Talk:Ghostbusters (franchise)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Ghostbusters (franchise): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • get this article to GA status
  • get the remaining Ghostbusters articles to GA status
  • make a featured topic!

Contents

[edit] Fan Films?

I'm not sure there's any reason to have the completely uninfluential fanfilm listed at the bottom of this page. I also suspect it was added by one of the people involved in the project for publicity, but I'm unable to prove that assertion. Removing pending discussion. Why should it be mentioned? It's not part of the franchise. MrKeith2317 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be an Article Ghostbusters Fan Films. There can be a separate subsection for each one. They are noteworthy and I (A fan with no personal involvement in the making of, just for the record) can provide links to some articles from other sites and newspapers that have mentioned it including imdb.com, comics2film.com, and the Freddy vs GB site has a clipping from a newspaper, etc.

Besides The first one won an award and the second had a public screening/debut at a Denver theater. There were two full articles for each one, but were erased. Dr. Stantz 28 November 2007

[edit] Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

This article has been recreated- as a birthday gift to Clio, I'm pushing to try to get it to GA. Help welcomed. --Dweller 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the fudge?

Ok, who's idea was it to cram ALL the Ghostbusters articles together into one page? And do they have plans to work on this huge amalagm? This page is HUGE and still has erorrs from the carry over. (Animedude 10:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Uhh, YEAH. I have been working on this a ton, adding over 40 references in a few days, finding images, rewriting text, making this one article much better than 30 crappy stubby non-notable articles were seperately. If you care to help, lets find references. Judgesurreal777 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this page is a bit unwieldy. --(trogga) 03:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well its a newly merged page, and all such pages need work, but it will be much better than a bunch of non-notable stubs when its complete. Feel free to help improve it by adding references. Judgesurreal777 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can understand what was tryign to be done here, but to merge so many pages into one? It's a bit unruly. Perhaps they all cound be condensed into 3 or 4 instead of one. Such as Ghostbusters franchise, Ghostbusters characters, Ghostbusters videogames, and Ghostbusters equipment. (Animedude 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC))
That sounds like a good idea, but the fact is that a characters or equipment article would probably not have enough references to stand on their own, and a video game one is marginal. Lets give this one a little bit to build up, I hope to reference everything in the article over the next few weeks; if it's still really big, then we can start branching it off; if, however, it shrinks as we cut uncitable information and gets much more managable, we may not need to. Sound like a plan? Judgesurreal777 11:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This page should not have been created without merge proposals and discussions. Merging a whole bunch of articles on a well known topic like this without significant notice is not a good idea. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems ok so far, its better than the stubs that it replaced. Some of the articles may come back after a while if they can assert their notability, but otherwise, people can be bold on wikipedia, and don't need peoples permission for every single thing they do. Judgesurreal777 05:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, WP:BOLD also says don't be reckless either and that includes making sweeping changes like dumping lots of content into one article without advance notice. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the merge but it should have been done with more advance notification on the discussion pages of the merged articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I will remember that in the future, I assure you, and I'm thankful you guys have given me the opportunity to improve the article before splitting them up. Judgesurreal777 12:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But when is that going to happen? --(trogga) 19:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
When someone establishes that a well written article can be created by the splitting out one of the topics of this article, and not become yet another stubby article with no hope of improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man

I saw a tag just added. IMO, a bad idea. Characters from a franchise usually get their own article if there is enough content. The characters could not be merged into this article without either removing a lot of content or making this article too long. It is already very long. Also, the quality of Stay Puft and many of the child articles is not up to the quality of the main article. The wonders of a hyperlinked encyclopedia are that we can have one article per subject, which is a lot more readable, than cramming everything into a long essay-style discourse on the whole broader subject matter. It's best to have a section, or a separate article, entitled something like "characters from Ghostbusters franchise", then very short summaries and links to the major ones. Wikidemo 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, it is at most 2 well referenced paragraphs that would fit nicely into the franchise article, especially as it improves to GA status. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The franchise article does need to be cut down - it's twice as big as the ideal maximum. The video games section is pretty big, and could be split off. There could be a separate article for characters - Stay Puft and Slimer both have a fair bit of info here, but maybe not enough to justify their own individual articles. Leevclarke (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roleplaying Game

Shouldn't the RPG get more of a mention that just being featured in tiny print at the bottom of the article? ChrisStansfield Contribs 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I remember the old page being pretty full. If that information can be sorced, then we should remake that old page. (Animedude 04:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
That particular article still exists, it didn't get merged, but yes more information on it could be appropriate here. Judgesurreal777 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ghostbusters Genesisboxart.jpg

Image:Ghostbusters Genesisboxart.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC) No, This is a part of the franchise, The Big marshmallow is always associated with Ghostbusters, we should also give several different pages for the slimer, the ecto-mobile, and the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.60.7 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ECTO-1.jpg

Image:ECTO-1.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 insure 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) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Genesis Ghostbusters.png

Image:Genesis Ghostbusters.png 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 insure 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) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)