Talk:Gossip Girl (novel series)

message: 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)
replies: text: I support the inclusion of the quote. Everyking 12:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It seems to me like good information. Everyking 19:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some clean up

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: Talk page rearranging has finally been undone - talk goes newest at the bottom. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2006

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page to be Reworked? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Character Descriptions 

message: 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)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Gossip Girls" Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blair is the lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I see now that there are eleven books in the main series. --Kletta (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another book in the series, scheduled for release in October 2009 

message: Chuck is a secondary character? Why not the central ones? kashimjamed (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oh, so... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I don't get it.... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gossip Girl (novel series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090620232844/http://www.stltoday.com:80/blogzone/talk-of-the-day/talk-of-the-day/2009/06/what-affect-will-sexually-explicit-gossip-girl-books-have-on-young-people/ to http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/talk-of-the-day/talk-of-the-day/2009/06/what-affect-will-sexually-explicit-gossip-girl-books-have-on-young-people/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gossip Girl (novel series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071114124916/http://www.variety.com:80/article/VR.html?categoryid=14&cs=1 to http://www.variety.com/article/VR.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929001335/http://www.hachettebookgroup.com:80/teens_books_9780316072618.htm to http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/teens_books_9780316072618.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208113022/http://www.hachettebookgroup.com:80/teens_authors_Cecily-von-Ziegesar-(1010944)_Bibliography.aspx to http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/teens_authors_Cecily-von-Ziegesar-%281010944%29_Bibliography.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628084824/http://gawker.com:80/news/gossip-women/gossip-girl-creator-cecily-von-ziegesar-is-pissed-at-her-publisher-309862.php to http://gawker.com/news/gossip-women/gossip-girl-creator-cecily-von-ziegesar-is-pissed-at-her-publisher-309862.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713231808/http://www.hachettebookgroup.com:80/teens_books_9780316735094.htm to http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/teens_books_9780316735094.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713230840/http://www.hachettebookgroup.com:80/teens_books_9780316017688.htm to http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/teens_books_9780316017688.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091018231816/http://www.hachettebookgroup.com:80/teens_books_9780316043618.htm to http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/teens_books_9780316043618.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924092752/http://www.hachettebookgroup.com:80/teens_books_9780316020657.htm to http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/teens_books_9780316020657.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913010511/http://www.hachettebookgroup.com:80/teens_books_9780316020664.htm to http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/teens_books_9780316020664.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930030304/http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/01/cw_gives_goahead_to_gossip_gir.php to http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/01/cw_gives_goahead_to_gossip_gir.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified