Talk:Gilmore Girls/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fangirls and boys[edit]

from what i have read here this site is nothing more than a bboard for a bunch of fangirls and fanboys, the article offers very little on the history of the shows production, who makes it, who created it, or what it "says". you wont even include a section on its obvious feminist lean. this article exemplifies one of wikipedias major flaws.

spoilers[edit]

I deleted a spoiler from the introduction paragraphs. Please keep these further down in the article under the header {{spoilers}}

NPOV[edit]

This paragraph is clearly advertising copy pasted in from elsewhere. I'll delete it unless complaints appear

Style of dialogue[edit]

shouldn't there be a paragraph added (maybe under cult ref.) to include the rather unique style of dialogue, which sounds scripted, but still natural to lorelei and rory..rahter unique in a tv series i think 80.126.28.140 12:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

�€œLorelai (Lauren Graham) finally fulfilled her dream of opening the Dragonfly Inn and, to the delight of women everywhere, got serious with longtime friend, Luke. Rory (Alexis Bledel) furthered her journalism career at Yale and got an internship at the paper owned by Logan's dad. Yes, that Logan (formerly Mr. Non-committal), now her full-fledged billionaire boyfriend. So what bigger news could be brought about by season 6? Well, both of the Gilmore ladies will have their worlds shaken and stirred, bonding mother and daughter closer than ever. Bring plenty of tissues and cappuccino mix because the 6th season will plop major life decisions onto their collective laps. �€œ

Scott Patterson[edit]

Scott Patterson internal link from Gilmore Girls page is wrong. That's another guy. The actor Scott Patterson is not dead!!!!!!!1

unlinking, until a page for the _other_ scott patterson exists -- Generica 01:48, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Wikilinks?[edit]

Why is "teenage mother at the age of 16" linked in the Overview section? This doesn't seem like something that will ever get a Wiki article written about it ... a little to specific don't you think?--Talia 00:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HI,

Does anyone know when season 4 of the Gilmore Girls will be released???

delete[edit]

i am deleting what it says about season 6 starting in september as it has already happened -- Zapacna August 16, 2005

Sept 13 has not already happened, and as far as I can tell the season 6 premiere has not yet aired. However tv.com is now reported the season 6 premiere to be sept 20. I updated accordingly. Qutezuce 21:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Changes to lead[edit]

This bit in the lead seems like it borders on original thought:

"The series explores family, generational divides, and friendship, set in a close-knit small town with many quirky characters, in an updated version of the screwball comedies of the 1930s and 1940s."
"The most obvious similarity the show has with screwball comedies is the extremely fast-paced dialogue, updated to feature modern pop culture references. It also shares those film's perspectives on social class, represented most regularly by the mother's sometimes contentious relationships with her wealthy blue-blooded parents. The strong women characters in the show are also elements common to the genre. But Gilmore Girls is gentler than those films of generations earlier, with a more realistic depiction of the relationships among its main characters and screwball antics mostly confined to the town's quirky residents."

I'm don't think this part belongs in the article as it is currently worded. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more information. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try this Google search. As of right now, there are over 500 matches, dozens if not hundreds of which contradict your accusation of originality. If you grant that the Screwball comedy comparison is unoriginal, there some other aspect to that section that concerns you? 66.167.137.177 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Since the article has absolutely no references listed, I can see how someone would wonder what the sources of information are... --Sketchee 06:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jtalledo has a valid point. WP:NOT specifically talks about verifiability, and Wikipedia:Verifiability has the following to say:
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. [bold emphasis in original]
Blogs and fansites found through Google are not considered reliable publishers. On the other hand, one can often find reviews and essays from reliable sources through Google. I'd suggest sifting through those Google links, revising the text to incorporate the findings, and citing those sources as references. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind having this in the article, as long as reputable sources are cited. It should go into a section covering reviews/reaction to the show. It could be worded as something like this:
"Reputable source X, Reputable source Y have compared the show to a screwball comedy, etc..."
As the text was before, it didn't cite any sources for the claim and seemed rather POV as well. There are no doubt other points of view on the show that are equally prevalent, including some by reputable critics and having only one point of view in a place as prominent as the intro could be misleading. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of references is a good point, though not the one cited when the screwball comedy analogy was removed. A lack of references applies to other points made in the article, not just to the screwball comedy comparison. For example, the following points seem appropriate for a source:
  • The show was the first "to reach the air with help from funding provided by [the Family Friendly Forum]"
  • The show was not a ratings success initially but has grown a following that eventually saw it outdraw its timeslot competitor...
  • Lorelai's conflict with her wealthy parents is central to the back-story for the series.
The screwball comedy analogy was eliminated for its POV when Jtalledo (talk · contribs) first made the change, and noted again above. Before I attempt to reintroduce the analogy I'd like to understand better what the POV issue is. Thanks.
66.167.253.77 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The rest of the article does lack references, but it does state facts. Likening the show to a "screwball comedy" isn't a fact - it's an opinion. If you've read WP:NPOV, you know that Wikipedia is supposed to provide a neutral point of view. If you merely report what other people think (and that's where the references part comes in), it's not POV. But what you're doing here is making a rather bold statement that other people may easily disagree with and reporting it as fact. The whole blurb sounds like something you'd see in an essay and as I said before, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Screwball comedy is a genre, like film noir, buddy film, or procedural drama. It is certainly less cut-and-dried then genres like "drama" or "tragedy" but there are well-accepted attributes that it possible to recognize something as a screwball comedy without calling it an opinion. The article provided that detail. Maybe I am just missing your point, but in this case, references are available, so there's a workaround which makes understanding your point less important. Thanks for the follow up. 66.167.136.124 01:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
"Understanding your point less important". I don't want to get into personal discussion here, but thanks alot for trying to understand what I'm saying. And the issue of original thought didn't go addressed either. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no original thought needed to recognize an instance of a genre. To claim so would be like claiming that knowing how to tell haiku from sonnets or antihistamines from decongestants requires originality. It doesn't. Your claim of originality is weakened further by how easy it is to find writers (here, here, here, here, here, and here) who have identified the show as being part of that genre. 66.167.138.151 07:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
There is original thought here without a doubt. Haikus and sonnets have exact forms and if you deviate from those forms, you're not writing a sonnet anymore. With Gilmore Girls, it arguably deviates from the "screwball" comedy genre. But like I said, as long as you have some sources and refer to them in the article, there's no problem with it being mentioned in a section of the article, just not the in lead. My real problem with it was that was included as something that sounded like original thought, in the lead and stated as fact. That having been said, go to town on it. Happy editing! :) --Jtalledo (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to point out that the part about it being the first show funded by the family friendly forum was taken from a very good source in the Gilmore Girls page on the WB website. http://thewb.warnerbros.com/web/show_overview.jsp?id=GG Funny little guy 08:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our media professor also draws comparisons between gilmore girls and screwball comedys we used it as part of our histroical media unit comparison of an old screwball and the pilot of GG. (as well as some work on gangster films) If there using it in collages to teach media it shouldn't be wrong to place it in wikipedia.

