Jump to content

Talk:Ghostbusters (franchise)

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

Proposed merge of Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Merge discussion, Redux

[edit]

It seems not much has been written about this merge request for awhile but there doesn't seem to have been a conclusion. And there was no decision reached on either of the two articles, User:AnmaFinotera merged these toady and seems to want the stand alone Stay Puft Marshmallow Man article to be removed. It's been open for discussion once already, with most users feeling it should be kept separate. But it was merged today with the tag "#s does not equal consensus - consensus is by validity of arguments; again, no notability - all sourced content was me" I reverted this merg until there has been a decision reached one way or the other. I hope other users will also read it and share their thoughts here and wish to reach a conclusion to a merge. (Floppydog66 (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

See a discussion at Project Films where the merge is supported. There is no notability nor has any been demonstrated for months. The objects in the discussion at the talk page is a non-discussion with people randomly saying no to a 4 year old post. The discussion here has good arguments for merge, with none for keeping it separate. There seems to be no valid reason NOT to merge it except for a few people seeming to be undoing it purely because I'm the one who merged it. You yourself have not given any reason not to have it merged either. All valid content was merged. No information was lost. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is for merge. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moved from Talk:Stay Puft Marshmallow Man‎

Please actually provide demonstrable significant coverage. None has ever been produced in two years of it being claimed. Please prove he is a "cultural icon". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Unfortunately, Verbal's definition of significant coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG's definition of significant coverage. Coverage must be provided in reliable sources, and must be a significant part of the source. It canot be (as stated in the GNG) passing mentioning. In addition, if the entire source is nothing but a couple of sentences saying "he appears in"...that is note significant coverage. The GNG explains this. As I said before, what we have here are side mentionings and "he has a toy" type of stuff. Nothing that cannot be presented on the franchise page. As the adage goes, even if something barely meets the notability criteria for an independent article, that does not mean that it still warrants said article. There is not enough information to warrant what we even currently have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seperate Has significant coverage

To show "significant coverage" this article should have more references beyond those that are about the movie or TV series, which it does, and can also use some describing the movie and this villain/monster's part in it. It should also tell the characters history, from inception, development, and changes through it's appearances, which this article also does, and should even extend with the Time Magazine/Youtube Interview of Dan Aykroyd, discussing how Stay Puft can break apart into little pieces, and GameWeasel, Interview with the new games Executive producer Brendon Goss, where in the Ghostbusters Universe there is a "Stay Puft Marshmallow Man" cartoon about the character according to GamesWeasel podcast episode 90. It should also tell how he has been spoken of as a actual character by other media, which this article does a bit of, I also show, below a few more such instances of his being seen by the public as a character without mention of Ghostbusters. These are just a few places where he is compared to people without mention of the Ghostbusters. However a list of such books probably wouldn't be very interesting to most readers of this article, but even though the info has been added to this article and removed, he is mentioned many times in books in this way, how best to source these references should be discussed and what sources and books should be mentioned.

Men's Health TNT Diet: The Explosive New Plan to Blast Fat, Build Muscle ... By Jeff Volek, Adam Campbell

"Your LDL particles are as big and fluffy as the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man."


Contagious By Scott Sigler

"You look like a black Stay Puft Marshmallow Man."


An Enchanted Season By Maggie Shayne, Erin McCarthy, Nalini Singh

"snowsuits to the point where Holly could barely bend and little Noelle looked like the pink version of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man"

The question also arises as to how popular he is as a villain, monster, here are a few more articles, that mention him, or parodies of him

Characters that are popular and significant are also usually parodied as this one of him in The Movie Monster Game which also has a officially licensed Godzilla character. Which shows he's one of the most popular Monster type characters.

In the book "The wow climax: tracing the emotional impact of popular culture" By Henry Jenkins [1] he is mentioned along side Dracula, Doctor Who, and Batman, telling how children can mix ideas and create their own stories and the characters are interchangeable.

There is even supposed to be a Song by Bleeding Through, titled 'Stay Puft', "about fictional destroyer(s) of the world." --Revolver, May 2008 [2]

He has his own entry in two Webster's dictionary general fact books. "Mascots: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" By Icon Group International, Inc., and "Popping: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases".

