Jump to content

Talk:Lorelai Gilmore

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

Catholic? Protestant?

[edit]

It says that Lorelai's religion is Catholic, but it also says that her parents are WASPs. Lorelai has never professed that she is a practicing Catholic or Catholic convert on the show. -Blackmorningsun 10:30 October 3, 2006


arrested development? are you serious -Melaen 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um hello? she missed out on part of her childhood and recaptures it through her daughter. she also vicariously lives the proper life her parents wanted through her daughter. some of that is class struggle and rebellion but, yeah. arrested de-vel-0-mints.

Is "snotty" an encyclopedic term? -- 12.116.162.162 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOD! I just hate her character so much, she never grows, she never changes, and arrested developement is an understatement. The entry should read "the writers portray her as a snot-nosed silver spoon wanna-be rebel blame-the-world-first-for-everything-I-do-wrong woman." I wish they could just kill her off, Gilmore Girls can refer to Emily and Rory. I can't believe I contained the rant in such a small space, I could go chapters on how much I hate her character.

sex and rory

[edit]

should it be put that Lorelai like to have sex with different men married or not and she balme everyone for getting her pergant escape her —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.111.116.157 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Is there any evidence on the show that she actually changed her name to " Lorelai Hayden"? *shudder*

Nope. In fact, as she said to Rory when she asked her in "Introducing Lorelai Planetarium": "I don't want to be Mrs. Hayden Planetarium for the rest of my life. I'm Lorelai Gilmore, okay? Lorelai Gilmore without the "Gilmore" is like... Gil, you know, less." 210.86.94.95 (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this article is too pro-lorelai, we need something more npov, maybe ill rewrite this.

Too detailed

[edit]

I've skimmed over this article, and found it a bit too in detail, and verging on Fancruft. I think this article could use to be rewritten, or edited to include a more formal tone, and to leave out all the excessive information. I've not the time or knowledge on the subject to do this myself, but if someone more familiar with the subject, could do this, I think it would help this article out alot. CherryFlavoredAntacid 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gilmore Girls 1x08.JPG

[edit]

Image:Gilmore Girls 1x08.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [http://www.divine.ca/en/fun-and-entertainment/articles/c_19_i_3293/what-to-watch-with-mom-1.html [5]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to extract the encyclopedic information, he can add them to the characters list, and if Lorelai's section there becomes too long, resurrect this article. – sgeureka tc 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More refs: [6] [7] [8]. The current NYT article has a lot more than I added. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lorelai Gilmore. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 23:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-boyfriends?

[edit]

The ex-bf section is a little redundant, crowded and seems like overkill. Do other characters have a section of their exes, particularly insignificant ones? In particular, I'd hardly call Alex a major player in Lorelai's life and I'd argue that Jason was not either, despite their long history. The only three people that 'belong' would be Max (engaged), Luke (married) and Christopher (father of child, married, divorced.) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


In addition after looking at other characters (Ross Geller, SatC character pages, etc...) do not list significant others unless they were vital to the series/character development or list as divorced/married if applicable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Rory/Lorelai's final scene

[edit]

@85.148.53.141: I removed the information about Lorelai becoming a grandmother because Rory only told her that she was pregnant, they never gave any indication whether Rory would keep the baby or not. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lorelai's last name

[edit]

It was never established in canon that she would be taking Luke's last name but I think canon, generally, supports her remaining a Gilmore. See quote from 7.08:


LORELAI: No. No. "Hayden"? No. I don't want to be Mrs. Hayden planetarium for the rest of my life. I'm Lorelai Gilmore, okay? Lorelai Gilmore without the "Gilmore" is like... Gil, you know, less. Okay.


I can find a few more quotes to support this but I think for now it should remain Lorelai Gilmore. Thoughts? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for New Infobox Image

[edit]
  • I would recommend that the infobox image should be replaced with either a promotional shot of the character or a better screenshot that does not show the network logo. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lorelai Gilmore. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lorelai Gilmore. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]