if you look screwball comedy up in an encyclopedia youll find an entry. if you look tex avery up youll find that he made screwball comedies. if you look the marx brithers up youll find they made screwball comedies. calling something a screwball comedy isnt pov. is calling howard stern a shock jock pov? no, nope, nada. having said that it must be said that gilmore is not a screwbal comedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.188.180 (talk • contribs) .
This debate is long dormant, but those comparisons don't parallel this case. This was about comparing it to a screwball comedy, which constitutes POV, not calling it a screwball comedy, which may erroneous for the show but not POV. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps. there is no way in hell this is a screwball comedy.


Pilot episode wikipedia article[edit]

I encountered this Pilot (Gilmore Girl episode) article. Nothing links to that page. Is there something in there which could be saved or should it be just put up for deletion? I am not a fan of the series, so don't know much about it. Garion96 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pilot episode already has a stub article, Gilmore Girls (television pilot), which is linked into the List of Gilmore Girls episodes referenced by the main article. However, this other stub is actually longer (and older) than the old one. I've added merge tags to both and add a category, a stub tag, and a link to this article to Garion's cited article to start the process of combining them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot (Gilmore Girl episode) is not very well written, although it is longer than Gilmore Girls (television pilot). My suggestion would be to pull a few usable facts from Pilot (Gilmore Girl episode) and then delete it. --Jeremy Butler 12:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cast section[edit]

I've updated the cast section.

I put Padalecki, Eigeman and Ventimiglia in with the main cast since they were at some time, and this is how most Wiki television entries are. You are welcome to separate this into "past" and "current" main stars if you wish.

I also added dates for the recurring cast who have not appeared regularly throughout, and moved some recurring cast members to the guest star section where they belonged (if you only have 2 or 3 episodes, it's more of a "guest arc" rather than a recurring role) and also added some recurring cast members who weren't listed.

Belleville or Melville?[edit]

  • Is Sookie and Jackson's last name Mellville or Belleville. When one of them says it, it sounds like "Mellevill" but in a scene where they're at church the sign outside says "belleville..." Does anyone know?Kiwidude 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daydream believer2 12:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk page for Jackson Melville. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackson_Melville Summary: It's diffrent in different episodes, but the cast listing spells it Melville. Jlahorn 01:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


According to IMBD Jackson's last name is Belleville. (See also "Tippacanoe and Taylor, Too" in season 5 in which signs indicate that Belleville is running for town selectman). Sookie's last name is neither Belleville nor Mellville. It is listed as St. James on every cast list of the Gilmore Girls DVD and she is always referred to as Sookie St. James on the show. (Mimeaux 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Cultural references[edit]

I don't know how best to annotate GG's cultural references, but perhaps using Wikiquote's GG page would be the best place to start. --Jeremy Butler 12:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris and Kirk in main cast[edit]

I seem to be having an edit-summary argument with two anonymous users over the way Paris Geller and Kirk Gleason are presented in the main cast section. Just to make my position clear, I am supporting the apparent practice here of citing the seasons that each character's portraying actor is shown in the opening credits. By this standard, it's my understanding that Liza Weil was "promoted" as of season 2, and Sean Gunn as of season 3, although I have not verified this myself. An alternative explanation may be how these characters/actors are cited in IMDb, which Wikipedia considers a reliable source. (Weil is shown from 2001 on, and Gunn from 2002 on, at least roughly corresponding to the aforementioned seasons.) This is why each of them (and others) have the phrase "recurring previously" after their main-character season numbers. I did not introduce this practice; I'm merely correcting attempts to selectively change it for Paris and Kirk.

I invite anyone wishing to insist that Paris and Kirk were main characters from the beginning to cite their source. If you can't, you shouldn't make this change. Alternatively, editors may decide to change how these "promoted" characters are listed, but this should be done consistently if at all, and should be discussed here first. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the german Warner Bros homepage[1] the appearance of Paris in the first season is a "wiederkehrende Rolle", what quite simply means "recurring character". --Adornix 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's been awhile on this topic, but Weil was under 'guest star' status from season one (see the Paris Geller article for more info) because she originally auditioned for the Rory role, and then was offered her own character as ASP liked her enough to create the Paris role especially for her. She became a contract regular in S2 (as was Sean in S3), and she has been that way since, though from S2-S5, both Sean and Liza would not appear in the credits if their respective characters had no appearance in the episode about to air. Nate 01:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke's Diner[edit]

Lauren* created an article about Luke's Diner. However, this is clearly not notable outside of the show, and a redirect should come from Luke's Diner. However, information between that article should be merged into this one, if necessary. As I have never seen an episode of the show in my life (*gasps*), I would appreciate it if a user more familiar with the subject do the merging. --Andy Saunders 04:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I watch the show, and I believe that merging it would make more sense since, as you stated, it only has real influence inside the show (and a great one at that). I'd say merge, but let's wait for further input from others first... --Buchanan-Hermit�„�..contribs..speak! 04:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To heck with merging it, just delete it. That's like creating an entry for "Lorelai's house"; just silly. Jlahorn 15:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One requires AfD, where I think the prevailing consensus would be to merge anyway, the other does not. -- Andy Saunders 04:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might be one or two bits of info to salvage from Luke's Diner, but I think it's mostly expendable. --Jeremy Butler 02:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke is being so insensetive to Lorelai. can't he see that she doesnt want to postpone the wedding? Rory and logan are an awesome couple!--Lauren* 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I just created another subject called "Luke's Diner", and accidentally put my comment under there instead. But note that it was meant to be here! Emily 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke's Diner[edit]

