Talk:Girl Meets Ghost

Not an Amazon top children's book

I reverted a claim that was added to the article stating that the book is on Amazon's list of Best Children's Books of 2014. The reference provided led to a page for this book. On that page there is a link to the Best Children's Books of 2014 page—which makes no claim that this book is on that list. I went to that page and found that, indeed, this book isn't listed. I also pulled up a page for an arbitary ancient children's book, Pippi Longstocking, and found that the same link is on that page, which by no means suggests that Pippi Longstocking is a Best Children's Book for 2014. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are correct on the Amazon page. I am rechecking. HullIntegrity (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

References Added: Remove Deletion Notices?

I am taking this one on. I quickly added a few references to reviews and there are more. HullIntegrity (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the article's history?

The AfD dates from 15 January, and there was definitely content before 22 January. A routine page move shouldn't delete the article's history. @Largoplazo: any idea what happened with this? Very strange, haven't seen that before. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. That's a consequence of a goof I made when I moved the page. I originally, accidentally, moved Girl meets ghost to Girl Meets ghost. I noticed it while the Twinkle Move form was still in view, and instantly capitalized "Ghost" and clicked the Move button a second time. The result, though, was that the page wound up at Girl Meets ghost, while Girl Meets Ghost was itself a redirect. I tried a reverse move but it wouldn't work, so I moved the content manually from Girl Meets ghost to Girl Meets Ghost. However, that means that the history has been left behind at Girl Meets ghost. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girl_Meets_ghost&action=history. I wonder whether an administrator can fix the situation and merge the histories. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A little research led me to the {{histmerge}} template I just placed at the top of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Meeting New People

Well, at least meeting new people is fun. Hi all of you! Thanks for caring enough to discuss. :) HullIntegrity (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Article on the Author

Should the priority be making a wiki article on the author Lauren Barnholdt rather than one of her books? She has 30 books listed on good reads, and 49 books on world cat. The information from this page Girl Meets Ghost could be included.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi! I am working on that today. She has published a LOT of books. HullIntegrity (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Though the bibliography from WorldCat is a train wreck. I will clean it up today. At this time, however, I see no need to roll the Girl Meets Ghost article back into the bio since the bio is still in progress. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Converting to a page about the series

@Coolabahapple: -- Since this is a series of books largely featuring the same characters, I am considering converting this page to being about the series since I now have all the books in-hand. The title still works as it is both the title of the first book and the series. Thoughts? HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The infobox parameter Followed-by, and similar links to books in the series, should be changed to a #link. But it's probably better to create the extra titles as redirects to the section on this page—redirects have a much much lower standard than notabililty). Although it has the appearance of being silly, these are "redirects with possiblities", and allow any links to the sequels to be correct whether or not it's later decided the sequel books are worth their own articles. Choor monster (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Choor monster: -- Cool. I will work it up in my sandbox over the next week as a demo for my students and see if it has legs. One never knows until it is written. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 18:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

great idea - about time:))Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to work fine. I re-linked everything (I think) and am working with them to fill out the missing sections. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)