Talk:Ugenia Lavender

Best title and approach for article
While this article was originally created as being about the Ugenia Lavender character, and has been categorised as such, it's really much more about the series as a whole. Unless the books prove so massively successful that there's extensive third-party discussion and the character needs its own entry, I think it might be better to retitle this to something like 'Ugenia Lavender series' (with a redirect from Ugenia Lavender) and recast the intro to reflect this. (Any likely picture will probably be from a book signing; I doubt the individual books will become notable enough to have their own articles either). Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be interesting even if the books did not turn out to be successful, in terms of research in children's literature. I would think it might meet the requirements for notability as the author is clearly notable and this has received coverage in many media outlets. It wouldn't be the same if a total stranger published similar books and they turned out to be unsuccessful, perhaps. Having said that, notability is the bane of wikipedia imo.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not suggesting that the topic isn't notable enough to merit this article -- just that it's unlikely the individual books would merit their own separate articles. The question is how best to categorise and name the article. As more citable material emerges, it may well become clearer which direction (character versus series) works better. Big requirement now is professional reviews (not via children, which is all I've seen so far but doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements.) Gusworld (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the individual books. What do you mean by professional and not children?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The first book will undoubtedly get more coverage, so yes, that might get an entry -- and yes. it's possible each book will be worth an entry, but it is probably too early to judge either way. Only review I've seen so far asked for opinions from children. The general standard at Wikipedia is that review content has to come from notable individuals, so I didn't think that would be citable. But I'm sure there'll be others now the book's officially out. Gusworld (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Geri Halliwell is still a Spice Girl
The Spice Girls held an international tour earlier this year, not even 6 months ago. This time lapse hardly puts them in the category of "inactive". Geri Halliwell is a Spice Girl, not a "former Spice Girl". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamisonhalliwell (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree -- the tour in question was heavily promoted as "a chance to say farewell to the fans", and there's been no suggestion that there'll be any further activity. On the other hand, I think it's a ridiculous thing to be continually edit warring about, so I'll leave it for now (probably the best long-term solution is to re-write the sentence entirely to eliminate any potential for dispute). Gusworld (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the tour was called "The Return of The Spice Girls Tour".... yeah.... Jamisonhalliwell (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * These books are not Spice Girls books.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but I don't think it's controversial to mention that their author was a former member of the Spice Girls. Indeed, I think it makes the article less informative not to reference that connection, though it doesn't need to come up more than once, As said previously, we probably need to rework this sentence to satisfy everybody. I'll have a go at doing that. Gusworld (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not particularly relevant to these books. 'Singer' encompasses her stint as a Spice Girl as well as her solo career.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. For starters, it means that the latter discussion of the character based on Victoria Beckham doesn't make any sense; it mentions her being a "band mate" but in this version we haven't mentioned the band! The PR for the books also makes heavy mention of Halliwell's Spice Girls career, so it's hardly being concealed in the general context of promotion for the books. I'd argue this is part of the problem with not having "former" in there, which had appeared before; it suggests that being a Spice Girl is the main relevant defining characteristic for Halliwell, which isn't entirely reasonable either. I'll have another go at rewriting the sentence to cover these points, but I don't think it's acceptable to not mention the Spice Girls as part of the article. Gusworld (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)