This article (I just read it) should definitely be merged, if not deleted. I like Gilmore Girls, but that stub of an article isn't even entirely about the diner! It's more about Luke- it gives a few details of plot that revolve around the character played by Scott Patterson, and mentions the diner a few times. I agree with the comment about ti being just like having an article called "Lorelai's House". It's ridiculous! Emily 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, sorry, you can delete it or merge it or whatever, i dont care, i just thought that there should be more gilmore girls articles--Lauren* 02:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if someone familiar with the show wants to do the merging, we can redirect Luke's Diner into here. --Andy Saunders 02:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I handled this merge by (1) adding info about Luke to the start of this article and (2) redirecting Luke's Diner to the main article on Luke Danes. This way, all the Luke references are kept together. Plus, I didn't see how much more Luke info would fit in the main GG article since there's no place for details on supporting characters. But if someone sees a better way... --Jeremy Butler 12:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems good to me (the way you changed it). Emily 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Quotations[edit]

I suppose a few quotations are okay, but, really, that's what Wikiquote (already linked to) is for. --Jeremy Butler 13:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of the quotes originally, and used them only to support a point in the article. I see that standard is not being followed by other authors... Jlahorn 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Characters[edit]

I'm thinking about putting together a page with a paragraph or two about each of the minor recurring characters (such as Taylor or Madeline). Does this seem worthy of it's own page, or should the list of characters here just be expanded, or are we good with what's up now. Also, should Jackson and Christopher be added to the character template? Deafgeek 12:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Gender Roles[edit]

Doesn't anyone think that a certain amount of misandry occurs on Gilmore Girls and that the male characters are represented from a narrow POV? Most of the male characters exhibit a small amount of male gender role characteristics and are overtly effeminate. Examples include: Lucas "Luke" Danes, Christopher Hayden, Jackson Melville, Dave Rygalsk ((Lane's bandmate and exboyfriend), Zach (Lane's bandmate and husband), Brian (Lane's bandmate), Gil (Lane's bandmate), T.J. aka Gary (Luke's brother-in-law), Kirk Gleason, Jason "Digger" Stiles, and Michel Girard. Some of these characters are beyond gender bordering on asexual, i.e. Kirk Gleason. Males are depicted as confused, un-powered, and trailing the female characters around town. Male characters with power are represented as boorish and undeserving. All male characters are one dimensional pylons. Surely the feminist undertones are significant enough to be included in the article. Since they are slap you in the face obvious. AGREE/DISAGREE?

I don't think I'd go so far as to say that most of the male characters are "overtly effeminate". Though the show is definitely told from a woman's point of view (not much of a surprise, based on the title alone), I would say that a lot of the characters mentioned above have some pretty strong traditional male qualities. One of the best examples I can think of off the top of my head is how protective of Rory Luke is throughout the series, playing the father role moreso then any of her male relatives. What are some of the examples you can think of that displays lack of masculinity as a whole? I do think though that it would make for an interesting addition to the article. Deafgeek 14:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE>>>>If you watch the actors movements there is a concerted effort to place the Gil-male characters in a weak position. (In theatre stage position is used to define character. Characters that enter stage left for example are noticed less and perceived as weak by the viewer.) Moreover the dialogue of the Gil-male character is never as smart, snappy, or pointed as their female counterparts. The male characters of Luke, Jackson, and T.J., the three committed characters that come to mind, never have a clue as to what to do and are, in many ways, dominated by their female counterparts. Luke went to the self-help section and read books on forging relationships. (As if he is incomplete prior to these books) Jackson is literally told what to do in every episode. (With Jackson there are many many many examples to list but how about the episode where Sookie ORDERS Jackson to get a vasectomy?

Here is the description of the event from televisionwithoutpity.com

“Sookie lies in bed. Jackson holds the prop baby and says they should decide on a name as soon as possible. He's not too stressed about it, since whatever name they don't use can just be given to the "next one." Sookie says that they need to talk about that. And by "talk," she means that she is ordering Jackson to have a vasectomy. Once Jackson realizes she isn't kidding, he says that he wanted four children. Sookie says she wanted three children, so two is a nice compromise. As Jackson points out that two is not a compromise at all, a beefy man in scrubs enters the room to escort Jackson down to his vasectomy. Sookie placates Jackson by saying that she has a name for the baby: Martha Janiceloriethanrupertglendacarsondaisydanny Belleville. "Now go get cut," she orders. And with that, Jackson sighs and...just...goes. Like, he leaves to have a surprise surgical procedure done that his wife just decided that he would have without consulting him whatsoever and probably while she was under the influence of whatever drugs they give you during labor.”

Other sites are calling it a forced vasectomy. Its male genital mutilation. A reverse of the oft-reported female genital mutilation. Jackson also wore a kilt at his wedding.)

T.J. as a character is mentally slow. Kirk is mentally deranged. The mayor has issues. Who knows what is going on with michel…

These are not the only examples. But rather than list character examples I have included statements from the media via the web. I tried to avoid blogs et cetera and stick to sites like Time Magazine and scholarly journals.

“because of all the shows that just show men trying to appease women. Even shows like…Gilmore Girls. And once you realize that bias is in them, you can’t watch them. It’s as if men don’t make decisions in this society.” Andrew Bock, Mere Men, www.artsjournal.com/media/redir/20030903-28781.html

“It's not a show that appeals to many males, because of the heavily gynocentric base scenario. Even the male characters, such as Luke, are feminist riffs on masculine archetypes, the ruggedly handsome man with a heart of gold. Dave Sim would be outraged. Hell, Dave Sim is probably outraged anyway.”

Ian Arbuckle, DVD REVIEW: GILMORE GIRLS - SEASON 4 http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=dvd&id=4899

“Sherman-Palladino (who pens many of Gilmore's dialogue-crammed scripts) is a sunny feminist…”

Ken Tucker, Entertainment Weekly TV Review http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/tv/0,6115,439216_3_0_,00.html

“Pohl-Weary found that some creators are using mass-market culture's cover of harmless entertainment to create subtly subversive work. She cites the example of Amy Sherman-Palladino, the producer of TV's Gilmore Girls, who's ‘slowly slipping in references to feminist art and outsider culture.’”

Suzette Chan, On “Girls Who Bite Back” by Emily Pohl-Weary. (Girls Who Bite Back is published by Sumach Press) http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/nov04/epohl-weary.shtml

"We don't do menstruation story lines—although who knows, maybe this will be the year that everyone in Stars Hollow starts to ovulate on the same cycle."

Joy Press quoting Gilmore creator-producer Amy Sherman-Palladino. The Village Voice. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0443,tv,57816,8.html

“GILMORE GIRLS (The WB). Planned as family-friendly TV, "Gilmore" … shows that feminism and family values aren't mutually exclusive”

Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/sampler/article/0,8599,91441,00.html

“Gilmore Girls,” a new television series about mothers and daughters on the Warner Brothers network, is rooted in the same premise, challenging mother/daughter conventions by representing a powerful mother/daughter duo that exists somewhat outside the boundaries of patriarchal thought and culture.” “Gilmore Girls” does, however, emphasize a “lifestyle” choice of “post feminism” ““Gilmore Girls” provides its audience is the ability to produce a vision of feminism and girlculture” “While it is evident that “Gilmore Girls” explores new representations of girlhood, a tenet of feminist theory that challenges the ‘roles and representations of women in the production, distribution and consumption of cultural texts,’”

Side by side: Reinventing mother/daughter relationships by Holzgraefe, Sandi Tait, M.S., University of North Texas, 2003 http://proquest.umi.com.ezp1.harvard.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=766472051&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1146670417&clientId=11201 

                 NOTHING? You people have nothing to say about this? This is a discussion page yes? Is this important to add or not?


Jlahorn 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) It sounds like a contrived term paper from someone trying too hard to find evidence for his point. I disagree with a lot of it, but don't care enough to go into it. There's a response for you ;)[reply]

It's too close to original research to put in the article -- even with the sources, it's just not objectively crucial enough to be in a general encyclopedia article about the show -- but I'd like to see it on a more specific Gilmore-based site. It's interesting stuff. I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. As an example of the latter, I would argue that pretty much every character on the show, male and female, is weak and neurotic, but can get strong when it comes down to the wire. It is an unabashed Chick Show with obvious feminist undertones, but I don't think the emasculation aspect is all that bad or that uniform. I do agree that Dave Sim is probably outraged, but he's always outraged. MrBook 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--All those quotes took ten minutes to find on the internet.(It wasn't that hard to do.) If the media is reporting the show as a Feminist show shouldn’t that be included in the entry? It isn’t a matter of your agreement, the media has reported it. It is citable. There should be at least one sentence on the shows critical reception. STEVE

Yeah, that whole feminist angle is just that, it's an angle. I had a discussion with someone about the show being like "screwball comedies" of the earlier 20th century. On both fronts, it's too POV to add and it's just original research. We should focus on the facts here. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
       The FACT that the media labels the show as such doesn't count?


Good lord, enough with the "look at me" formatting already.

MrBook and Jtalledo are right on the money with this. Jlahorn 14:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrBook said that the show has "obvious feminist undertones" then obviously there should be an "obvious feminist undertones" section since it is obviosly so obvious.


If you have to write the word fact in capitols to prove your point, that doesn't bode well for your point.

From reading the little back and forth banter here I assume caps was used because no one was taking the feminist philosophy idea as fact. Considering all the examples listed on this page from the press wouldn't one sentence about it be the right thing to do?

wikipedia has gilmore girls listed as "Third Wave Feminim" on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Power entry. Should we add a link from here?
you should add the link


To the originator of this thread: Oh please, you sound like a "men's rights" advocate. I hope you are also making a point on the talk pages of all the movies or TV shows in which females are depicted as "confused, un-powered, and trailing the male characters around town" Also, it's charming how you equate "feminist undertones" with one-dimensional/negative depiction of men. I'm wondering if you think affirmative action is horribly racist and unfair towards whites. 84.249.252.61 18:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character list[edit]

The character list needs clean up. There's way too many entries on it right now. More minor characters can be placed in a supporting article along with guest stars. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its great that so many people are spending time editing the Main Character part of the page, but how about, instead of continuously rehashing the main characters someone tackles the Supporting Characters too?

Cover Art[edit]

I'm going to need to get some more solid back-up for this claim, but I'm putting this out there while I begin my search just incase anyone already has it. I remember once seeing a brown box instead of the pink one for season 5 for another region with an entirely different design, which would contradict the line that states the cover art has been the same for all regions so far. I'm going to go attempt to find it, but I wanted to bring it up just in case anyone knows of or recalls a similar fact. --Jordy540 21:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Why??[edit]

This show makes me want to chew my leg off at the knee and jump out of a window after 5 minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.190.3 (talk • contribs) .

Article talk pages are for the purpose of discussing article content, not personal opinions about their subjects. You might find a relevant discussion board or blog more useful for this purpose. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


oh let the baby have his bottle. sometimes shakespeare makes me want to chew my leg off too but that doesnt mean he shouldnt get a wiki article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.188.180 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Come now, we need not resort to personal attacks. Not everyone has our discerning good taste in TV programming. ;-) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

I'm a little confused, the article says the show aired on the WB and will be moved to the CW, but later it says it airs exclusively on ABC Family. Clear this up please? DoomsDay349 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Family Channel has exclusive rights to the syndicated broadcast of the show. I've tried to clarify this in the original article. --Jeremy Butler 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. DoomsDay349 16:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes unnecessary?[edit]

I think the sectioned off quotes from the show are unnecessary and a little obnoxious.

"Rory: You went alphabetically. Lane: Seemed tidy." A special sectioned off quote from the show about how Lane organized her list of music influences seems a bit too much for the music section. This illustrates more of lane's thoroughness than anything else.

