Talk:Valley of the Dolls (novel)

message: I guess I will have to do some work on this article. There's enough material for two articles, one on the book, and another on the movie. Sad to see it's been so neglected. Jeffpw 18:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: Since we seem to be in an edit war with a new user, I Googled(tm) this and found that Ms. Thomas has been trying to get this film made for about nine years now, with various proposed stars.  The only current source is the Hollywood.com entry which notes multiple writers for new scripts and rewrites, and Ms. Knowles.  Perhaps her name will help get the thing made this time, or maybe in fact Ms. Garner is the new proposed star, but I think better for Wikipedia would be to just kill all reference to this remake until they actually start shooting.
Likewise the immediately preceding reference to Ms. Conley which, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in the article on her.
I'm outta here.  Good luck!  --Wfaxon 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely, Wfaxon. If it has not already been deleted from the article, I will delete it now. Jeffpw 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake 

message: To those who wonder, the term refers to a slang usage for barbituates. "Downers" may be more familiar as a slang for the same thing.JBDay 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dolls" 

message: There was enough material for two separate articles, so I split the film info off into Valley of the Dolls (film). -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: The photo you have captioned as "Original book cover" is from a later printing (probably a paperback edition.)  The actual original first edition of Valley of the Dolls looks like this:
http://www.firsteditionpoints.com/BookDetail.php/ValleyOfTheDolls
It's a paperback that obviously came out after the movie.  It is certainly not the original book cover.  --Smirkboy 13:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original book cover" art is not the original 

message: I have removed this section:  ==Quotes==
American ska-punk-rock band Sublime used a quote from Beyond the Valley of the Dolls in their song "Smoke Two Joints": "She was living in a single room with three other individuals. One of them was a male and the other two, well, the other two were females. God only knows what they were up to in there. And furthermore, Susan, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that all four of them habitually smoked marijuana cigarettes--Reefers."
... because it refers to "Beyond TVOTD", which is a different movie.  Plus I doubt that this information is relevant.  Maikel (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Now that the "dolls" conundrum is solved, what's meant by the valley?  I presume it's LA valley, right? Maikel (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Valley?

message: 'Dolls' are slang for downers and the 'Valley' of the Dolls is the most effecient and rapid way of admistering them i.e in the back passage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EGGIE2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valley of The Dolls.  Where is the Valley? 

message: Jennifer's character makes mention that her mother's collect calls come from Milwaukee, not Ohio, as was previously noted in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.92.194 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jennifer's Mother 

message: Might be interesting to hear what the critics had to say about the book when it was first published. Valetude (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception? 

message: In the head, there should be at least a brief statement of what this book is about, either a very short summary, or a statement of it's theme, or an indication of its premise. What we have now is basically: this is a book, now here's an overly detailed summary to wade through if you want to know what it's about. The same is true of the article about the movie. zadignose (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The head needs a decent summary 

message: The Wikipedia article on best sellers has many much older novels which sold double and triple this novel's sales.  "Guinness" may say it sold more than, say, Black Beauty or Tale of Two Cities, but it doesn't make it true.  The actual facts should be included if the Guinness entry is allowed to stay.  See Wikipedia "List of best-selling books" ⁓⁓⁓n0w8st8s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   "best selling novel in publishing history"?  No 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved the novel to Valley of the Dolls (novel) and the undisambiguated title to a disambig, leaving no primary topic; no change to the film article.
This is a moderately complex RM with diversity of opinion, but ultimately a clear consensus. Station1 started the conversation with an important point about the borderlands of PTOPIC that set the mood for the discussion; supporters of a move strove accordingly to present the argument that there is, resoundingly, no primary topic. Significant opposition to the OP's proposed move came in early, which Netoholic later ascribed to possible gaps in the strength of the nomination statement. The most cogent oppose argument, by SnowFire, pointed to the current views of each title and held the perspective that the novel's currently significant page views either made it a PTOPIC or sufficiently obscured the question of whether there was a PTOPIC to justify preserving the present situation. The OP presented a strong argument against this by referring to similar cases where a novel's page views dropped precipitously after a disambiguating move, which was concurred with by support arguments.
The support arguments made strong points that the current situation is inappropriate. This was most succinctly noted by Dicklyon, with the statement ; the substantial majority in the discussion, both in terms of numbers and in terms of strength of argument, agreed the situation at the beginning of the RM is untenable and needed fixing. Colin M's lengthy support raised particularly important points about the relative irrelevance of being the "original topic" to Wikipedia's PTOPIC considerations, which were raised by an oppose !vote. The question of mistargeted wikilinks was also considered, as was (raised by Netoholic) the issue of precedent in prior RMs, which supported the idea of a move in this context.
Ultimately, clear consensus exists for a move of the first two titles. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Vaticidalprophet 13:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support moving the disambiguation and novel. Page views show that most users aren't looking for the book, and I wouldn't be surprised that lot of the hits it currently gets is because it is located in the primary name. Since there are a lot of topics, move the disambiguation. Keep the film at the current name. Gonnym (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 December 2021