you can go to a quality library and look for the books. Wikipedia isn't required to hold readers' hands.
2. "the third one is unreliable You didn't specify which is unreliable. Moot point, as there are four sources in the article supporting the piracy claim. One published by Popular Prakashan, an Indian publishing house established in 1924, one published by University of Chicago Press, the oldest university publishing house in the United States (founded in 1891), one published by Routledge, a British publisher established in the late 1800s, and one published by the Social Science Research Council, a non-profit educational group established in 1923. These aren't the fly-by-night blogs that most people use for their favorite films' box office figures.
3. "there is no documented proof that tseries were involved in piracy" Nonsense. There are four published books that make the claim. See, when we include sourced content, there is a presumption that journalists, researchers, documentarians, and editors have done the research and the fact-checking required. There is also no requirement that we prove claims beyond a shadow of a doubt. This isn't a criminal court.
4. "there are no articles supporting this claim" Do you mean news articles? Prove it. Good luck, as it's very hard to prove a negative and you'd have to search thousands of periodicals over decades! Anyway, there's no rule that we have to use news articles as sources. Feel free to read our our reliable sourcing guidelines.
5. "Just random books whose authors are not known and unreliable." Just random books published by well-established publishing houses that are either 100 years old or close to it. Is there a requirement that you personally have to know the author? Lol, no. We take it on good faith that a major publication that has contracted with an author or researcher has some sort of confidence in that person's ability to do the research with integrity and accuracy.
6. "Next time add at least three reliable sources to backup your edit. Lol, no. There's no rule that three references have to be added. And anyway, there are four reliable sources supporting the claim, so your request is absurd.

It's been fun, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Well one of the sources statetthat it was impossible to verify the piracy claims. So there are 3 sources remaining. Those three sources contradict themselves by saying they're not sure about the piracy claims after they claim tseries is involved in Piracy. When backing up controversial statements there has to be a proper and reliable source. Coming back to the added paragraph it looks like the editor copied the paragraph word by word without altering the words from a source from a copyrighted source which can get Wikipedia sued. It clearly says copyrighted material an all pages and on all book. I don't know what the editor was thinking it should be removed immediately. Can another editor please fix this. Thank you. 185.203.122.19 (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're not being specific as to which sources you are talking about or what contradictory phrasing you are referring to, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time trying to figure it out. Re: your copyright panic, we are allowed to use quotations under fair use justification. This is a basic concept that most people learn in grade school when they have to do reports of various kinds. That is why film articles include words written by reviewers. Quotations have to be properly attributed, which ours is. (We not only include a reference, but we also have a prose introduction, "Researchers Lawrence Liang and Ravi Sundaram wrote:") And... at Wikipedia when we include large quotations over 40 words, we use an indented block quote without quotation marks. Have a look at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE if you want more info. If you want to figure out a way to summarise and condense the quotation, feel free to throw out some ideas here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It says you can use brief quotations not full paragraphs block quote thing is a completely different topic and doesn't relate to the copyright infringement point that the person is trying to make. Unless you can find proper reliable sources. I suggest that you not include unverifiable defamatory content on a mega corporations Wikipedia page. Can any other editor please get involved in this. This editor is taking this too lightly. He thinks that copyright infringement and piracy are the same thing. I can verify that tseries was involved in copyright infringement but accusing them of piracy is too unfounded. Maybe this guy needs a Thesaurus or something. 103.221.233.15 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again...

• "It says you can use brief quotations not full paragraphs" Wrong. You obviously didn't read the first sentence of MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Also I didn't excerpt the full paragraph. You didn't look at the source material. Tsk!
• "Unless you can find proper reliable sources. I suggest that you not include unverifiable defamatory content on a mega corporations Wikipedia page." More cuteness, but you are arguing from a false premise, i.e. that the sources used are unreliable. Yet neither you nor the other Anon have successfully argued for why we shouldn't accept four sources that make the claim. Four sources from extraordinarily well-established publishing houses, one of which directly attributes a T-Series employee as corroborating the claim. You both should familiarise yourself with WP:RS, but since you didn't even bother reading the first sentence of a content guideline, I won't be holding my breath. Also, FYI, the inclusion of these sources is verification. That's the entire point of adding sources.
• "He thinks that copyright infringement and piracy are the same thing." Don't put words in my mouth. While not all copyright infringement is piracy, the sources assert that T-Series engaged in both sketchy copyright circumvention as well as "piracy", in their words, not mine. Also, I didn't add the original claim. I only added references because DecstarG complained above they couldn't access the reference in the article or something.
• "I can verify that tseries was involved in copyright infringement but accusing them of piracy is too unfounded." Nobody cares what you can verify, as that would be original research. And if you have a conflict of interest, perhaps you aren't the best person suited to have an objective conversation about this subject.
• "Can any other editor please get involved in this." I welcome this. Maybe someone else would be interested in going around and around on the same issues with people who don't seem to have any tangible arguments other than that they don't like or agree with the assertions.

Note also that Wikipedia isn't censored, so we are under no obligation to omit information just because it might be controversial. And as previously note, the threshold for inclusion is not at the level required to prosecute in a criminal court. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well first of all there's no need to be rude to the other editor, like how you responded to him in the first case and considering his responses to be cute. It's obvious what you're trying to do. I feel like you have a personal vendetta against the indian film industry as i went over your talk page as noticed that you have a section called corruption in indian cinema. I'm not sure whats going on with you. Alright now, lets go over the sources.

1.Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema.- "Ashiqui, which was produced by T-series a small time company that began life by peddling pirated Hindi film songs." Now the paragraph only mentions tseries was involved in piracy they don't provide any backstory, so its easy to misinterpret the context of the paragraph as piracy can also be confused with copyright infringement.

2.Cassette Culture: Popular Music and Technology in North India- "Such allegations and the extent of tseries piracy are difficult if not impossible to verify." Why this source can be included to back up the piracy claim speaks for itself.

3.pirate modernity: "Piracy's structure of law bypassing techniques marked almost all emergent enterprises in audio" It's clear this line is talking about copyright infringement.

4.Media Piracy in Emerging Economies- "T-Series was a profoundly disruptive force in the Indian music market, in large part because it was a tremendously successful pirate. The company built its catalog through a variety of quasi-legal and illegal practices, notably by abusing a provision in the fair-use clause of the Indian Copyright Act, which allowed for version recording. On this basis, T-Series released thousands of cover versions of classic film songs. It also engaged in more straightforward copyright infringement in the form of pirate releases of popular hits, and it often illegally obtained film scores before the release of the film to ensure that its recordings were the first to hit the market." This paragraph also talks about copyright infringement.

