Talk:Gossip Girl season 4

Gossip Girl season 4 was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 30, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Television: Episode coverage 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.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Gossip Girl characters#Gossip Girl|Gossip Girl]] Anchor List of Gossip Girl characters#Gossip Girl links to a specific web page: Gossip Girl. The anchor (#Gossip Girl) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Illeana Douglas

Now llleana Douglas has dropped out of the project, should I remove the information all together? I don't personally think it's notable now. Jayy008 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We provide information as it happens, while not notable to you, it's not just your opinion that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmagicvamp (talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, excuse me. I never said it did, hence the discussion. If I thought it was my opinion that mattered, I would have made the edit. Common sense says you don't make a discussion if you have that attitude. Yes, information as it happens, but the actress will never be a part of the show. Jayy008 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that its still relevant information for now. Information about the role of the character itself is relevant, casting wise, along with any changes. Ryanlively (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. When the new person is in, could we just say "person replaced Illeana Douglas in the role, who had previously dropped out due to scheduling conflicts". Kind of merging the two and not having too much information. What do you think? Jayy008 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds perfect. That's exactly what I was thinking could be done once the role was recast. Ryanlively (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for getting involved in the discussion! Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Guest Appearances

Should there be a section in the starring section that includes special guest stars, such as the celebrity cameo appearances? There used to be a section there but is was removed and as well the 90210 (season 3) page includes a special guest stars section. Ryanlively (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been "Special Guest Stars" in this season. I had a Cameo section, but it was discussed at Project TV, and it was decided it's not notable as a list :(. So I removed them. I liked them there too! Jayy008 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But I do feel the need to argue that Tim Gunn was an actual guest star as he made several appearances in the episode Easy J. The others I would agree were not notable, but Tim Gunn's appearance had to do with the storyline. Do you think he should be added to the guest stars section? Or should we make a special guest stars section and add him to it? Ryanlively (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was he credited, though? I don't think the episode credited him. If he was credited as a "Special Guest Star" then 100% add him, but I can't remember without watching the beginning of the episode again, which I can do if needed. Jayy008 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, you're right, he wasn't credited, I just watched the beginning of the episode over again. Ryanlively (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was credited at the end in the credits? Throughout the series they listed minor appearing characters there. jmagicvamp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah but I think that's the point. If he's credited at the end of the show as a minor character, then he isn't important enough to be listed on the page. Ryanlively (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that Ryan, thanks for opening this discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of the Son