How Many Licks?: Or, How to Estimate Damn Near Anything By Aaron Santos [3] In a book of Calculations and weights his size and volume, are calculated by Aaron Santos.

Of all the characters outside the Ghostbusters movie and even the TV series, it seems that the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is mostly mentioned on his own without connection to the movie as a monster/villain character, while not even the Ghostbusters themselves would not meet such a condition, since they are completely interconnected with the Ghostbusters. But the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, is often (see above) mentioned without the Ghostbusters.

He was also a main character in Ghostbusters Spooktacular which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, which only has a template at the bottom of the page. As for the Tsukuda sculpted figure it doesn't seem that their are any of the Ghostbusters themselves, but only for him, Slimer, and the Gargoyle dog. For that and possibly other reasons I think the Toy section should be kept. I also think it'd be a good idea to mention the full description of the idea of the character. According to the DVD commentary in the Original script had many large creatures however only Stay Puft remained in the final film. And also when having to set the costume on fire, it didn't work right.

In summing up, I think even more things will be written about him and as the Ghostbusters popularity continues and even if the page gets merged now, in a few years it'll be right back to where it'll get it's own page and we'll be back to the same thing, users wanting references such as the books and songs that are mentioned above, but not mentioning what they think is needed with the article as a whole. (Floppydog66 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Again, do people understand what significant coverage actually is? Please read WP:GNG:""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (January 6, 1992). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." - So let's tackle your sources:
  1. 1 Brand Designs. First, this is an article about whether fictional products could survive in the real world. Stay Puft is only briefly mentioned, and it's about whether the product of a Stay Puft Marshmellow could be marketed and sold given that a movie villainized the mascot for the fictional product. It's not significant coverage about the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man.
  1. 2 Our Top 20 FX Suits! - Neglecting the fact that the source fails WP:RS, it's about what the SFX creator did for the movie. It's more about the movie than the "character".
  1. 3 Incredible Titan - Might be your closest thing to significant coverage, but even then it's pretty weak. The article isn't about him, it's about the author's intentional overimagination of a scenario that would never happen...that of a giant baby terrorizing a city. He merely likens it to that of the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man, and provides some quotes from Akroyd about where the idea for the character came (which is stated on the DVD commentary anyway).
  1. 4 The sources you provided above. Again, I poit to the GNG where it says "one sentence mentioning is plainly trivial" - These little snippets from books are not significant coverage. You cannot take side mentionings and couple them together in an effort to mask the lack of notability the character actually has.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge First of all I am a supporter of inclusionism. However, I must say that floppydog66 is citing trivial information about this character. Notability is not about the number of times the character is mentioned, but about the amount of information available about the character. For example, magazines, newspaper, own web site, scholarly papers, movies that make it a central character (sorry ghostbuster 1 does not give enough info), etc.
Just because he is briefly mentioned in a book doesn't make him notable. Yes, it can be popular, but there is not enough information about it to have a standalone article. If we would've followed this criteria, there'll be tons of articles with no sources, just mentionings. A few sentences and maybe a list about his appearances is enough about. Ricardoread (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most reliable references for him would be in such magazines like, Starlog, Fangoria, and CinFex, Famous Monsters of Filmland, FilmFAax. Here's another reference which mentions he is almost listed as one of the top 11 movie monsters [4]. The reason I think they created the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man article is because he is such a part of the series and this page doesn't list his appearances, and already shows that he is one of the recurring characters. It looks like about one third of the Ghostbusters article could be placed here also; 6.1 Recognition, 6.2 Theme park attractions, 6.3 Toys, 6.4 Books, 6.5 Music, since they aren't about the movie itself, and a bit of that appears her, but the movie novelizations aren't even mention on this page. Which the toy section doesn't mention the model company that the "Stay Puft" article does, or the other such toys from LEGO to the newer Kenner, or Diamond Select Toys. Some of which like the Tsukuda products seem to have only the monsters themselves rather then the Ghostbusters. Possibly the Bobblehead toys should also be mentioned, and since the Ghostbusters Spooktacular should be listed here and not have it's own article also, since it's references are even less then Stay Puft and then there are still pages like Godzilla and Back to the Future, and other series characters, that don't have references at all, but link to the main articles feeling that the series' references themselves are strong enough to support side articles, and are for readers that want to know more about the franchise characters. Sure this page can be built up even more but it's already seems to be condensed and much of the information that could be here is not and the attempts seem to leave out that half of the information that most readers would be interested in. Stay Puft is a main character, even this page seems to suggest that, but 'what other appearances was he in', 'what changes were made to him', and 'does he appear outside the Ghostbusters even in spoofed form'? These are questions that are at least, tried to be dealt with on his own page, I think it may be poorly organized and written in places, and it should be expanded to mention those things I listed above, if he's a character he should have all those; history, development, and 'appearances in' and 'without' the Ghostbusters, such as the Yidcore music video Wind Beneath My Wings, were he appears along with King Kong and Godzilla. I think that the movies two main errors both involving 'Stay Puft' should also be mentioned, first continuity, bow that appears and disappears, and rendering that is so poor he passes thru building. It doesn't seem like that would be attempted here, and even such things as what toy companies have released Ghostbuster toys seems to be unimportant here while, the main article of the first movie deals with it more and at least mentions them. Here's a few magazines and places that could help build up a toy section, if not here then there; Toy Review, Action Figure Digest, Toy Collector Magazine, Action Figure News, Collecting Toys, ToyFare. As I said before I think that whether it's removed now or not Ghostbuster series will still go onward and like Battlestar Galactica and other shows the characters will recur and the page will be built again and show such things as each episodes appeared in and other such things. (Floppydog66 (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
They are all good references you give, but once again they are only mentionings. Yes, he might be really popular, but is there really a lot to write about him other than trivial sutff? What you are making is a list where he is briefly mentioned, like the one he almost made that top 10 list, where nothing is written about him. You can't compare him to Godzilla or King Kong, where there are many articles written about them NOT MENTIONING THEM. Also, you can't compare a character to a theme ride. A theme ride has other other stuff to be written about, like its history, technical stuff, etc... Ricardoread (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to update the "Stay Puft Marshmallow Man" article, now with better references, and description of how the character is seen through out the other Ghostbusters media, most of it is the information I mention above as information related directly to the character, it's development and character changes through it's various incarnations. More then likely it will be reverted or have some of it's information copied and pasted onto this article, but it seems to be the entire history of the character. I think it now has far better references then the Godzilla article, and that any lessening of the character as simply being mentioned as, appearing here and there, as this article has, doesn't give the reader the same scope of his portrayal in the rest of the Ghostbusters franchise. As the series grows so will this page, and the more characters to be listed here, but I don't think breaking them up into tiny portions when there is alot more about the character shouldn't be done here, as long as the other articles are fairly well written and provide decent references. Well that's my two cents, I wonder how many will support that or simply wish to incorporate something larger into a small section of something that already seems to be trying to save space with each section. (Floppydog66 (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Some references are improved, but most of it is overly detailed about minor stuff, more excessive plot, and use non-RS sources. I'd still recommend merging. His appearances in the rest of the franchise are minor, at best. Just a few appearances in the cartoon, and being in the game for a few moments. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the movie he is at most probably 5% of his character appearances. Even one of his other appearances. Like some of his minor appearances in the television series, and games, the movie could probably be listed as a cameo appearance of his character when compared to the rest of his franchise appearances, including the games. How often a franchise let's their characters be changed to meet new media forms shows which of their characters are in the most demand. Then a character is seen on screen for more time and he becomes a main recurring character. This franchise article mentioned the two main films and gave a few examples of other Ghostbuster media in it's opening section, but as a franchise the other media is as much of a part of the franchise as the films and make up a bulk of the stories and character development, the films are basically two stories from a large collection, although the two main stories 'over see' the remaining formats. And yet as a franchise the movies themes have been changed and at times completely rewritten to make newer and and more interesting accounts for the characters. Someone growing up in the late 80's and early 90's would probably know more about the other Ghostbuster material then the two movies themselves.

As for plot elements, on this (franchise) page he is mentioned as "mascot of fictional company Stay Puft Marshmallows" and "Ray Stantz accidentally thought about him", and the like, not describing what or who the character is, "Ray imagines something from his childhood: the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man", I think I rewrote it a bit better, but those are things that were and still are on the Stay Puft page. How the changes are made and giving references to the character itself. While here the only things referenced are his similarities with Bibendum and the Pillsbury Dough Boy, and the latex suit. Nothing was merged about his size, appearance, or other things that made up the whole of the other article. Deleting all the other appearance information is the same saying ok prove how tall Stay Puft was without using any official Ghostbusters company based estimates, since they could be considered non-RS sources. "Coming Soon: Unlocking the Book of Revelation and Applying Its Lessons Today by Michael Barber" is a good example of the non-franchise based sources, while the movie isn't being mention and only Stay Puft's portion of the movie is, a exaggerated height is what most people would come up with. When someone adds a line or two to these articles that they know was said but they don't know the source, I try to look it up, and site it's source. Many of the people adding such information are non-Wikipedians and don't know that that information should be placed on the talk page until the information can be sourced. I find it sad that instead of moving that information here (so others can find sources for it), trying to preserve other pages content, and build on existing information, it instead mostly gets deleted and stuff that is well written, (the parts I kept in 'Stay Puft') get changed into, "Ray Stantz accidentally thought about him", or show regard for appearances in the rest of the media, when they are just as note worthy as the original film's appearances. (Floppydog66 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Merge Alright, I changed my opinion for the reasons that this character has a lot of popular culture following, maybe enough to become popular to become a cult "status" character. Also, the Encyclopedia of Monsters is a pretty good reference. Ricardoread (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters III

[edit]

At what point do we split the feature film section and give Ghostbusters III it's own article? Considering that we now have confirmation of a sort, we could at least start with a pre-production or development section. BAPACop (converse) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it actually meets WP:NFF - i.e. it is actually in production and filming is confirmed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying it's ready for an article yet, but Bill Murray recently held an interview about Ghostbusters III --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 09:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop posting a movie schedule when none has been confirmed by Sony/Actors. As far as a separate article, I agree it isn't yet official, so no. This ain't Wikia after all. Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of a day or two ago, it's been confirmed but not real details as of yet. Bill Murray may not be a part of the project in the end but Sony and Aykroyd both confirmed. Maybe in 3 years it'll be confimed that another script rewrite is in the making LOL 180.194.244.241 (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gozer was Marshmallow Man?

[edit]

Here's a bit of incorrect info from the article: "Gozer uses Ray's accidental thought to assume the form of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man before being destroyed." Gozer doesn't become the Marshmallow man. -- 4.153.86.132 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Gozer is the Marshmallow Man. What movie were you watching? BAPACop (converse) 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry 4.153, he's right. Gozer tells the ghostbusters to choose his next form. Ray chooses Stay Puft.

According to the keymaster "Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"

His 3rd form was that of Stay Puft. BOOM! 129.139.1.68 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t know about the mallow thing ( which is probably quoted in the Curse of Monkey Island opening ), but I know two things: Gozer is the wrong spelling. Because, tower in New York plus Haribosystem plus Family Guy s7e3 ( with the number 73 probably chosen due to another inside joke, the Jack Lantern thing ). The Marsh___ is a reference to Fen___ , a creature from another non-marginal mythology, that´s the central symbol for the event mentioned in that car driving scene dialogue between Ray and Winston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.166.174 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

This article needs an infobox like the articles about Star Trek. Egon Eagle (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Not every article requires one nor is there an appropriate one to use? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an appropriate infobox, but someone chose to remove it without consenus. magnius (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. The reason given in the edit summary for the removal can be summarised as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Not liking infoboxes is an irrelevant personal preference, and claiming they are useless mere opinion; if other franchise articles have them, there should be a better reason why this article should not (and no, that's not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as infoboxes are neither generally deprecated nor in this special case of franchises, there is no compelling reason not to use infoboxes, and there are reasons to use them). Therefore I have chosen to restore the infobox. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stay-Puft to Stay Puft

[edit]

How come when the name of the page was changed, why did no one bother to correct the usage on the rest of the page? Don't worry, it's done now. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

[edit]

There is an IT version of Stay Puft page: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Puft_Marshmallow_Man I wonder if there are any other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.223.100 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto-1

[edit]

The section on transportation currently says the following: "The black Miller-Meteor seen at the beginning of the first movie was leased and used only for that scene and never converted for filming, though it was later purchased by the studio and completely converted to a full Ecto-1 for touring." Where is the source for that information? Fishy c (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "citation needed" template and dated it back to October 2011 to reflect the date of the inquiry. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huey Lewis v Ray Parker Jr

[edit]

Shouldn't some mention be made of the legal kerfuffle over Huey Lewis and the News' "I Wanna New Drug" being the basis for Ray Parker Jr's song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.207 (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. It's obvious that he really did write the song in two days, haha. Probably listened to the radio then wrote the same bassline on accident. Also, he brought in his girlfriend and her friends to do the "Ghost...busters!" line, which lines up with where "I want a new drug" would be in the Huey Lewis song. I can find sources if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B04B:AB13:8D93:3B23:85BF:C17D (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some editing stupidity

[edit]

On the disambig. page, there is a link to "Ghostbusters III" - but it points to the section for "Ghostbusters II" - this this is probably a disambig page issue, I posted it here, because there is no Ghostbusters III section. But there is a section for a third movie. Maybe that can be linked to on the disambig page?

Also, there is a statement about Marvel's Universe where "shared universe" is linked to the Marvel Universe page. To me, I was expecting to go to a page that would more generically explain what a shared universe is and who has them, not to a specific aforementioned topic that could have it's self been linked.

One last thing - this article is a mess and I am severely surprised there are no banners asking for it to be cleaned up, shortened and otherwise made to be more presentable.

I won't touch a single thing on here, mainly looking through the other talk issues, I don't want to get in the middle of a reversion war with any of you. SO FIX IT. ~AeSix 66.86.14.225 (talk)

Ghostbuster 3 cancelled?

[edit]

According to the article, it appears Ghostbusters 3 will never be made and they have moved on for a reboot instead. Is this true? If so, what may have been the cause for the third film not happening? After several proposed release dates (2011, 2012, and recently, 2014), in my opinion, it seems like maybe the fan base got very tired of such a long wait, at the same the directors and writers of the first two films were struggling to make it a reality. And losing Harold Ramis made it even more complicated. But I think the cherry on top for preventing such a thing from happening was Bill Murray's refusal to be involved with the third film. Perhaps if he said yes from the beginning, there would not be debate about this today. But if there are other reasons why "Ghostbusters 3" never came to be, then this would be the best place to leave such responses.Marino13 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Ghostbusters (franchise) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.vegasslotsonline.com/igt/ghostbusters/
    Triggered by \bwww\.vegasslotsonline\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Ghostbusters (franchise) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.vegasslotsonline.com/igt/ghostbusters/
    Triggered by \bwww\.vegasslotsonline\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

[edit]

Most franchises have separate articles for characters. This article's list of characters very easily could (and probably should) be a separate article. This article is kind of long anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cancelled Ghostbusters 3 to new article

[edit]

The amount of info is way out of proportion to rest of the articles contents, but it is reliably sourced, so let's create a new article for it to be in with a summary paragraph with a link. This I propose. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ramis in Ghostbusters 2016

[edit]

Should we add that Harold Ramis made a cameo as a bust in the new Ghostbusters film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ghostbusters (franchise). 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) 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unwieldy article needs to be split

[edit]

Articles with disparate topics such as this generally are supposed to be split when they're above 50kB. This one is 664kB. It includes including major redundancies with the Ghostbusters video-game article, for one (and, additionally, huge amounts of tagged OR, plus some blatant press-release WP:COPYVIO I've just removed). So much of it can be condensed with just a paragraph and a "main article" link, and I'm unclear on why the long "Development" section that pertains only to the original film is here and not in the original film's article, for instance. Thoughts?-Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say 664kB? Says 93,743 bytes, aka 93 kB on the edit history. I agree the development section is likely the worst offender, but in reality "Cancelled Ghostbusters III" section takes up way too much room for what it is. "Universe" section is way longer than it should be also. Really the Ecto-1 is pretty much a iconic vehicle, it should have its own article at this point. Devilmanozzy (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement templates

[edit]