"Luke: Coffee? Lorelai: You have to ask?" Do we really need this quote? The section already says they're coffee addicts, and this isn't a very memorable quote or anything, its pretty much just restating what was just said.

24.125.29.161 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera?[edit]

Is Gilmore Girls a soap opera? It seems to be a dramady to me, but I have heard others who say it's a soap. What's the final word on this?

Seeing as how no one's evil twin has stolen their father or married their brother, I'd say dramady. DoomsDay349 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

I was surprised to see no links to the episode list, etc. I couldn't find any discussion of this above, so I'm adding a See also section. —johndburger 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, now I see the link, in the Spoiler section. Hmm, I was also thinking about a similar link to "List of characters", but there's no such article, although there is a category. Any policy/guideline about See also links to categories? —johndburger 00:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Forum[edit]

Hey, I found this really hugeForum about Gilmore Girls...they have like every possible topic there and really easyto navigate...only thing is that it seems to be new and has only 4 or 5 members....SinceI'm a meber in a similar forum and that one is going great I thought I could tell you...

Fan Forum

I just love the forum, but themore members it has themorefun it'll be...and I'm speaking from experience!

Official Homepage[edit]

The official home page of the Gilmore Girls was outdated, pointing to the old WB site, which went up to season 5. The link now points to the new official CW site for Gilmore Girls. --212.71.37.100 16:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move the plot summary[edit]

I think the plot summary is getting too long for this article. I'd suggest it be moved to the List of Gilmore Girls episodes. --Jeremy Butler 13:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode pages AfD[edit]

Somebody has nominated several of your episode pages for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/French_Twist_(Gilmore_Girls)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk's Last Name[edit]

I would like to know the source for "Gleason" as kirk's last name. I didn't know that was it. Which episode was this revealed in, as I thought a running Joke was that Kirk never revealed his Last name. In the First-Fourth season DVD boxes, under The cast list, it only refers to him as Kirk, with everyone else having a last name. J-stan 19:40, 2 August, 2006.

Jlahorn 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC) imdb.com, tv.com, amazon.com, answers.com, entertainment.com... I don't know where they got it from, but it didn't originate here.[reply]

According to a TV.com trivia item on Sean Gunn, "Kirk wasn't given a last name until the third season episode 'One Has Class and the Other One Dyes' [sic] when Lane mentioned his rock band's name, The Kirk Gleason Five." Can someone check this out? TV.com's trivia section isn't a reliable source, given that anyone can edit it as long as they participate in the discussion boards. (Case in point: the correct episode title is "One's Got Class and the Other One Dyes".) But a quotation from the primary source material would be reliable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His last name is indeed Gleason. To quote from the relevant episode:
LANE: Once, a guy in our town named Kirk was practicing Bohemian Rhapsody with his band, the Kirk Gleason Five, and my mom shut them down so fast that the band fled without their instruments and never came back for them. To this day, Kirk can’t listen to Queen without tearing up.
Daydream believer2 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's a bit iffy. It sounds like there is no direct connection to our favorite Kirk, like pointing to him or saying "Kirk, the guy who... [does something we've seen]". I'm sure the writers intended us to think of jack-of-all-trades Kirk, but my opinion is not a wiki-reliable source, nor is that of any other viewers of the show. I would suggest handling this by identifying him as "Kirk Gleason" with a footnote that reads something like:
As of [whatever date], Kirk's surname has yet to be explicitly stated on the show. However, Lane Kim refers to "a guy in our town named Kirk" with a band named "The Kirk Gleason Five" in a conversation in "One's Got Class and the Other One Dyes", and IMDb and other sources appear to have picked up on this indirect identification.
I'd also like to describe the scene, instead of just saying "in a conversation", for the sake of easier verification. How's this sound? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify it a little more, Lane was arguing with the members of her band over practicing in town, where her mother could find them. The characters she was talking to, at the time, didn't know Kirk at all. I'd argue that it was more than implied, but simply logical. Her "a guy in our town" comment was the most logical way of describing him to people who didn't know anything. Like if, say, Jerry Seinfeld was telling someone about "a guy in my building, Kramer", we're automatically to assume it meant Cosmo Kramer rather than thinking there could be someone else with the same name.
Of course I see your point, however, I'm just unsure as to how arguable the fact really is. Daydream believer2 03:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode guide that came with the Season 4 DVD set, his name was listed as Kirk Gleason.--Dani 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, feel free to hack apart what I've done to the plot section...I don't know if the bullets were a good idea or not, but those sections just seemed to lend themselves that way. I've already reworded some things to try to make them more encyclopedia-ey. I also don't know where to put this: "Lorelai, who was engaged to Luke, was frustrated by his keeping his newly-discovered daughter (April) from her, and their relationship is on the rocks." If someone could stick it in / revise it where appropriate, that'd be awesome! Also, I think we could enrich the "other characters" section... jen - 16 April 2007

Present tense for show[edit]

Everyone, let's please stop changing the lead sentence to read "Gilmore Girls was", because it "is". Contrary to the beliefs of some editors, one does not say a show "was" just because it has been completed. This is just as true for a TV series as it is for a book or a play. One doesn't say Hamlet: Prince of Denmark was a Shakespearean play; it is and always will be. It was written and has been performed. Likewise, Gilmore Girls was created and has been ended, but it still is a TV series. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's really no continuity regarding this on Wikipedia. Certain TV shows that "are" TV series but have ended are written about in the past tense (e.g. Dallas and M*A*S*H) while others are not. Grammatically, I believe both are correct, although I can't be sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.109.92 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean "consensus" within Wikipedia, the present-tense expectation follows the official guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), under "Presentation of fictional material". There will always be Wikipedia articles that don't follow style guidelines, but this is not an excuse to ignore them in any particular article. Each article is improved individually by its editors.
"Continuity" usually refers to reasonable flow of information or events within a discrete work — in this case, within the article. I haven't examined the current version of the entire article, which I'm sure is undergoing many continuity-thwarting small updates with the end of the series. But if you want to improve continuity for an article that uses the standard "out-of-universe" perspective but also includes "in-universe" material, I'd suggest reviewing the aforementioned guideline. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logan proposing to Rory[edit]

Ok, if the end of Season 7 hasn't aired yet how is it known that Logan propses to rory and why isn't there a spoiler warning?Yayamaya 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying something. Remember to sign all your posts. 60.242.31.143 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this show have to end? I love this show.