The summary of this particular show is expanded because after this show will be in mid-season hiatus, and this section will act as base of whole season's story line-up after the hiatus. Previous summaries of episodes are quite insufficient to do so. Bill william compton^Talk 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No other episode summaries are this long. You cannot make exceptions for this one in particular. Ryanlively (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If other summaries ain't well covered than it doesn't mean that it will be applicable for all. If you think that it is too long than please modify it accordingly, but try to not to miss important points. I was aware of it and tried my best to keep it as short as possible, but it was the limit. You can check my edits on The Vampire Diaries (season 2) where also i expand the summaries, and they are all fully supported by other users; who also help to modify them. So i hope better response here also. Bill william compton^Talk 20:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 11 is also a mid-season finale, that one is not as expanded as this one is. The reason the episode summaries are short is to give the main points, but without giving too much of the episode away. This is not a spoiler site. Also, on other Gossip Girl season pages, other episode summaries are not as long (other than the Very first episode, which holds more prominence than this one). Ryanlively (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to understand my point, if previous episodes were not well covered than it doesn't make stigma on other future episodes too. You say episode summaries are kept short to give main points, but what the need of that irrelevant information these main points are giving which will only confuse the viewers. I'm the regular viewer of the show, in spite of which i'd get puzzle by reading previous summaries; and perhaps you don't know what is the meaning of spoiler site, spoilers leak the plots of the episodes in advance, not after the broadcast of the show. If this article is not providing genuine information to its viewers than there is no need of such articles. Bill william compton^Talk 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No episode summary is allowed to be that long, it doesn't matter if it's on hiatus or not per guidelines. I'm going to go ahead and revert the edits. Jayy008 (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. Some of the previous episode summaries are too short (like one or two sentences) and should be expanded, which I am trying to work on now. But in expanding episode summaries, there is no need for an episode summary to be the length of an essay, because then it gives away too much information, to the point that you do not need to watch the episode, that is what I meant by spoiler site. Also, in reading your expanded version of "Empire of the Son" there are a lot of grammatical errors which is also another reason I reverted the edit in the first place. The last edit I made I added a couple more plot points about the storylines that I thought were relevant enough to add the episode summary. But again, you can add information about the main points without it being that long, you do not need to add every detail about the article. Ryanlively (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some good be longer too. If this problem persists I can find the relevant guidelines. But that's a lot of effort, I'm sure this can be resolved now. Jayy008 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My whole aim was to make the article more informative, not to fall in any kind of disputation. If Ryanlively you found grammatical errors in the article than you should correct them not to remove the whole summary. I also understands complete plot of the episode couldn't be written here; i also told you that i tried to keep it as small as possible, but when you know whole thing than hardly you could skip any relevant part, for this i asked for re-modification by any other's perspective, but removal of whole summary by Jayy008 is not a valid solution of the problem. Bill william compton^Talk 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comments, which you seem to not have done, you'd see my reasons. It doesn't matter who supports it on the TVD page. Summaries should be no longer than 2-3 sentences. This is guidelines, that's the only reason I removed it, that's the solution. No problem, no discussion, no issues. Guidelines are guidelines. If you want to change the guidelines I can show you where to bring it up for discussion? Which, to be honest, I'd support if they were a little longer. Jayy008 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the only solution than i'd like to propose this very important amendment in these guidelines. Should i do it on the talk page of WikiProject Television, or where?, see within 2-3 sentences you hardly could understand the plot of the story; it would be better if we'd allow little more words limit.Bill william compton^Talk 02:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There not for describing plot, they're for summing up the episode. There's a section for plot. I don't know where these guidelines are, it was just told to everyone when there was a similar issue at Nikita or Hellcats, can't remember which. But you're right at where to bring it. Jayy008 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well if you do not know where this guideline is then how do you know you are right? how do you know that Summaries should be no longer than 2-3 sentences.? it is not here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:TV#Episode_listing instead it says 100-200 words. the 2-3 lines you insist upon are like 80 words. these summaries can be much longer according to that. please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.4.80 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion over at Nikita, I think it was. Even if it is 100-200 words, the summary was like 3/4 times that. Jayy008 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Art

I know this an American series, and the American cover should take precedent. However, the UK cover is an actual DVD cover with a photoshoot, shouldn't that one be used instead? Rather than the U.S. one simply made of screen shots. Jayy008 (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you answered your own question there lol. If it were a UK series, then the DVD cover art that you are talking about (which I have seen) would be used, but not in this case. But also, the UK cover art for the DVD only has the four female main cast members and not the other three main male cast members. The US cover at least features all main cast members, so it doesn't make sense to use it for that reason in my eyes because idk why they would exclude them from the cover, but in any case, the first reason is why the current is preferred. And btw, have you seen the cover art for 90210 season three? Ryanlively (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only thoughts was that the UK cover is a real cover. But I'm not too fussed either way. Now 90210, that's a discussion for the talk-page lol. Jayy008 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has replaced the previous, proper version of the DVD cover art with the previous edition of the cover art. This needs to be changed. Th cover art is now the same in the US and UK, and in addition, the US version would take precedent as was discussed above. Cover art should never be changed without proper discussion and consensus. Ryanlively (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gossip Girl (season 4)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.[reply]

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: 3 found, two fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This is a list class article and thus is ineligible for GA status as per WP:WIAGA#What is not a good article?. Please check out WP:WIAFL and if you are satisfied that it meets those criteria, then please nominate at WP:FLC. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gossip Girl (season 4). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121110082249/http://www.tv.com/gossip-girl-spoiler-juliet-gets-help-to-cause-more-trouble-for-serena/webnews/185383.html to http://www.tv.com/gossip-girl-spoiler-juliet-gets-help-to-cause-more-trouble-for-serena/webnews/185383.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Gossip Girl (season 4). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gossip Girl (season 4). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]