Okay now I'm not trying to be disrespectful but like the anon above said these cases are clearly a copyright infringement violation case and not a piracy one. There's a clear difference. Like when samsung got sued by apple for copying their physical home button. You can't say samsung pirated apples idea, Context is important. Please try to be more respectful next time.103.221.233.15 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's well-documented in Indian media and scholarly sources that Gulshan Kumar engaged in piracy during his early years. Piracy was very common in India back in the 1980s, due to widespread poverty along with loose copyright laws, much like in neighbouring China. So it's not surprising that Kumar was involved in piracy, given the historical context, as he was technically not doing something illegal under Indian law at the time. And by serving cheap music to poorer customers who may not have been able to afford the more expensive legitimate music, he helped expand the Indian music industry in the process. So it doesn't make sense to judge his actions in the 1980s based on today's moral/legal standards, when India had different moral/legal standards back in the 1980s. This article already mentioned the piracy thing since 2017, well before the Pewdiepie vs. T-Series war. And there hadn't been any issue over it since 2017 up until just recently, when it's suddenly become a point of contention in the Pewdiepie vs. T-Series war. Maestro2016 (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes brother but you haven't provided any evidence to support this claim of piracy. These are clear cases of copyright infringement. Looks like the founder had not obtained a proper license to record the music. In 1998 the court ruled against tseries in the case for copyright infringement and they had to pay settlement towards the film comapny. Thank you for getting involved in this. I was hoping for another editor to debate the supposed piracy allegation labeled towards tseries. 103.221.233.15 (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have recently added a media source from 1997 which goes into detail about the extent of Gulshan Kumar's involvement in piracy. In fact, the article goes further and says he was pirating music even into the 1990s, such as producing unauthorized copies of Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge under the T-Series label. Here is another media source from 1997 which also mentions Gulshan Kumar being engaged in piracy. And there are plenty more such articles. Again, it's well-documented that Kumar engaged in piracy. This isn't something new, but has been known for a long time. Maestro2016 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Yes brother but you haven't provided any evidence to support this claim of piracy." Yet again, total nonsense, since Maestro2016 submitted Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema in this edit back in 2017 and three more sources have been added since then. So far, everything you've attempted to assert is total rubbish. "Looks like the founder had not obtained a proper license to record the music." That's one interpretation. Could he also have been a pirate who encroached upon another crime ring's business and that's why he was slain? Who's to say? Certainly not you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You are a rude person. We're trying to have a civil conversation and you constantly come up with ways to ridicule other editors opinions instead of having a professional discussion between people even if we are in a disagreement. Editors please help.103.221.233.15 (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no requirement that any Wikipedia user is polite, only that users don't lob personal attacks. Since your opening comment was to unjustly accuse me of bias, I'd say that you are the one in violation of WP:NPA. And since you've subsequently endeavored to call me rude is yet another violation of WP:NPA, because you are commenting on me personally, not my intellectual positions. There's no rule that I can't be irritated by your erroneous assertions, and there's no rule that I can't be irritated by ignorance or ridicule baseless opinions. FYI, I don't have professional discussions at Wikipedia because I'm not being paid to edit. Are you? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well i wasn't the one who accused you of bias so there's no point of ridiculing me. All my opinions have been respectful. You've broken almost all of the rules which you've mentioned by attacking me and the other anon. And I'm not dumb.Anyone reading this section would come to the conclusion that you did in fact on multiple occasions attack me and the other anon. Lets see what the administrators have to say about this.103.221.233.15 (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait! Let me savor this moment: At the top of the section I see "The editor @Cyphoidbomb added a section from a source which is unreliable and biased to the history of tseries. Additionally he included only the negative part of the history of tseries and ignored the positivepart from a source which is unreliable. The editor is obviously biased because of the war between tseries and pewdiepie. I suggest that it be removed. Editors take note. That post was from IP 103.221.233.15, the same IP you are posting from. Are you suggesting that I am talking to two people from the same IP address who in the last few days happen to be very defensive about claims that T-Series could have engaged in piracy back in the 1980s or whatever? What are the odds?! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well i have provided my arguments and it can be inferred instead of piracy tseries was involved in copyright infringement. Even if i did accuse you of bias you are supposed to have a professional dialogue. You have to be careful when adding unverifiable content to a company wikipedia page It doesn't change the fact that you were disruptive in your responses to me and the other editor.103.221.233.15 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"i wasn't the one who accused you of bias" -- "it can be inferred instead of piracy tseries was involved in copyright infringement" -- "you are supposed to have a professional dialogue." I am genuinely impressed by how you both are so quick to pull unfounded claims out of thin air, especially when you keep getting proven wrong. It really is an art form and I'd love to know who actually falls for this shit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well you're not the person I want to have a conversation with because you act unprofessional and rude despite being told multiple times not to do so. I'm gonna take up this matter with someone else.103.221.233.15 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I've been incivil. I'm sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well that wasn't so hard was it. I was waiting for you to apologise. I know you're a nice guy and all. But you have to calm down once in a while. 103.221.233.15 (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, 103.221.233.15, you've shown to be tendentious in your responses. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the subject, not the editors. You also seem to think that a registered editor is beholden to rules that an IP editor is not. When you open up with an accusation of bias, that's you setting the stage for such a tone. It's suspicious already that you and the other IP seem to use the same phrases, have the same complaints and are both interested in India-related articles, not to mention you two arriving on the same day and you trying to deflect blame above (and failing, since you did initially post on your 103 IP)... but let's give all that the benefit of the doubt. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to be complaining about rudeness from an editor when you were being rude yourself to that editor with your opening post. You could've made a complaint about the article without necessarily insulting or accusing one of the article's editors. That just wasn't necessary. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell if Cyphoidbomb was being sarcastic or not, but the IP's reactions sure are comedy gold! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well there are 1.3 billion Indians and 500 million with access to the Internet. So it must be wierd only a few editors who seem to speak broken English are defending tseries from piracy accusations. I'm also an Indian in case you are wondering. Let's rekindle the conversation. Seems like no one cares about the unsubstantiated accusation of tseries being involved in piracy. The guys who posted above who I assume are Indians presentaa valid argument that instead of piracy the paragraphs should mention that it was involvediin copyright infringement. Any Indians come to my aid please.Theyre trying to defame our beloved tseries. Jai hind. 185.203.122.16 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

T-series being involved in piracy is totally sourced. I suggest you go through the sources. And the word 'Piracy' itself is sourced in the sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

May it be or not Irony is that SONGS OF T-SERIES WERE ALSO PIRATED AND ACCOUNTS IN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS SALE, just gave New information, either in this conversation knew or not but not seen. Power of Good Music,well it is irrespective of PewDiePie vs T-Series. Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The article has a number of reliable sources, mostly Indian sources, clearly stating that T-Series was involved in piracy back in the '80s. There was nothing controversial about this fact until just a month ago, when Pewdiepie decided to bring it up in his "Congratulations" diss track against T-Series along with this Wikipedia article, specifically citing a part that I added back in 2017 (when "Pewdiepie vs. T-Series" wasn't even a thing). It's only after the diss track that this article has suddenly started getting complaints over it. Regardless of which side you "support" in this whole Pewdiepie vs. T-Series thing (I couldn't care less who wins or loses), the article should stick to the facts as reported in reliable sources, and should not be compromised for the sake of some internet meme. Besides, the whole Pewdiepie vs. T-Series thing is virtually over now. Maestro2016 (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually. its a conspiracy, when the tseries vs pewdiepie thing started a lot of westerners reared their ugly head and showed the world who they really are. They immediately started abusing tseries channel with racist and offensive comments. The anti Indian sentiment is very real and difficult not to miss. The passage which suggests tseries being involved in piracy was included by an editor cyphoidbomb whose main page includes corruption in Indian cinema. Its obvious what he is trying to do. I don't know how none of the editors are taking this thing seriously. The cyphoidbomb guy was very rude to the Indians who complained about it in the first place. They were immediately mobbed on by the editors who thought the editor cyphoidbomb's attitude was funny and should be encouraged. The hypocrisy is very real.185.203.122.16 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing specific changes to the article, not for general chatter or lobbing baseless accusations. If you want to discuss the suitability of the content, feel free to. Also, get your facts straight. I didn't add the piracy claim. Maestro2016 did. In 2017. Stop trolling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Meaning you did from another account that doesnt explain why the passage should be there in the first place. 185.203.122.16 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Can't these useless posts be deleted sir? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, What I'm trolling? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Doesn't seem like I was trolling. One can easily deduce that you were the one trolling the Indians who brought up this topic. I'm not sure why you get a pass in regards to trolling and those guys do not. I think this calls for an administrator intervention. Let's see what kind of disciplinary action is taken by the admin. @Materialscientist: You might want to look into this. 185.203.122.16 (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope the admin closes this fruitless discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2019 (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.

Addition of {{refimprove}}

@EthanRossie2000:, can you be more specific at the "very large amount of unsourced content" as you did in this edit? Why don't you tag them with {{cn}} because I think this article is well referenced, although not perfect. Hddty. (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

Change the number of subscribers to 95.5 million(or 0) SharkAgar (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I updated the subscriber count as is shown on the youtube page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2019 because some information is outdated.T-Series is no longer the most subscribed YouTube channel.

ShashankChariRangaraj (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - as of today's date T-Series is the most subscribed YouTube channel. Tolly4bolly 08:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

pirated songs

Hi there. Please can you remove the pirated songs part as it is being used by lots of people including Pewdiepie as an insult. Please can you remove this or change it. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSA Master (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

GSA Master (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@GSA Master: No. That's not even close to a legitimate reason to remove sourced content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

May i also edit/ so i can help show who has more subs? Izzyrational (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

S 103.219.229.69 (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/t-series-allegedly-seeking-court-order-remove-pewdiepies-diss-track-youtube-535128. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89, in this edit I cleaned up what I thought was maybe some close paraphrasing. Please let me know if you spotted anything else that was glaring. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm a little behind. I now see that you removed the obviously copy/pasted content here. Another editor submitted a paraphrasing, and I guess I cleaned up that paraphrasing a little more. Never mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2019

t series make copyright songs while at the same time using what they call 'sub-bots' to get past the former top youtuber pewdiepie. their race to reach 100 million had ended with t series on top. 2A02:C7D:3C77:A100:8563:59DA:7EC5:EC60 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sir here is not mentioning any thing about lal duppatta mal mal ka which was I think first popular song album by t series

171.77.152.18 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2020

T-series uses sub-bot. 70.68.173.138 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

T series new award

T series hit 200 million so that should be in the awards area 31.215.2.158 (talk)-

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Song uploaded

Sir app sabse pahle song kha se nikalte hai 2405:204:A4A9:8CAA:0:0:9D:A8B0 (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

t series

he is a b word 2603:7080:C840:7A:7894:734F:29AF:87C6 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk to you

About licence 103.107.40.8 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Music

Channel paomaction 27.56.88.47 (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)