Actually, as another point, I feel like the series finale is getting way too much weight in this article. It was one episode of how many? 150? But its plot points seem to be getting almost a quarter of the space of a number of sections. The finale is more important than the average episode, but certainly not *that* important.
AdjectiveAnimal 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gilmore-s7.jpg[edit]

Image:Gilmore-s7.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the season 7 DVD image deleted? I don't see any difference between that one and other DVD release images...it still falls under fair use. Can we put it back, or will it just keep getting deleted? Shifuimam 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning dates and cancellation in lead paragraph[edit]

Although it may be redundant to have dates in both the infobox and introduction, I think it should be mentioned in both because upon reading the lead sentence, it is not clear that the show is cancelled (one possible reason why people keep trying to say Gilmore Girls was instead of is). The WikiProject Television guidelines do allow this information to be included in the introduction. JYi 18:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reoccuring Characters[edit]

Should Lane's husband be on the list? He's been in more recent episodes.

-Zach, you mean? He definetely should be. He's on just as often as other people on that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.130.131 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, Zach is a major character --Banime (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

Is there anyway to inform readers that this page contains spoilers. These spoilers are things like what happens at the seventh season. This hasn't come out yet it places like Australia and people that read this article are unaware of the info it contains. Is there a way to fix this?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heytaytay99 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's fairly common knowledge that reading character/plot sections would impart spoilers, due to the inherent nature of character sheets and plot synopses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates (May 11th)[edit]

Added refimprove, rewrite and copy editing.

The "Plot" section needs to be completely rewritten. It is currently made up of huge blocks of text with grammar errors on every sentence, and not a poor comma in sight to help you through a sentence with 50+ words. The production section is only slightly better, be needs a lot more references.

Ruyter (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Season[edit]

Today I saw a commerical on ABC Family that stated there would be a new season of Gilmore Girls, premiering on the 8th of June. My information is valid and other people have seen it as well. This is very important information that should be posted here. So that Fans can believe it. 71.58.107.112 (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now reading the text is pretty much like watching the show itself?134.7.248.130 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, the first paragraph warns about the endless run on sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.130 (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Family has never shown reruns of the seventh season--that's the "new season" that's "premiered" on June 8th. Gilmore Girls is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.71.121 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Appearance of Sean Gunn[edit]

While Sean Gunn is known for his outrageous character "Kirk" on Gilmore Girls, his first appearance on the show was acting as a DSL man ,sent by Emily Gilmore, going by the name of Mick.

Yeah that's right, in the first or second episode he is called 'Mick', I remembered that puzzled me too. Maybe it was only for the pilot and his role was rewritten later.84.196.48.46 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

I took this out of the Luke/Lorelai section: "At one point Lorelai and Luke come home drunk and have sex. Lorelai later realizes she may be pregnant, but it is a false alarm."

Although I admit I haven't seen the show in quite a while, I'm pretty sure this would have stuck out in my mind. 97.96.182.234 (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it sounds rather tawdry the way it was phrased there, it's quite genuine. It happens near the end of the fifth series, coming at the same time as Sookie's baby. David Arthur (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.220.145.168 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)INCORRECT: This happened in season 5.[reply]

Cleaning up DVD releases section[edit]

I've changed the countries in this article, section: dvd-release. I've changed the UK and Norway into Europe UK, and Europe Norway (since they both are part of Europe). Europe itself is changed into Continental Europe (every country in Europe, excluding the UK and Ireland (and depending on your point of view it could also exclude Scandinavia, Iceland and Finland). I wanted to set this straight, because with almost everything it seems that some people in the UK consider themselves as something else, other than European (when in fact they are very much so). Second of all: should Norway be excluded in the list of dvd-releases? I included the Netherlands in the section of season 6 (since in the Netherlands this season came out on a different date than in the UK, Continental Europe or Norway). But I have my doubts about that; what if every country on this planet will be represented in this list? Perhaps the releasedates of Norway (and the Netherlands) can be added in the section of Continental Europe?--84.104.123.100 15:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently fixed some bad markup in the DVD releases section. However, I did notice that with the addition of the Netherlands to the release dates for seasons 6 and 7 and the complete show box set release, the table rows for those DVD sets are too wide - anyone running a lower resolution than 1280x1024 is going to probably have to scroll sideways to read those. Would anyone be against it if I moved the country icon and country name under the "Europe" heading on the release dates sections to take up less horizontal space? Shifuimam 07:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the same thing that I proposed (see #6 on this talkpage), but note that the Netherlands has a different releasedate than the UK and Norway. I would like to see that the several releasedates in Europe (UK, Norway, Netherlands, etc.) are all combined in one section (Europe). Would that be possible? I think that would solve the problem. --Robster1983 10:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. I put my proposal in this section, for it is about the same thing; the DVD-section in the article. --Robster1983 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are the aspect ratios listed correct? I don't know about the DVDs but E4 have the 5th season onwards in 16:9 widescreen, so I think it would be unlikely at least the PAL DVDs are different to this. --13:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.126.49 (talk)

Richard Gilmore[edit]

Could someone please research and find out why Edward Herrmann continues to be listed as a "Guest Star"?!?! 'Emily' is not so why is he!?!? This has been driving me crazy since I noticed it about four seasons ago! Might be a good tidbit for a "Trivia" section :) 204.49.209.110 12:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Bhmyers[reply]