Unless some effort is made to explain the improvement templates stuck at the top of the page, I am going to remove them. Some of them have been there for a very long time, but there is no discussion here on the talk page about them. Where, for example, is the original research? As for ref improvement, the template an anon. keeps sticking on the article, this article is actually very well referenced. So, as I say, without specific discussion of what improvements need to be made, simply sticking tags at the top of the article is not appropriate or helpful. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a similar disruption issue without succeeding to communicate with the same UK BT IP-hopping editor at another article, Aura (paranormal), which has been temporarily semi-protected for now. Interestingly, this appears to be an editor with a certain technical experience, but who fails to communicate and prefers to edit war when reverted. Not all edits need to be reverted however, it's not blantant vandalism. Opening an ANI case is being considered, but I'm leaving some time to see if this persists... — PaleoNeonate — 08:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghostbusters (franchise). 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) 16:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ghostbusters (franchise). 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) 16:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ghostbusters (franchise). 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) 21:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters World

[edit]

Are there Ghostbusters World?Jovito11 (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ghostbusters which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Ghostbusters 3

[edit]

I have repeatedly now attempted to restructure this page, based upon the announcement of a new Ghostbusters film. With the release of the teaser trailer from the studio titled "Ghostbusters 3 teaser trailer", I have removed fluff regarding developments of said film (way back to the '90s) and condensed sections to adhere to the franchise's current state. There is however editors that continue to revert edits as they would like to keep the article in its current state. Seeing as film franchises are in constant flux and always changing, these edits have been done in WP:GF and with intentions to remove all fan-based information (including play-by-play/overly detailed interviews). I am bringing this to the talkpage so that consensus can be reached.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, all the stuff related to the Hellbent script, Murray's reluctance to star, and Ramis' death are standalone things that we do not yet have any idea if they connect to the 2020 film, but historically they set the basis up for the reboot and establishing of Ghost Corps, which is all part of the franchise history. There's stuff in that area that can be trimmed down, but it can't be moved anywhere (even if we had an article for the 2020 film which we shouldn't until principle filming starts, that information is yet confirmed to be of any relevance to the film).
Second, we cannot use titles and headlines as reliable sources. Nowhere in the teaser video does it say GB3. Nowhere has the studio specifically called it by any title beyond a new GB film. Yes, it is meant to be a sequel to GB 2, but we cannot presume they will name it GB 3. This is also important to understand that the earlier GB 3 stuff around Hellbent should be thought as a totally separate effort from the present.
For the case of GB, breaking the franchise down just by film doesn't help. It needed a history section beacuse of the various twist and turns that these films and other works have taken. --Masem (t) 07:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split Ectomobile to its own article

[edit]

The vehicle is iconic enough and recognisable enough and appears on popular lists independently enough that it could sustain its own article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Zucat (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third. The vehicle has a lego version, playmobile, as well as probably a hotwheels and playable in video games versions. It was animated very nicely even in the '80s cartoon.

Roleplaying Game by WEG

[edit]

There seems to be no mention of this in the article, which seems odd when video games of lesser importance are named. This was the first big comedy d6 game to hit the market. It influenced everything from Ewen Cluney's Spooktacular/Sixtacular to Risus. The wikipedia page can be found here, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ghostbusters_(role-playing_game) , and the game rules and other materials are hosted on various fan sites. Surely any Ghostbusters fan would like to thumb through the "Tobin's Spirit Guide" bestiary, even if they aren't a tabletop gamer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B04B:AB13:8D93:3B23:85BF:C17D (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merchandise

[edit]

Is there a update on merchandise sales it says $1B as of 2007 but that was 14 years ago and the be a film since then as well as one out at the end of this year

92.236.253.249 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't sadly.Timur9008 (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox lists

[edit]

The purpose of the Infobox is to summarize key details. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE Summarizing involves leaving out some small details and keeping things simple. There really is no need to subdivide a list of four films into two separate lists[5] (it is strange to do it anywhere, but it is particularly unnecessary in the Infobox).

This unnecessary overcomplication of the list format may also have a detrimental impact on accessibility, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists.

Please keep it simple. Please do not overcomplicate lists in Infoboxes. -- 109.76.133.188 (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If editors have any good reason for doing this they should start by following the WP:SIMPLE rules and show a little good faith by explaining in their edit summary. I have reverted again because no explanation whatsoever has been given and creating unnecessary sublists makes no sense to me.[6] -- 109.76.194.186 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghostbusters_(franchise)&oldid=1207414770"