Talk:Meg Cabot

Pictures/Photos
Could anyone post a few pictures on the main page of the books, author and the like? The Princess Diaries cover is nice, however I think additional displayed pictures would really add something nice to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loofahbathbuddy (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The cover of Pants on Fire has been changed already, so would someone be able to post the new one?

Summaries
Why are there such huge summaries for The Mediator and 1-800 but not the rest of her books? I took a lot of time revamping The Princess Diaries section, her largest selling series. All-American Girl, another #1 best seller, also lacks information. I think we need to severely edit the Mediator and 1-800 sections and add to her more known books. Maggieab10k 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Either there should be no long summaries, or they should come with spoiler warnings.

Reverting Edits
I thoroughly cleaned up some of the grammatical errors and unnecessary, superfluous summaries on this page the other day but my entire edit was reverted and I was accused of vandalism. I also was correcting the order of the PD book series. If someone has a reason to think I have vandalized, please explain WHY instead of simply deleting everything I worked on and sending me a warning. I would appreciate some teamwork. Maggieab10k 17:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in this article, nor in any disputes about it, but reviewed the revision history after seeing the post on Third opinion dated 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC). Maggieab10k's revisions have largely been improvements to the article.  None of them have been vandalism.
 * While the repeated linking of The Princess Diaries in the Works section was not necessary, as it was already linked in the first paragraph, that is a Manual of Style (links) issue, not content. Rather than reverting edits wholesale, it is consistent with Civility to briefly explain, on the article talk page, why it was not needed.   Athænara   ✉  20:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites
There is a list for Meg's personal websites, but should we let there be a link to a fansite? I'm wondering what anyone else thinks. Maggieab10k 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In general, fansites are to be avoided if at all possible. The only time a fansite is typically acceptable is if it is extremely notable AND reliable. --pIrish 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Message boards
I removed all of the information about the message boards. It was almost all unencyclopedic and should not be included at all. If you feel it should be here, it should only be briefly mentioned in a small section, not have a section that takes up 5,000 of 21,000 bytes. It also needs to be heavily referenced because a lot of it just felt like original research. --pIrish 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it was added back. I subsequently reverted the edit. Even though it was scaled down, it was only scaled down slightly. If it really is needed, it should only be about as long as the intro to the article and it certainly shouldn't be the longest thing in the entire article. Meg Cabot, herself, is much more noteworthy than her message boards so why on earth are they the longest section in her article? --pIrish 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

i dont see why it shouldnt be there. its one of her most important on-line things. if we wanted an autobiography, wed go to her site. Trihn 13:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I DO think something should be there (mostly pertaining to her book club), but there shouldn't be an entire essay about the message boards on an article about HER, not her message boards. A lot of it was original research which makes it even more of a Wikipedia no-no. Only stuff that can be cited by notable, reliable sources should be included. There were a lot of weasle words too. And, seriously, nearly every message board in existence goes through changes that make some people upset and some people angry, it doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) documented here as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unless it can be cleaned up a lot and made much shorter, it doesn't belong here.


 * I can't even fathom why you'd suggest going to her site if we wanted an autobiography. Really, I can't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia gives in-depth information about many subjects. This is an encyclopedia article about Meg Cabot. There would be no reason to have this page here at all if it didn't include a biography about her as that's the whole point of an encyclopedia article about her. Please review the five pillars to see what Wikipedia is about. Thank you. --pIrish 14:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

so how many words do u consider accept-able/ Trihn 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 16:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said before, about as long as the introduction for the article (everything above the "contents" box) would be sufficient. --pIrish 18:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting Suggestion
I suggest that the section on her YA novels be split to a separate article, perhaps titled Meg Cabot Novels or something like it. THe article is supposed to be a summary of Meg Cabot's life, not a reference to her lesser known works. 68.183.182.214 (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "megcabot.com blog" :
 * Princess Diaries Length, Meg Cabot
 * Book Mistake, Meg Cabot
 * Meg Cabot's Blog, Meg Cabot

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meg Cabot. 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 http://www.megcabot.com/chattranscripts/ChatTranscript_01-29-05.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305235503/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/03/disney-channel-disney-xd-present-programming-plans-for-2010-11/43759 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/03/disney-channel-disney-xd-present-programming-plans-for-2010-11/43759

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meg Cabot. 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/20090227134614/http://www.cosmogirl.com/entertainment/book-club/meg-cabot-bio to http://www.cosmogirl.com/entertainment/book-club/meg-cabot-bio

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Entire article very poorly referenced
The references on this article are severely lacking. In order to support due weight we need content based on reliable independent sources. If no one but the subject finds the information notable enough to publishe it in a reliable source it doesn't belong on WP. Assistance in finding references to support the content would be appreciated. I would prefer not to trim away all the uncited material but policy (particularly in a bio of a living person) must be referenced. MrBill3 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Applicable policies include Verifiablity "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:BLPSELFPUB. Reliable Sources and Biographies of living persons. MrBill3 (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Clean Up
I am going to take a stab at cleaning up and properly referencing this article. If anyone has any questions or issues, please leave your comments here. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)