I believe on one of the DVD specials, or somewhere they said they were lucky to get Edward Herrman. I think that part of the stipulation of him agreeing to be on the show is to be listed as "Special appearance by." It happens in a lot of movies and such where they will list a load of actors and then one special one (on The King of Queens for instance, they list all the actors and then at the end list "And Jerry Stiller as Arthur." I think it's a weird thing of contracts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.34.222 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, Richard does appear alot, so your point is understood, but I think there's a line between so many episodes to be considered a "star" and then considered a "recurring character". But, he does have a slot on the opening credits, so I guess that's all we can ask for Fanfiction.addiction 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Herrman is not listed as a guest star. HagermanBot is correct in that it is a contractual thing that he is listed differently than the others. He was still a regular. From what I can tell these special titles like this are usually awarded actors that are slightly higher profile than the other cast members but not necessarily the main star of the show such as the Jerry Stiller example above. --Samuronin (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "special appearance" has to do with the way he gets paid, it allows more flexibility. WIth experienced actors doing tv you will often see this. But I know, money, money, money, that is what it all comes down to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.197.111 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extravagant Detours[edit]

You waste a LONG graf right at the beginning talking about a spinoff????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.157.164 (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

I've made a few changes to the page now, editing and rearranging things for clarity, then adding and rewriting some things: I hope nothing's too bold, but I'm inclined to agree with the tag suggesting a lot could be rewritten. For instance, pages for shows like How I Met Your Mother and One Tree Hill have brief outlines of each season's plot arcs, and I think this could be managed here. It would also serve to balance the current emphasis on the two leads' love-lives: there's loads more to the show than their romantic liasions, isn't there? The mother daughter relationships - including Lane and Mrs Kim - run throughout the season; the coming-of-age plot for Rory, including the feuding/friendship arc with Paris, her adjustment at Yale and its ups and downs; Lorelai's business trials and tribulations etc. Some of what I've added has been along these lines, chiefly to start to represent the series as the well-rounded one about family, ambition and finding a path in life, as well as the ongoing love-stories. I'd like to hear your opinions, and I propose someone could make a start on this, or I can in a little while --LadderCrime (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorelai wears contacts or not?[edit]

In the second episode of the first season (perhaps first or third, but definetely one of those) Lorelai complains about putting her contacts in backwards to Sookie. But in a later season, when she is talking to Rachel (Luke's ex-girlfriend), Rachel says she has pretty eyes, and asks if Lorelai wears contacts. Lorelai says No. She is also wearing glasses sometimes, but not always. (Which could be that she just doesn't have anything half the time, but maybe not) This has bothered me for actually at least a year so I would really like to know the deal.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.130.131 (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just her not bothering to put in her contacts that day. --Banime (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Rachel asks if she is wearing contacts in reference to the color/attractiveness of her eyes, she is most likely asking specifically if she wears color contacts because of the intense blue of her eyes. Lorelei likely understands that the underlying point of her question was in reference to the color of her eyes, and therefor responds appropriately. Since she mentions wearing them on other occasions and is also seen wearing glasses, it is very likely that she does wear them, but responds negatively to the question because the color of her eyes is not altered by her contacts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.21.227 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore Girls[edit]

I'm quite new to the Gilmore Girls but am confused as to why Rory ended up going to Yale when her ambition was to go to Harvard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.14.176 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stated in the article here: "After much deliberation and with her mother's blessing, Rory ultimately decides to go to Yale (her grandfather's alma mater) instead of Harvard, even though she is accepted into both institutions as well as Princeton University in New Jersey." Rory made a list and the advantages of going to Yale outweighed the advantages going to Harvard. Also note that this is a forum about how to improve the article, not for general discussion of the show. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, outside the plot, had Rory gone to Harvard, the show would have some difficulty keeping the momentum, as Rory would have left the state, not just Stars Hollow. By keeping her in the state, it maintained the closeness of Rory and Lorelai Xylogirl07 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy[edit]

Thanks to Family Guy, I thought this show was about an older lipstick lesbian dating a younger lipstick lesbian. There's an episode of Family Guy that shows the two main characters kissing each other passionately.

Anyways, I know it's not a show about lesbians now, after watching a few episodes on ABC Family. But hey, Family Guy's naughty joke got me watching. Coffee5binky (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is invaluable information that will inevitably improve the quality and detail of the article overall... *facepalm* Dylan (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to detest Family Guy. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 03:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional main cast[edit]

This cast box seems either a) inaccurate or b) confusing. For example, Paris and Dean didn't appear all of the seasons that are "blacked out". Either I'm reading the chart incorrectly or there has been some vandalism. This show has such devoted fans, I'm surprised to find such a glaring mistake. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rory's age goof[edit]

i've found an interesting goof.in 1st episode Lorelai tells that Rory is 16.in ep. 4"deer hunters" Rory drives the car so she is really 16. in episode 6 she seebrares her...16th year!!!(i've counted candles). why have i written this?because i can't sleep !!!aand those who read this won't seep too! I am evil genious!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadMoovz (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC) hi all hope there is another 2-3 / 7.8.9. episodes of the series as it is captivating and Lorelia should make the jump to Luke and have some chldren to expand the programme even longer than just 2 moe series the uk misses the Gilmores all three segments Grandma Daughter and Grandchiild....come on usa get it on.[reply]

Taken from a Gilmore Girls trivia page: "In the beginning when Joey hits on Lorelai and Rory, Lorelai says Rory is only sixteen. Actually she is fifteen, not turning sixteen for a couple more months. While it is common for people to round up when discussing age, when a twenty something year old man is making a pass at Rory, you would think Lorelai would make a point of saying exactly how young she really is." Also, taken from "The Deer Hunters" page: "During this episode, Lorelai mentions that Rory is sixteen. However, "Rory's Birthday Parties" takes place after that episode, and Rory turns sixteen in it. Explanation: A parent will often round up their child's age as their birthday nears." Not sure about why she would be driving, though. 70.66.253.198 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rory's friends: Lane and Paris hate each other.[edit]

I don't know if they really hated each other but I remember watching the show and I rarely saw Lane & Paris in one scene together. They are both Rory's best friends yet they barely know each other? The only scene where I saw all three of them together was in the last season. Paris and Lane really didn't get along well. Should this be mentioned in the "Rory's friends" section? I think it would be great. Masterpeace3 (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Actually in Episode 18 Season 5 titled "To Live and Let Diorama," Paris and Lane cordially hang out with Rory while they collectively complain about their boy situations over a round of Ms. Patty's punch outside of the Twickum house. Although they don't know each other very well let alone hang out together, they do get along - McConnellsc58 (talk) 10:11 AM, 23 December 2014 Mcconnellsc58 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gilmore Girls. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 17:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Stars Hollow[edit]

Mostly plot currently and certainly not in keeping with WP:WAF. Izno (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilmore Girls. 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:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for //www.abcmedianet.com/Web/progcal/dispDNR.aspx?id=060204_12

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 15:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change of network section[edit]

In the section about the cancellation and change of network, there is a long quote praising the cast, etc. Is this appropriate? I believe that it should be paraphrased into just the neutral facts.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Hello, I just had a few suggestions. I think that the page is great overall, but the section on revivals is a bit lengthy and redundant, could probably be shortened a bit. Also, I think including a section on some of the famous quotes and sayings from the show would make it even better! TheGerkinator94 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the sayings really are "famous", each one would need a couple of references showing that journalists or TV critics have talked about it.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Herrmann[edit]

If we are going to put Edward Herrmann in the series regular category, he should at least have a note, considering that he is billed as a guest star. Or we should just put him in the recurring section, since he is technically a guest star.--Joef1234 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is considered a main cast member regardless of the "special appearance by" credit, as he is featured and credited along with the main cast members in the opening title sequence. He is not a guest star nor recurring, as he is credited in every single episode even if he is absent. He qualifies as being apart of the main cast. MSMRHurricane (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as Gilmore Girls: A year in the life?[edit]

Prior to the new series revival on Netflix, the show was not known as Gilmore Girls: A year in the life. I think that the new "season" should be treated as a new show. Although it is a direct continuation of the original show story-wise, in terms of production it's not. As an example, the articles for Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z are not merged even though "Z" is a direct continuation of the original, just like this show.--MexTDT (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is/Was[edit]

Let's not start climbing the Reichstag over whether the Gilmore Girls is or was a TV Series. Both versions are used on Wikipedia and both are correct, depending on your point of view. -Duribald (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if it was a TV show, what is it now? Does it still exist?-80.146.191.157 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life#Separation from Gilmore Girls[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life#Separation from Gilmore Girls. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gilmore Girls. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The character table[edit]

John, Loeba, MyNameIsASDF; Hi all, let's discuss this dispute over the character table. I personally find it unnecessary for the descriptions to be present, as each of the main characters all have in-depth descriptions on their separate pages. It adds nothing to the table, and makes it look messy (in my opinion). Also, I feel the order should be by appearance, not status, therefore Sean Gunn should be listed before Milo Ventimiglia as Gunn appeared in the first season while Ventimiglia appeared in the second season, despite Ventimiglia being apart of the main cast in the second season and Gunn being recurring for the first two seasons. Let's not get into an edit war and resolve this issue before it gets out of hand. Cheers! MSMRHurricane (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's nonsensical to say that we don't need descriptions just because there is a character page - this is the parent article for all things GG, so everything should be summarised. The descriptions on the character page are huge and most people won't need a full bio, just an idea of who the character is. I also suspect this isn't the main concern because both of you left the character descriptions for the recurring cast - it's clearly because the descriptions are within the table, that's the issue. I think the table is useful as well because there were multiple changes to the main cast, but the descriptions are definitely more important...So I'll move the table to the character article and leave the character descriptions as a bullet list (like the recurring list). I think it's a shame but there we go. I don't feel that strongly about the Gunn/Ventimiglia thing, I thought it made more sense to go by addition to the main cast but it's really inconsequential so we can do it that order if you feel strongly. --Loeba (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Loeba; Personally, short descriptions are no problem to me, I just found them to be overused by putting them in the table, as it was perfectly fine the it was. I think the bullet points with a quick description is better, much better, and moving the table to the characters page is also better. Mostly, it was just have the descriptions within the table that made it look messy and overused. However, I'm happy with the layout at this point. Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gilmore Girls. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AYITL[edit]

What does AYITL mean??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37FE:32E0:FDDF:C108:BECE:E63A (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year in the life.(Mobile mundo (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Cast and characters seasons[edit]

I have seen both - and – to show how many seasons a character has been in the show. Which is correct? Mobile mundo (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot holes and returning characters[edit]

There should be a section in this article about Gilmore Girl plot holes. For example, when Jess arrives to Stars Hollow, Luke says his father ran out on him two years ago, but in a later episode says his father left to get diapers for Jess and never returned. I have found some more here http://www.moviemistakes.com/tv3573

There are also certain characters who return as someone else, e.g. Gran (Marion Ross) returns as cousin Marilyn in the fourth and fifth seasons http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005385/ Graziana (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This sounds interesting, but it seems like it falls under WP:MOSTV#Things to avoid, namely continuity errors/goofs. The second thing is noted in List of Gilmore Girls characters. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode about Logan’s birthday in season 7, Rory tells Logan they went ice skating in Central Park for her 12th birthday. Then in episode 20, Rory tells Lorelai “remember when I made you have my 12th birthday at the Mark Twain museum in Hartford.” Stephacastro (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect ratios[edit]

According to IMDb, Gilmore Girls was released in both 4:3 and 16:9 formats. The Gilmore Girls Wiki clarifies: "From season 1 to season 4 the show was shot and presented in the traditional TV format [4:3], while season 5, 6 and 7 were shot and aired in a Widescreen format [16:9]." As far as the US DVD release goes, the GG Wiki says "Following creator Amy Sherman-Palladino's directives for the DVD release of the series, Gilmore Girls was published in the traditional 4:3 TV format - the 1.33: 1 aspect ratio - completely from season 1 to 7, also cutting on the use of the modern 5.1 surround audio format." --Jeremy Butler (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sookie st James

Sookie was Lorealis best friend who found out she was pregnant in the 2nd series with her son then in the next series she was pregnant with her daughter who loreali and Rory was godmothers to

Sookie marryed a man named jaxson he was a produce man and the farther of both her kids

Sookie was a really good chef in the independence inn in the Gilmore girls that loreali ran

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilmore_Girls/Archive_1&oldid=1187034467"