Talk:The Princess Diaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Tasks you can do: ...
Close

US Titles

I only see the UK titles mentioned. Is there some reason for this? Minami-chan 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

done --Lexein 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
K, now only the US titles are there. Is there anyway we can have a list or something, mentioning both UK and US titles? --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.58.107 (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibberish

In the movie Mia hates public speaking, Mr. O'Connell is her teacher for this in the book it is Algebra that she hates and Mr. Gianini is her teacher.

What does this mean anyway?? In the books Mia still hates public speaking. Chara Joy Is My Fate 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Judith 'Slut' Gershner

Uh, when did Judith and Michael Sleep together??? WHere did that come from?!

--Revision as of 19:11, 7 January 2007 unsigned by 72.90.35.248

As far as I am aware, that has never happended nor has it been mentioned.

--Revision as of 05:17, 9 January 2007 unsigned by 202.151.68.134

If you have read the eighth volume, it will tell you all you need to know.

--Revision as of 15:14, 27 February 2007 unsigned by RosaAtrata


OMG, I just can't believe I read this. Okay, I was just reading all the page when I saw a spoiler about Mia's relationship with Michael. What the hell was that? I mean, here in Brazil (yeah I'm Brazilian, so I'm very sorry about my awful English! :)) there's no eighth volume yet. I thought there was something about writing spoilers in Wikipedia! Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.45.143 (talk) 03:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I know this did happen in the books. I think I remember correctly that it comes out in Princess on the Brink. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Good work!

Last time in I checked this out, it was much worse. Good work! 202.151.70.93 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New structure

This is now only the Series article. The volumes get their own pages, just like the films. This will provide clarity, at the cost of a bit of untangling. The Plot Summaries belong in their respective volume articles, as do their differences from the films(as needed), and trivia. The Series article carries the common Characters and other general information, but should be lean otherwise.

Work to do and questions to answer

Some Volume-specific Differences and Trivia need to be moved to their respective volume articles. --Lexein 13:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mad Magazine

Did anyone see the throw-away Princess Diaries spoof in MAD? They have The Princess Diaries: Prom Princess in their Scholastic Book Club pardoy. "Mia Thermopolis went from an akward teenager to the princess of Genovia! And now this princess wants to be queen... prom queen, that is! But after a failed attempt at a coup, will she have enough time to find the perfect dress AND execute the coup's conspirators and their families?" VolatileChemical 04:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Find the issue#/date - good for "references, homages, tributes". I think we need more in the article(s) to support notability besides "best seller"(sheer numbers). --Lexein 05:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Characters

The list of characters is pretty huge; I'm thinking they should probably be broken out to a separate article on their own. Have just started a general editing pass-through for clarity and conciseness, but please note that I have no actual knowledge of these books other than their general existence, and am simply drawing on the existing material for in-story information :b --Wombat1138 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of characters, where, where, where is Michael? How is he just not there? He is mentioned in other people's bios, but he doesn't get his own. This is ridiculous. 149.169.88.145 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


plan on doing some copy editing. made some changes on march 3rd. rearranged a couple words in the characters section for more clarity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carmyd/sandbox1 any suggestions/things you noticed that you want me changing? Carmyd (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason that Mia, Clarisse, and Phillipe are all listed as Renaldi’s instead of Renaldo’s? In the film, Clarisse’s last name is Renaldi but this is an article about the novels in which the name is always written as Renaldo. PicsByK (Please be nice, I'm a newb!!!) (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Poulet

I'm French and I've never heard the word Poulet being used to refer to a prostitute. Poulette means "chick" (either the animal or a young and pretty girl, not necessarily a prostitute). Poulet means "chicken", or "policeman" (derogatory), or "love letter" (according to fr.wikipedia.org, didn't know that one). I haven't read the book so I don't know if it's Meg Cabot's mistake or the article writer's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.99.115.70 (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on The Princess Diaries. 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 07:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Genovia

Do note that both the film and book articles use the same Genovia link now redirecting here. That means the information on Genovia presented here is not to be limited to the novels, but cover the film Genovia as well. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Genova real?

No,Genova is not a real country 96.8.132.3 (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Not done I improperly made the merge, however as of the discussion "concerns about close", I have reverted it. Robloxguest3 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
[This merge proposal was initially closed by the same closer with the rationale: "merge". Note added 10:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)]

I came across the AfD discussions for 4 articles about 4 books that are in a series. I don't understand why only four of the dozen or so articles have been nominated: it seems the other ones seem to have never been nominated.

This is the full series, in bold are the articles that have received consensus to merge to this page, in brackets are books that fall ouside the roman numbering system for the books (so the 2 "bonus" books):

I don't think we should merge these 4 into The Princess Diaries and leave the rest as-is. Some of the ones that weren't nominated were even much shorter than the ones that were nominated. (example: Project Princess)

Since there is consensus to merge these 4, I think we should also merge the rest. (I don't know why they weren't also nominated for deletion.) FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Note that I'm not asking whether we should merge all of these or not. Since there is consensus to merge 4, we only need to figure out what to do with the rest. These four are to be merged anyways. FaviFake (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
 Courtesy link:  The list of the AfD discussions that led to consensus to merge can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Dragonborn+assassin&namespace=4&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=100 FaviFake (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you but.... one is a Keep. But as your link shows, some titles were taken to Afd so please go to AfD now.
STRONG PROCEDURAL OPPOSE- go to AFD for the other titles and please obtain the same consensus. Please consider withdrawing this as this is awkward. (And good luck with merging "MANY OTHER PAGES" (your wording, capitals included) into the page and make it a nice reading experience for the reader....) - E.UX 20:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@Eva UX some titles were taken to Afd so please go to AfD now.
AfD isn't used for merger discussions. Merger discussions should be held at the proposed target, see WP:MERGE. Articles for Deletion is for deleting articles.
I do not wish to delete these pages, thus I will not go to AfD. I want to merge them, as I think their content should be preserved. I f you instead want to delete them, you can nominate them yourself.
Please feel free to change the wording of the template to a better one. FaviFake (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Sure. Well, I am taking part in this MERGE discussion and opposing strongly ALL those "additional" merging, then. Sources and reviews exist for each volume where AfDs have (unfortunately imv) been closed as Merge (see said AfdS) (and for the other ones), and if you merge plots and reception for each of them, it is going to be an incredibly cumbersome and confusing amount of prose, tables and lists. And even in the current state of all those pages (some being short) it is going to hinder expansion and improvement of the big article that will result of the merges. But hey.
Also, you cannot MERGE a page that is currently at Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume VII: Party Princess. So this one should at least not be on your list above (at least yet) and it is not necessary to discuss again the other decided at AfD (at least not now, and especially as you are suggesting the same outcome that has been judged as being the consensus there). But maybe that much was clear and maybe you are not suggesting a merge for that page.
I will note that you give no reason for merging except that other similar pages have been taken to AfD and closed as Merge. You repeat that argument twice. Consistency? Sure, but if any of those pages remains a standalone article, what, then?
I am not contributing anymore to those pages nor to this discussion because, so please don't ping me. I am very sorry but I don't have time for this and this is following a path I don't agree with. I won't change the wording of your template, no, it's your call. And obviously, unless you were trying to be ironic, no, I don't want them deleted. Again, good luck. - E.UX 21:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources and reviews exist for each volume where AfDs have (unfortunately imv) been closed as Merge

(emphasis supplied) Would you then prefer these outcomes were overruled by a consensus here?

I will note that you give no reason for merging except that other similar pages have been taken to AfD and closed as Merge.

Yes, that's precisely my argument. FaviFake (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
A1 ("Would you then prefer these outcomes were overruled by a consensus here?"): No. Once an AfD has been closed, you generally cannot overturn the outcome anywhere unless you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Which I won't. But I consider, indeed that, sadly, Cunard's arguments there were ignored. A2 (Consistency argument): Very well. One of the pages (the one mentioned above) is retained as a standalone article and, again, cannot be merged (per AfD), unless, again, you want to take it to deletion review or wait six months at least (in general, the time judged appropriate). So that you will have one article with a page and the rest merged into a huge and cumbersome article. It is going to be a terrible experience for the reader with one article isolated with a page and others cluttering up the big one of for the series. But hey. Again, I will not participate in that discussion nor in the merge. I disagree with the said AfDs' outcome and will watch the result it will have or the material it will discard, with regret but without intervening or commenting anymore. I oppose the additional merge you suggest, for size and navigation reasons, and will not change my mind. (PS- I apologise but will not follow this conversation and will not reply anymore) Cheers, --- E.UX 21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Once an AfD has been closed, you generally cannot overturn the outcome anywhere unless you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
The page you link prohibits doing this:

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
Please remember WP:CCC and WP:BUREAUCRACY. Saying that 12 articles can't be touched because some page somewhere says that you should wait 6 months after a KEEP afd, and just one of ~5 was a KEEP, doesn't really make sense. If you truly want them to ALL be kept, then you can propose it. FaviFake (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
So that you will have one article with a page and the rest merged into a huge and cumbersome article.
Still sounds better than 5 of the articles being merged and 7 not being merged. Which is what will happen if we don't do anything. FaviFake (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
@Eva UX  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Teahouse § How should an AfD be overridden?, discussion about whether this merge request is procedurally correct. FaviFake (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
It appears to me that the AfD should have been performed as a bundle AfD. It makes no sense from a consistency standpoint to merge select members of the series and not others, given they all received relatively similar quantities of reliable significant coverage. Katzrockso (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I would like to possibly tag @Iljhgtn @Cunard @4meter4 @Stifle @BD2412 in as editors who participated in several AfD discussions on these books to provide further instruction on how a merge may be conducted. Katzrockso (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I wonder what critera, if any, was used to pick the ones to nominate. Would a new, bundled AfD help? FaviFake (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
A new AFD is not appropriate. AFDs are for deleting. The consensus already reached needs to be followed. Stifle (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Stifle WP:CCC says: (emphasis supplied)

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor [...]

