Talk:Gigi (novella)

Untitled

, establishes that it is all right to be a dirty old man as long as

1. You save the girl from a life of prostitution,
2. You marry the girl in the end, and
3. You sing about it all the way to the bank.

Ok, but this is an encyclopedia we are writing and hence it is not the forum for your complaints (or mine) about the movie. Koyaanis Qatsi, Sunday, July 14, 2002

I confused Gigi and My Fair Lady and so removed what I had written. My Fair Lady struck me as both sexist and classist and may be the one you are thinking about. Gigi simply bored me. I have no recollection whatsoever of the young woman being a prostitute--rather, I remember her as both stylish and subdued. You may be thinking of My Fair Lady, in which case she was a flower vendor, not a prostitute. Koyaanis Qatsi—Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 14 July 2002 (UTC)

Is "grande cocotte" really the best way to describe the intended profession of the main character in Gigi? Not everyone knows what the story was about, and an Altavista translation yields "large casserole". Per Wikipedia:State the obvious, can we find a better synonym? --Metropolitan90 02:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't "people who go by the name Gigi" be instead under a disambiguation page? 140.247.157.64 09:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the imprecise term courtesan is the one being used here.

Kortoso (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

grand cocotte

Having seen the film gigi i was surprised to read that gigi was being groomed for a career as a "grand cocotte". Not knowing what the term meant i followed the link to find an article entitled courtisan about upper class, educated, prostitutes (for lack of a better word. It is entirely possible that i romanticised Gigi's lessons with her aunt but i had always assumed they were simply a form of deportment. I also believe that had Gigi been groomed as a courtier she would not be so opposed to the idea of simply being with gaston. It seemed to me like she detested the idea of being with several men for financial support and as though she had always inteded to marry a man whome she loved. Have i completely missunderstood the film? I hope not Gigi as a grande cocotte seems entirely to crass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.63.93 (talk)

see Talk:Gigi (1958 film)#References - AKeen 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

DAB swap

I think that Gigi should be moved to Gigi (novel) and Gigi be the disambiguation page. This is a relatively common given name, while most of the works are related to the book, there are two notable contemporary artists who are known simply as "Gigi" (D'Agostino and Shibabaw). I'm not sure that there's a strong case that the novel is "the most important Gigi". - BalthCat (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Expurgated"?

The article says, "A 1958 musical film version, starring Leslie Caron in the title role, with a screenplay by Alan Jay Lerner and a score by Lerner and Frederick Loewe won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Lerner and Loewe adapted the film for an expurgated 1973 stage musical that proved to be unsuccessful ...." Why would the stage musical have needed to be expurgated? The 1958 film had been made when film censorship was still in effect in the U.S. and had been subject to the Motion Picture Production Code, and when the film rating system was established, the film eventually received a G rating. Meanwhile, by 1973 there was no noticeable censorship on the Broadway stage. Any content that had been acceptable on film in 1958 would surely have been allowed on stage in 1973, or for that matter in 1958 since the American theatre was less censored than American film at that time. Hence, I doubt that the term "expurgated" should be applied to the 1973 stage musical. (I have no idea whether either the film or stage musical was expurgated compared to the novella by Colette, but that's a separate matter.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

---

• Gigi → Gigi (novella)
• Gigi (disambiguation) → Gigi

– As already noted nearly nine years ago at section header "DAB swap" above, Colette's novella would hardly be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the English-speaking world. If any of the links were to be primary, it would be the 1958 Best Picture Oscar winner. However, since the Gigi (disambiguation) page lists 37 entries, its main title header should appear as simply Gigi. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Xain36 {talk} 02:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Blimey what a lot of topic with this name, indeed the 1958 film gets more views and the novella gets 6,662 views compared with 17,930 views for even a sample of the others[[1]]. Even the French Wikipedia has "Gigi" as a DAB, this is the English Wikipedia and thus the 1958 one is probably more relevant to English speakers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Opposed, or else the 1958 film as primary, the film gets well over 500 views a day and, if primary is moved to the disamb. page, it is the 26th item. So 500-900 people a day would have to dig deep into the page to find this, if they bother at all [Edit: And apparently they do, there is no hatnote for the film on this page]. The primary should stay with the novella because it's the source of the following creative work, but that's just a personal WP:ILIKEIT opinion, and includes the ILIKEIT assumption that many readers find it interesting to learn about the novella. If a move must be made the Academy Award winning film seems the logical choice (and per the night they invented champagne). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  If it was just between the novella and 1958 film then I'd agree with you but because there are so many entries on the DAB page I'd say it would be better to have the DAB at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Since disambiguation page section headers are usually arranged in alphabetical order, "Entertainment" should appear above "People", thus placing sub-header "Adaptations of the Colette novella" or a variation such as "Colette novella and its adaptations", at the top of the Gigi (disambiguation) page, with the resulting emergence of the 1958 Best Picture as one of the initial entries — a resolution possibly worthy of a toast. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The competing claims made for primary topic above themselves support this move. —  AjaxSmack  12:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The 1958 film only appears to get 50% of the total page views and that doesn't quite cut it for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. More recently the film and novella have been getting a more or less equal number of views, though the increased interest in the novella has apparently been sparked by last year's Colette film. PC78 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• If the 1958 film gets at least half the views, and arguably is the topic with the most long-term significance, then primary requirements seem met. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• "...more likely than all the other topics combined..." means more than half. And I'm not sure it wins the "long-term significance" argument either given that it is adapted from the novella. PC78 (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's the wrong move. The 1958 film which meets both (not that it needs to) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria should be at Gigi. It gets half of the page views, which for so many other uses qualifies as "more than half as all the others combined", and a 1958 topic still getting that many page views qualifies as long-term significance. If there is no consensus to move it accordingly from this discussion, then it should be proposed after this one is closed. --В²C ☎ 00:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Half qualifies as more than half? That doesn't even make sense. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it meets the spirit of the intent of that clause. It’s overwhelmingly more likely to be sought than any other topic. Each of the others is much less likely to be sought than this Gigi. There is no astonishment issue if a rare seeker of one of the other Gigis lands here. Also the dab page is currently getting some of its hits because the dab is at the base name, so all the article page views are skewed a bit low, including the “half” that this one gets. It’s enough. —В²C ☎ 15:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, No way an ancient novel trumps all other topics of this name as the PTOPIC. Especially since Gigi Hadid, etc, exist.—NØ 05:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as much as I love this book, I agree with the proposal. Someone typing in "Gigi" in the search bar could be looking for a number of different things. I disagree with making the film the primarily topic as there are several subjects known as simply "Gigi". I am curious why Gigi as a given name does not have a separate article a la Keira (given name) or any of the articles in the , but that is a separate discussion entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - a no primary situation here would be the best outcome. --Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.