This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article was
copy edited by
Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on August 25, 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Summary of critical response
The article intro contains warning comments <!--Consensus on talk is to omit a summarized reception statement--> and <!-- Please see discussion before adding information regarding critical reception. As review aggregators do not agree on the summary of reception, current consensus is against adding a general summary, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -->
These warnings appear to have been ignored repeatedly and a summary added anyway: "The film received generally favorable reviews from critics for the cast and visuals, but criticism for the script".
An anon ipv6 seems to be just the latest example
[1] of someone ignoring the comments and expanding the attempt at summary of the critical response without any discussion.
Why exactly do you feel the need to incorrectly remove anything that dare (correctly) point out negative criticism of this bad film? Much of what you are removing is actually correctly referenced. Perhaps you should not be allowing your personal preference to affect your judgment with regard to making changes to this page?
68.229.182.145 (
talk)
06:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
If editors disagree with a previously established consensus (a discussion I had nothing to do with) then they should start a new discussion. Restoring the previously established wording has nothing to do with liking or not liking this film. Also this discussion was about the lead/intro of the article specifically and has nothing to do with the changes made by
68.229.182.145 which were reverted
[5] because Rotten Tomatoes audience scores are not allowed
WP:UGC which I clearly stated in my edit summary. --
109.79.164.223 (
talk)
03:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Consensus ignored, warnings restored again
The warning comments and past consensus was ignored yet again
[6] The editor did not restart the discussion here on the talk page or explain in their edit summary WHY they thought it was appropriate or acceptable to do this. Unfortunately editors did not revert this change at that time. The changes didn't last long either and were replaced with a lot of praise and generalizations (
WP:SYNTH and
WP:FILMLEAD) that I am not sure are well supported by the sources in the Critical response section (which was part of the problem in the first place). [The synthesized praise was inserted
[7] by an anon editor without any explanation.]
Support,The poster, the credits at the very end of the movie, and Paul Feig himself have all referred to this movie as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. Even BEFORE the home media release. I think that is a more appopiate name for this article.
ScottSullivan1 (
talk)
07:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 25 August 2021
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 discussion.
OK, I'll strike per the below 2 comments, I don't know enough about the topic but yes I'd note that natural disambiguation should probably generally only be used as a tie breaker otherwise the qualified title is clearer to readers and editors. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose almost all of the sources used in the article call the film "Ghostbusters." The only source I found that does use the subtitle is the one referenced in the lead. I would also note
WP:SUBTITLE says "the full title and subtitle might be suitable to be used as a form of natural disambiguation" and points to
WP:NATURALDIS, which in turn is described as "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." Given the almost non existent use of the subtitle here, we shouldn't be using it.
-- Calidum17:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
Should characters be defined by their gender?
The introduction defines the main characters as "four eccentric women". This comes across as rather condescending and dismissive. A better description would be to describe the characters by their careers, not their gender. I made an edit to reflect the fact that three of the main characters are scientists, and one a transport worker. However, I was shocked to receive a threatening note from another user accusing me of unconstructive vandalism. I therefore suggest this be opened up for discussion here on the talk page. Are the characters best summarized as "ecccentric women" or "eccentric scientists"? I would welcome a range of views, especially those of women editors who are still in the minority here at Wikipedia.
2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:BFE5:C6FD:704:D813 (
talk)
05:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The film is widely known to be a female-centric group of Ghostbusters, and nearly the bulk of the reception aspects are around that. If the gender aspect was not played as much in both the development and reception of the film, I would agree it would be better to call them by their profession, but the way this film has been presented, we cannot be blind to the gender aspect here. --
Masem (
t)
05:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)reply