Jump to content

Talk:Gossip Girl (novel series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:You Know You Love Me)

Some clean up

[edit]

I've again removed the following sentence (presented as a separate paragraph): “The first book of the series includes a famous quote by (sic) Oscar Wilde: Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality.“ No information is given as to where the quotation appears (in the text? as an epigraph?), nor as to its rôle or significance in the book.

It's not clear to me why a quotation included in one of the books should be held to be so important as to demand its own paragraph, or even to be included at all. It's not something that one would normally find in an entry like this. If for some reason it has to be included, it should be merged with one of the existing paragraphs — and could some explanation be given? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the quote. Everyking 12:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But why? What does it tell us? Many books contain quotations; the pages on them don't bother to say so, because it's a minor detail. What's the point here? I've explained my reasons for removing it; if you have reasons for putting it in, please give them.. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me like good information. Everyking 19:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'good' here. It tells us what Wilde said (which I suppose is good, though would be better on the Wilde page), but nothing useful or interesting about the book. (My suspicion was that it was included in order to give some respectability to what seem, from the article, to be pretty light-weight, not to say trashy, novels. But that opinion is based on very little, and is irrelevant to Wikipedia.) If you really think that it belongs here, I suppose that I'm not so much against it that it's worth a long debate — but it does surely need some more information (as I mentioned above). I'm damned if I'm reading the books in order to find out, though... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, I might not mind reading them, they do sound kinda hot. Anyway, the article is short and it's better to overinform than underinform. And presumably the quote reflects on the content of the books, which would help enlighten the reader. Everyking 23:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to put the quotation back, but more informatively. Can you think of a way to improve it? I can't seem to get it right. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Damn, this article needs ALOT of attention. Has any body read this recently?--71.116.65.241 21:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I put Two Tag's On this baby--Maliki 786 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I removed most of the POV and non-encyclopedic tone from the article. Please, if you have read the books, review the current material and make sure I haven't accidentally strayed from the facts. Thanks -Harmil 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read this article because I wanted to write a French article about Gossip Girl... At first, I juste intended to translate it in French (which I did), but I also edited this one because there were so many typing mistakes... --172.210.135.58 20:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006

[edit]

Okay, so first I slightly rearranged the talk page so the most recent edits are at top. I didn't alter anyone's posts; I just thought it'd be easier to keep track of what's new here. This article needs ridiculous amounts of work, and I'm definitely not the one to do it, but I'm trying to at least get it in-shape enough that it meets some of Wikipedia's quality standards. The only edits I've made beside adding two tags are as follows:

  • I've removed the line "Contains plot spoilers!!!!" and replaced it with a more professional, encyclopedic spoiler/endspoiler template.
  • I've removed the line "They rule the school" because it's clearly not NPOV, and it just doesn't sound encyclopedic. If it's a tag-line for the series, someone can put it back up there, but it would be best if you were to indicate that it is, in fact, some sort of "official" tagline and not just your personal opinion.

This article needs much more work, especially with its tone/language and POV issues. I've never read these books, nor do I have any desire to; therefore, I don't believe I'm the one to work on this article. I'm almost wondering if we need to put some sort official editing hold on this thing while someone works on it, because it seems to come under frequent attack by vandals and hoaxers, whether they know they're vandalizing or not. Opinions?TheTomato 22:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page rearranging has finally been undone - talk goes newest at the bottom. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page to be Reworked?

[edit]

I have some experience with this series - I'm not a devotee - and I see how much work needs to be done here. Would anyone mind if I made some edits to the structure of this? There appears to be quite a few articles devoted to in-depth character descriptions, so it might be appropriate to use this article to give brief overviews of each character, rather than the several-paragraph-breakdown there is now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.222.62 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It appears you have made some rather nice edits. I'm only puzzled why you removed citations. Let me guess they made the article bulkier and you are correctly trying to improve the article. Therefore I added a "References" section at the bottom and the coding needed to make the references appear in that section. Hope this is to your liking, while it satisfies wiki policy to provide citations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, the change in organization you've made looks great! Would you support me continuing the edits for the rest of the character descriptions? (That is, reworking each character article and transferring the bulk of the character descriptions on this page to the character pages?) It's a big task, and I just hope that it's improving, not merely confusing, the set-up of these articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.222.62 (talk • contribs) 10:20, January 14, 2007

Character Descriptions

[edit]

I've been trying to move more specific descriptions and relatively minor events to the character pages, but I've noticed that several people continue to write details into this overview character page. What are the thoughts on this? I would think that this page would be a place for general character overviews, with detailed info elsewhere, but I might be in the minority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.222.62 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Spoilers

[edit]

This article is so full of spoilers it's unreal. Characters, summaries of each book. There should be no plot information in the characters section. And the main plot of each book should be taken out and put into said section. The summary, that is the paragraph preceding the title should have only general information about the book and a mere outline perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.67.222 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gossip Girls" Article

[edit]

This might be the wrong page to request it but could someone add one of those

"This article is about the ______. For the book, see Gossip Girl (novel). For the television series, see Gossip Girl (TV series)."

onto the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_Girls because I just typed in gossip girls in the search and I ended up at that page. It took me a few more tries to realized it is Gossip Girl without the "s". And as I can't seem to figure out how to add that tag could someone more experenced do it, incase other people get confused when they go to/search for "gossip girls". 64.203.19.96 (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blair is the lead

[edit]

All right then, since a few anonymous people seem to be having an issue with this :)...

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In this interview, which is included as a source in the article, Cecily von Ziegesar verifies that Serena was originally envisioned as the lead (which is currently mentioned in the Serena van der Woodsen article), but came to realise that Blair was her true main character. She's therefore named as such here and in her own article. It can't get anymore verified than a direct statement by the author herself. Those who tweak this are engaging in original research and contradicting the author's statement -- either because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or because of confusion due to the TV series, which bills Blair second. Either way, this should hopefully clear things up. -- James26 (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another book in the series, scheduled for release in October 2009

[edit]

Can it be added to the article that, according to Alloy Entertainment’s 2008 Frankfurt Foreign Rights Guide, another hardcover novel is scheduled to be published in October, about Serena, Nate, and Blair in college? (Also, does "book eleven" refer to the prequel, and if so, can I make that explicit in the article?) Thanks in advance! --Kletta (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see now that there are eleven books in the main series. --Kletta (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so...

[edit]

Chuck is a secondary character? Why not the central ones? kashimjamed (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official Website, cited in the article, does not currently list him among the central characters (unless it's been changed). Therefore, he's listed here as a secondary. Keep in mind that this is about the book series, not the TV show. -- James26 (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV series

[edit]

Clearly most of the traffic to this page is looking for Gossip Girl (TV series). There should at least be a "For the TV series, see Gossip Girl (TV series)" at the top of the page.

The TV series is an adaptation of this work and already well linked in the lead and adaptation section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only linked in the adaptation section. There should be a link at the top of the article to avoid confusion, just like every other article for popular novels turned into TV series. I've made the change myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.98.223 (talk • contribs) 00:03, September 21, 2009
No, it should not. It is an unnecessary disambig and has been removed. I have fixed the lead, which lost the sentence about the TV adaptation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning given in that warning not only makes not sense but is against Wiki policy. It is common practice in almost every novel or novel article to include a disambig link at the top of the page for it most well known adaptations in other media. This has nothing to do if it has been linked already multiple times in the article itself. The purpose of this is for convenience. Many people are coming to the page not for the novel series but for its TV adaptation. The link at the top allows them to immediately link to the page they are looking for and not search through the article. The only reason, I can see, why someone would not want the tag at the top of the page is for meaningless aesthetic reasons not wanting to alter the look of their article which is against wiki policy. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is not against wiki policy, nor is it "common practice" (and just because other low quality articles do it is not a reason to do it here). The television series is not a separate, confusable item, it is an adaptation of the same work. Per Wikipedia guidelines (there are no policies about this so please learn the difference before throwing around the terms), hatnotes should NOT be used for "Linking to articles that are highly related to the topic". Instead, as we have already done, it should be summarized in the article. So the removal of the link is per actual guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the warning was against wiki policy, I said not keeping the tag due to aesthetic reasons was what's against wiki policy (which is obvious if you read my full comment). So, please, don't accuse me of not being aware of Wiki policy when you yourself are using only the most tenuous justifications based on Wiki policy. hatnotes: "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself" Which is exactly what a hatnote directing someone to a different media adaptation of a work is doing, in addition to being two articles with similar names. The rule you quoted isn't concerning the same thing. If I was asking to have a hatnote that was a redirect to say "Characters in Gossip Girl" then yes what you cited would be applicable, but in this case it's a matter of a large subset of people searching for a different article and then instead of having a convenient re-direct, having to search through article text in order to find the correct link. As this article is about the novel series (not any other media adaptations), the redirect to the tv series is not "information about the subject of the article itself" which is what " should NOT be used for "Linking to articles that are highly related to the topic"" is referring to.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline I quoted is exactly fitting for this situation. The adaptation is HIGHLY RELATED TO ITS SOURCE MATERIAL. Period. They are not different nor significantly different. This article is about Gossip Girl, period, which includes a summary of its adaptation(s). The adaptation is properly summarized adn linked. There is, again, no valid reason to have a hat not for an adaptation of the series. It would be no different from your example of hat noting to the character list. Same franchise, same media. And that is that. Again, no hat note will be added.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except this article isn't about the franchise. It is very clearly an article about the novel series. IF this was indeed an article about the Gossip Girl franchise, then yes, the hatnote would not be necessary. As it's an article about the novel series, this isn't the case. It is not "same media" as you stated, a novel series and a TV adaptation are significantly different even if plot remains the same (production, crew, writers, author, reception, etc.), and the valid reason is that a large amount, if not most of the traffic to this page is looking for a different article. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state I requested a third opinion from an admin regarding this hatnote issue, and I would like to remind Collectonian about WP:OWN, as you seem to present yourself as the final say in editing this article, in addition to WP:SPOILER as just looking at the page history you've made numerous edits specifically to remove spoilers (which you justified as teasers in your edit history) which IS against Wiki policy. Rather than outright deleting overly long or poorly worded summaries, they should be edited. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not removed "spoilers", I've removed pointless teaser summaries, usually written in "teenspeak", that not only added NOTHING to the article, were beyond unprofessional, and usually made no sense. They didn't spoil anything because they didn't say anything, being almost entierly copy/pasted from other sources which violates WP:COPYVIO. It has nothing to do ownership, but with LAWS and policies. Try reading them sometime. And yes, I saw your request for 30, which has gone unanswered. Its always funny to me how people try to claim someone is being "own"y for actually enforcing guidelines and policies just because they don't like them. If you want to actually be useful, why not write proper, well written summaries of the novels to properly fill out the table, rather than the trash random people try to shove in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

[edit]

It is my opinion that a hat note should be included. Although I can understand how WP:HATNOTE can be interpreted to imply there shouldn't be a hat note I personally feel that this is an incorrect interpretation. My reading of the WP:RELATED sub-section is that it refers to the situation where one topic is clearly a sub-topic of the other, as in the example given. In that case reader's are likely to expect a general discussion of Extraterrestrial life at the main article and so not be surprised to have to go to a sub-section for more specific information on the cultural aspects. In my opinion this is not the case in this instance as someone looking for the TV series would expect the whole article to be on the TV series and as such we should have a hat note to get them to that article as quickly as possible - for a reader the TV series is not obviously a sub-topic of the book series (which they may not even be aware of). (If this article was about the franchise (i.e. there was a separate book article) then I'd agree a hat not would be inappropriate). This seems to me to be in keeping with WP:DISAMBIG (this is the primary topic and we're providing a link to another topic) which also comments on this issue and which seems not to be 100% compatible with WP:HATNOTE. I also think having a hat note is the way to cause the least surprise to readers so even if you do interpret WP:HATNOTE as to not allow a hat note in this case I would have one as a common sense exception. Dpmuk (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it....

[edit]

Why must everytime I try to edit a page and insert the correct statement(s), it keeps getting deleted? I mean all I try to do is add summaries to the book sections and correct a few of the character biographies which are clearly wrong. I mean there is nothing offensive or insultive in my summaries and I know everything that goes on in Gossip Girl as I am the "number 1" fan. But if you refuse to edit the articles the way they should be written, why bother having a gossip girl page in the first place? :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissGossip (talk • contribs) 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not adding correct statements, you're spamming stuff from GG fansite's and inserting stolen, copyrighted material. The article IS properly written, as an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a fansite, and its not some teeny bopper website. The insertion of inappropriate, non-neutral, personal opinions will always be reverted, as well as the insert of [{WP:SPAM|spam]] and fan-gushing. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

Why does searching for Serena Van Der Woodsen redirect to this page as opposed to her own page like all the other characters? Could someone correct that because I don't know how.80.175.231.74 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV series

[edit]
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: move Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Gossip Girl → Gossip Girl (novel series) — The TV Series is much more prominent/notable currently and should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. OzW (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the massive debate regarding even including a hatnote to the TV Series, but I believe that any search on 'Gossip Girl' should lead to the page for the TV Series, not the book. While the book undoubtedly came first, an extremely high portion of traffic for this query would be for the TV Series. Several other 'more popular than the book' queries lead to the tv series/film article - The Graduate, Schindler's List, Big Fish, Forrest Gump to name just a few. Thoughts? DanEdmonds (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the TV series does indeed, in my opinion, belong at Gossip Girl. You should probably request a move formally. Nymf hideliho! 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems very confusing. If only Wikipedia was a little easier to put these requests in... if you can do it, I'd appreciate that you would! DanEdmonds (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I reach consensus on this? DanEdmonds (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Move (or put in a request to move) Gossip Girl → Gossip Girl (novel series) and Gossip Girl (TV series) → Gossip Girl, add a hatnote linking the new main page to this page, and remove the hatnote from this page. The Vampire Diaries had a similar move earlier this year with the same reasoning. It's been 2 months without any objections, so I think we can consider it a consensus. OzW (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the move, as I can't do it myself. Added a {{movenotice}} to both pages in case anyone who hasn't seen this already wants to weigh in. I hope I did all of that correctly. It should be taken care of in a week or so if we still have a consensus. OzW (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ΣПD!ПG–STΛЯT | TΛLK | 22:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the views of everyone preceding me and while it may be a wise decision to have the name changed and redirect all searches to the TV Series of Gossip Girl, maybe someone can link the article about the Gossip Girl Books within the TV Series article as an actual section, and visible in the contents. This would allow for more exposure to the books article as well. I support the change as long as this may be taken into consideration. KirtZJ (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean more exposure to the books themselves, see WP:SOAP (not accusing you, just reminding you that we need to keep this in mind). That being said, I've looked through Category:Television programs based on novels and can't find ANY that have their own section on the novels. Doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be, but it doesn't help. The article is about the TV series, not the franchise, so I don't think a section about the book really belongs in its own section there, unless it pertains directly to the TV series, e.g., a subsection under Production describing how the show was conceived and adapted from the novels (some info here if you want it). You should propose it on the TV series' discussion page. Otherwise, I think a hatnote at the top and the link in the first sentence should be enough. OzW (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support How long until it's moved? Jayy008 (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting on an admin to do it. They're really backlogged over at WP:RM. I haven't had time to learn the procedure to do it myself, though I think it still needs an admin's assistance for delete privileges at some point. If you have experience with multi-page moves, feel free. Otherwise, it might be a while. OzW (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gossip Girl (novel series). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gossip Girl (novel series). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gossip Girl (novel series). 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gossip_Girl_(novel_series)&oldid=1256795629"