Nobody in the AfDs ever mentioned the other pages, thus this is a "previously unconsidered circumstance" and current consensus can be overturned. FaviFake (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I would oppose merging the rest at least, it would make this article far, far too long. It may be inconsistent but that's what we (wrongly) decided. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA @Stifle wait I'm sorry but I'm wondering why everyone here is supporting the consensus from the AfDs, while at the same time saying they disagre with it? Of course the AfDs reached a wrong consensus because nobody in the discussions knew of these other pages! I bet that if all 12 or so volumes has been nominated separately, some would end up as merge, some as keep, and some as delete. Which would be an insane situation if actually followed! And this is precisely allowed by CCC! We can very easily override conensus reached without the participants knowing the actual situation!
I truly do not understand these arguments. FaviFake (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Anyone else wants to chime in? FaviFake (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Merge - The books are legitimately notable on their own. They have had substantial work done on them and it would be a ton of work to merge them properly. It would also make for an intolerable reading experience for users.

2603:8001:71F0:11D0:397F:F180:B82E:F4F7 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The books are legitimately notable on their own.
There was consensus at AfD that they were not. Any reason why you think the consensus is wrong?

They have had substantial work done on them
... which would not be lost as a result of a merger.

it would be a ton of work to merge them properly.
That's a worry for the editor performing the merger. Merge discussions shouldn't be based on how much time it will take to perform the merger. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline.

It would also make for an intolerable reading experience for users
How so? What seems intolerable is having t browse 12 different, small pages just for such a straightforward book series.FaviFake (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

There was an (ill-informed) consensus that some of them weren't.
Yes, it would, because we cannot have this much plot summary on one article per MOS:PLOT. So it would have to go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Only one of the 6 or so was closed as KEEP. WP:CCC. FaviFake (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
And none of the other articles were nominated. We cannot have this much plot on one article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
So what do you think? Keep all or merge all? FaviFake (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns about close

As I wrote in a related merge proposal, I don't see a consensus to close this discussion as "merge" of every book in the series to The Princess Diaries. PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) raised a strong point about MOS:PLOT, which says "plot summaries for feature films or full length novels should be between 400 and 700 words". This concern has been borne out by how merges have led to the plot section being 5,000 words long. Eva UX (talk · contribs) raised a strong point about how merges would make the article unwieldly. There is no requirement in the policies or guidelines for consistency. Some articles can be merged, while some can be standalone articles. Robloxguest3 (talk · contribs), please explain how you reached a consensus to merge. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, no one actually supported it besides FaviFake, despite multiple opposes. Bad close. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I only seen 1 oppose and 1 support. Thank you. Robloxguest3 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Eva UX and PARAKANYAA both opposed the merge. They both provided strong arguments against a merge. Robloxguest3 (talk · contribs), please provide a closing rationale for why you found the consensus to be a merge. Would you consider reverting your close? Cunard (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, i have reverted my merge. Robloxguest3 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Even if that was the case, and there were multiple opposes, that is not a consensus to merge? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
That would be a no consensus result. I should have opined that I also oppose the merger when I commented in this discussion, nonetheless. Katzrockso (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Given the concerns from multiple editors about the close, I've asked the closer to respond here. Cunard (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Responding to this comment: Thank you for reverting the merge, Robloxguest3. I've reverted the redirects for The Princess Diaries (novel), The Princess Diaries, Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight, The Princess Diaries, Volume III: Princess in Love, The Princess Diaries, Volume IV: Princess in Waiting, The Princess Diaries, Volume X: Forever Princess, and The Princess Diaries, Volume XI: Royal Wedding.
I did not revert the redirects for The Princess Diaries, Volume V: Princess in Pink, The Princess Diaries, Volume VI: Princess in Training, The Princess Diaries, Volume VII and 3/4: Valentine Princess, and The Princess Diaries, Volume IX: Princess Mia because of the AfD closes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume V: Princess in Pink, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume VI: Princess in Training, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume VII and 3/4: Valentine Princess, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume IX: Princess Mia. Cunard (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI