This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goosebumps article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Goosebumps has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
i found this helpful
Me too, i have almost ALL the books i only need like 5 more to complete the first series that ran from 1992 to 1998 Ace Fighter.
Is there a list of the ghostwritten ones? -- mwazzap 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
There are no ghostwritten Goosebumps book, but all Ghosts Of Fear Street books (under R.L. Stine's name) are ghostwritten. (This reply is to inform everybody, since I doubt that this user will read it). Schuym1 ( talk) 00:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Some consider it the Harry Potter of the early 1990s. Who said that? I don't see how it resembles Harry Potter in any way. It wasn't near as popular (I know several other equally popular kids shows from the early 90's) and it was another genre, and another medium. Can someone clarify? [[User:MacGyverMagic| Mgm| (talk)]] 15:27, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I have got some other goosebumps books that don't fit into this, like Goosebumps Scaredy Caps Special, the Special Editions and Goosebumps Triple Header. Should they be mentioned or categorized etc.?-- GingerM 18:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Thought I'd let whoever edits this know that an article on Goosebumps:_Night_Of_The_Living_Dummy has been created. It's in a very poor state, and I tagged it for cleanup, as a stub, and so on. I thought if someone wants to clean it up, it might be appropriate to link it from here, since according to this article it was the author's favorite Goosebumps book. -- SCZenz 08:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I created that night of the living dummy article and I am offended that you would say such things about it.
Not all spanish speaking countries translated Goosebumps as Escalofríos. In Spain it was translated as Pesadillas (that means Nightmares). The information in the article is inaccurate, but I don't know exactly how to write it propperly.-- 62.43.237.98 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading up on a few things and I noticed that R.L.Stine was going to make a Goosebumps goldbook. Once again those were also banned. Shouldn't there be a section for that here? ~*~Punk18~*~
That's what I mean, they stopped those books from being published----Punk18
Yeah I heard about the sales figures. Pretty sad really. It really looked like R.L.Stine was trying to bring back Goosebumps. I wonder what'd happy if he did.-- Punk18
Shouldn't there be a section for why Goosebumps was suddenly stopped?----Punk18
I thought it was because of the parents, who made libraries ban it. Punk18
Considering the amount that libraries pay to authors, I'd imagine that it wouldn't have made any significant difference -- 82.44.114.101 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How many copies of these books were sold worldwide?
Why was this banned? KinseyLOL 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
i know it was cancelled but ive seen on amazon that some are in production. any information where they are or anything?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.154.78 ( talk • contribs)
well amazon had a page about slappy new year and the haunted mask lives with reviews from people and they arent there anymore so i cant give sources sorry :( crap i wanna read them http://www.thebookplace.co.uk/bookplace/display.asp?ISB=0007104634 and http://www.whsmith.co.uk/whs/Go.asp?isbn=0007104634&shop=26985&tduid=d5310bfc393326c21d25a847ccfae216&affId=935910 dont know if they are true but maybe.
any comments?
Are there any good fan sites for the Goosebumps series?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry 4k ( talk • contribs)
I'm not quite sure how many Goosebumps books there were. I know its a very high number, and considering each book was roughly 100 pages, Stein must've been busy. Also it didn't seem to follow any series, but were random horror stories under the same title. FinalWish 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to merge that article here? Neither one is that big. Madman Marz 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It's an idea, granted, but I don't think it's a good one. It's just that people seem to like it better with both separated, not to mention the many people who have protested the merge. Mack-the-random 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Goosebumps Series 2000 links to this page. Doesn't it have its own article?
No it doesnt have an article of it'sown.it would be great if someone were to write one.- Vmrgrsergr 05:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
What font did R.L. Stine used to make the title of the logo? -- Boogster Go! 04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In Canadian French, the translation is Chair de Poule (literally "hen flesh", the French phrase for goose bumps). I think we should remove the word Canadian because it is also known under the same title in France/Belgium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.181.59 ( talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This section is very dubious. First it is added by an IP user and deleted. Then User: Jonamatt, most likly the same IP user that added the section in the first place, reverts the deletion, with the edit summary: Overrulled edit because article was not infact an infringment upon copyright. Submitted by origonal writer; hence, no copyright infringment. It was then removed again because it was unreferenced and original research. It has been added back, deleted, and added back again. The "cited" sources only refer to Goosebumps page numbers and do not support any of the claims in the text. User: Jonamatt can't or doesn't want to understand that this original research doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please discuss. - NatureBoyMD ( talk) 19:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Natureboy, I understand why you have deleted this post over and over. I must say that when the article was first posted it was done so by a member of the Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society (SGAS). I, the author of the writing, reposted it from my account. I have included a citation for the article. In my defence, the guidelines to posting research do state "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." I think that the citation I included should make this review appropriate, but if it is not let me know and I will be glad to fix it once again.
Sincerely, Jonathan Mattox President of the Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Any notion whatsoever that the Goosebumps series has any merit other than a quick scare has to be one of the most laughable things I have ever heard. There is no citation in this "scholarly" part because there is no scholar to support it. This section should be continuously deleted. Good luck NatureBoyMD. Macman202 ( talk) 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
TonyFox,
It is quite obvious to me that you do not have much of an understanding of the components of literary review, if any at all. If you think that an analysis of a book is "weighted towards praise" by definition, you are seriously mistaken. Adressing the themes and symbols of a book does not mean the writing is slanted. If there were any "peackcock" words, they were replaced before you deleted the article. I will review this article again to make sure I did not miss any words that you could construe as "praise." If you delete this article again, I will submit a vandalism report to Wikipedia.
--Jonamatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that user Jonamatt isn't serious. There's absolutely no way. Macman202 ( talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
NatureBoyMD, Macman202, Tony Fox:
I have considered your disrespectful comments towards my Scholarly Review article and, now that the Christmas holidays are over, I am obliged to let my anger with your remarks be known. I shall start with you, NatureBoyMD. NatureBoyMD, you reffered to my article as dubious. This is ironic, considering that you as a person are quite dubious. When I read your opinions of my article, I scoff at you. Your argument is so ill founded that I cannot even take you seriously. It is quite obvious to me, and all the memembers of the SGAS, that your dissatisfaction with the page citations is not an indication of the article's "dubiousness", but rather an indication of your ignorance of Goosebumps and literature in general. If you think people need a citation as to where the camera in Say Cheese and Die came from,, then you need to understand what is common knowledge and not. For instance, If i were to write that the sky is blue, or that the earth is round, or that MACman202 has no idea what he is talking about, most reasonably intelligent humans would agree with such widely known facts. Such is the same for Goosebumps and R.L. Stine. When I say that the plots "are masterfully formulated" or imply that R.L. Stine is brilliant, the majority of people recognize that the two statements are widely known facts. As for you MACman202, any notion what so ever that you have the ability to recognize fine literature "has to be one of the most laughable things I have ever heard" (NatureBoy, I included quotations in the last quote so that you, always one to want a citation for the obvious, will know that I quote this MACman202 himself). MacMan, it is quite bold of you to assume that there is so scholar behind my article. Perhaps you should stick to editing the Simon and Garfunkel page on wikipedia. I am sure you are quite familiar with it already. Tony Fox, you and NatureBoyMD seem to be on the same page as far as your inability to recognize common knowledge is concerned. To me it seems that you label anything you do not agree with as a "peacock term." I find this most repulsive, as I, like most free thinking, intelligent people believe that speech should not be censored because someone does not agree with it. You can take comfort in the fact that you are not the only one guilty of this unjust censorhip. MACman202 and NatureBoy are just as guilty. Each of you should devote, as I have, your mind to understanding the beauty and brilliance of Goosebumps. When you feel that you have researched Goosebumps as much as I have (it is very unlikely that you ever will) then you may suggest alterations to my scholarly review. Until then, your comments are not welcome, and they certainly will not be tolerated any longer.
Sincerely,
The Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society
I just discovered Wikipedia had this article, which I don't believe is linked anywhere on the other Goosebumps pages. Do you think it should be merged, or will the HorrorLand books be notable enough to have their own page? (At any rate, I'll go expand it to include the information recently dug up on the series.) Note: It should be HorrorLand, though, with a capital L - that's how it appears on the covers.
Image:Goosebumpscastwithstine.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 ensure 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) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no move -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is not a primary topic for the page heading of goosebumps. "Goosepump" is another spelling of "goose bump" (see wiktionary), and "Goosebumps" should be redirected to "Goose bump". There is a disambiguation page at "Goose bumps (disambiguation)" Snowman ( talk) 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This gives "me the goosebumps", and it is giving "me the goose bumps". The former version goosebumps has about 3 times as many hits, indicating that this spelling is used in the saying about the skin condition rather than literature named after it. So let's move Goose bumps to Goose bumps (skin), Goosebumps to Goosebumps (horror/novella/series/franchise), and redirect both spelling variants to Goose bumps (disambiguation) or Goosebumps (disambiguation). -- Matthead Discuß 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Snowman, you ask if the skin bumps are the primary topic - no, they're not. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a Wikipedia guideline, the things that can indicate the status of a primary topic are:
These are not true of the skin bumps; they are true of the books, as I showed above. (The skin bumps had 58 incoming links, the books had 293. Likewise the skin bumps had 12144 visitors during April, the books had 41684.) So I think Wikipedia guidelines support this page remaining where it is. As far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong) your reasoning for wanting this page moved is that the skin bumps is a well-known real life topic, whereas the books are a more "specialised" pop culture topic. If it were true that more people were interested in the skin bumps in the context of Wikipedia then I would have no problem with this page move, however:
You seem to be judging this issue of the first part of each of those points (the number of people who have heard of these subjects), whereas I am judging it on the second (how people actually use Wikipedia). And I think
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supports my position. After all, why shouldn't people's usage of Wikipedia determine how easy Wikipedia is for them to use? It seems like common sense to me. --
KittyRainbow (
talk)
10:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: Regardless of whether this page gets moved or not, I don't think
goose bumps should be moved to
goose bumps (skin). "Goose bumps" has never referred to the books, the TV series or anything else in the franchise; the only possible meaning for "goose bumps" is the skin bumps. There's no confusion there. If you type in "goose bumps", you're looking for goose bumps!
:1933 C. MILLER Lamb in Bosom xi. 148 She rubbed down the skin of her arms and legs where *goose-bumps stood on every pore as though it were cold weather. 1968 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. XLIX. 17 Goose bumps..seems to be replacing both goose flesh and goose pimples. 1970 Washington Post 30 Sept. D3/1, I no longer get goose~bumps before a game.
:?1810 COLERIDGE Lit. Rem. (1839) IV. 342 The very term by which the German New-Birthites express it is enough to give one goose-flesh. 1868 BROWNING Ring & Bk. VIII. 282 This cold day!.. Guido must be all goose-flesh in his hole. 1876 DUHRING Dis. Skin 29 The condition known as cutis anserina, or goose-flesh. 1880 BROWNING Clive 192 The memory of that moment makes goose-flesh rise!
May I propose that there should be a 'List of charcters' page for characters that have appeared in all three series of goosebumps. (Ordered by status (Protagonist, antagonist and neutral) and species (human and monster) 10 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.28.64 ( talk) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few Goosebumps-related pages now. Does anyone know how to make templates and infoboxes and such, to form a quick index of/for Goosebumps pages? 86.134.250.16 ( talk) 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here may be of interest to editors frequenting this board. d'oh! talk 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Cross out when complete.
- Structure, genre and format - Goosebumps HorrorLand
- Inspiration and themes - Themes
- Legal dispute - History and final outcome of case.
- Literary criticism and reception - One source.
- Clean-up - Last paragraph structure, genre and format section/literary criticism and reception section.
Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 18:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Needs more improvement. Cross out when complete.
Could someone please fix the reference issue in the "Literary criticism and reception" section? If you look at the section in edit mode, you'll see:
...nothing more important than the love of your family and friends." <ref name="okay to read." Histic violence to set forth a random...
I tried to use Article Blamer to figure out what happened, but it just pointed me to a May 2012 revision that already had the problem. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ought to be a footnote that it's found in one of the most popular internet memes: Ermahgerd! Gerseberms es mah favorit berks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.189.31.1 ( talk) 23:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
lol, I also came to this talk page because of the meme. Gotta have it! 190.49.145.36 ( talk) 05:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Mariano G.
That reference is not terribly helpful. I'd add these:
I'd also expand what the attraction is a bit, so it doesn't sound like they created a ride. Also, the link should be to Disney-MGM Studios. -- Zanimum ( talk) 14:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This should be changed back to 350 million. There are a lot of refs saying 350 million, so this is a much more conservative estimate ( [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.). Plus this figure seems unlikely; before 2014 they were saying more than 300 million were sold, and in 2014 they were saying it sold 350 million copies. It would have had to sell over 50 million copies in one year in order to achieve this figure. Even back in 2008, they were saying these books were only selling 2 million copies a month, [5] plus Publishers Weekly is saying one of the latest Goosebumps Most Wanted books only had a printing of 50 thousand copies. [6] I suspect what's happening here is someone misinterpreted "400 million books in print" with "400 million books sold". Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 20:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Goosebumps. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.goodreads.com/series/42520-goosebumps-triple-headerWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would likely qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible ( talk) 18:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Goosebumps. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody please make a page detailing the characters/monsters that appear in the series? Thank you.
( Garlic Zamasu ( talk) 20:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC))
We all know that goosebumps is one of the greats, but unfortunately not THE best. It has been shadowed by Harry Potter. People just kind of moved on. They traded fear for fantasy, screams for spell, slappy for mouldywart, sorry, voldamort. I agree, Harry Potter is really good. But like most common reader, they just move on to whatever is new Thank you for listening.🙂 111.220.178.20 ( talk) 00:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The general information listed on the top right of the article says the original series ran from October 25, 1992 til December 1997, but elsewhere in the article it specifies that the first book was published in July of 1992. So where is this October 25 date coming from? 101.181.59.152 ( talk) 04:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
What to do the book said that for kids no to be scared 47.144.248.249 ( talk) 22:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goosebumps article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Goosebumps has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
i found this helpful
Me too, i have almost ALL the books i only need like 5 more to complete the first series that ran from 1992 to 1998 Ace Fighter.
Is there a list of the ghostwritten ones? -- mwazzap 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
There are no ghostwritten Goosebumps book, but all Ghosts Of Fear Street books (under R.L. Stine's name) are ghostwritten. (This reply is to inform everybody, since I doubt that this user will read it). Schuym1 ( talk) 00:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Some consider it the Harry Potter of the early 1990s. Who said that? I don't see how it resembles Harry Potter in any way. It wasn't near as popular (I know several other equally popular kids shows from the early 90's) and it was another genre, and another medium. Can someone clarify? [[User:MacGyverMagic| Mgm| (talk)]] 15:27, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I have got some other goosebumps books that don't fit into this, like Goosebumps Scaredy Caps Special, the Special Editions and Goosebumps Triple Header. Should they be mentioned or categorized etc.?-- GingerM 18:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Thought I'd let whoever edits this know that an article on Goosebumps:_Night_Of_The_Living_Dummy has been created. It's in a very poor state, and I tagged it for cleanup, as a stub, and so on. I thought if someone wants to clean it up, it might be appropriate to link it from here, since according to this article it was the author's favorite Goosebumps book. -- SCZenz 08:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I created that night of the living dummy article and I am offended that you would say such things about it.
Not all spanish speaking countries translated Goosebumps as Escalofríos. In Spain it was translated as Pesadillas (that means Nightmares). The information in the article is inaccurate, but I don't know exactly how to write it propperly.-- 62.43.237.98 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading up on a few things and I noticed that R.L.Stine was going to make a Goosebumps goldbook. Once again those were also banned. Shouldn't there be a section for that here? ~*~Punk18~*~
That's what I mean, they stopped those books from being published----Punk18
Yeah I heard about the sales figures. Pretty sad really. It really looked like R.L.Stine was trying to bring back Goosebumps. I wonder what'd happy if he did.-- Punk18
Shouldn't there be a section for why Goosebumps was suddenly stopped?----Punk18
I thought it was because of the parents, who made libraries ban it. Punk18
Considering the amount that libraries pay to authors, I'd imagine that it wouldn't have made any significant difference -- 82.44.114.101 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How many copies of these books were sold worldwide?
Why was this banned? KinseyLOL 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
i know it was cancelled but ive seen on amazon that some are in production. any information where they are or anything?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.154.78 ( talk • contribs)
well amazon had a page about slappy new year and the haunted mask lives with reviews from people and they arent there anymore so i cant give sources sorry :( crap i wanna read them http://www.thebookplace.co.uk/bookplace/display.asp?ISB=0007104634 and http://www.whsmith.co.uk/whs/Go.asp?isbn=0007104634&shop=26985&tduid=d5310bfc393326c21d25a847ccfae216&affId=935910 dont know if they are true but maybe.
any comments?
Are there any good fan sites for the Goosebumps series?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry 4k ( talk • contribs)
I'm not quite sure how many Goosebumps books there were. I know its a very high number, and considering each book was roughly 100 pages, Stein must've been busy. Also it didn't seem to follow any series, but were random horror stories under the same title. FinalWish 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to merge that article here? Neither one is that big. Madman Marz 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It's an idea, granted, but I don't think it's a good one. It's just that people seem to like it better with both separated, not to mention the many people who have protested the merge. Mack-the-random 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Goosebumps Series 2000 links to this page. Doesn't it have its own article?
No it doesnt have an article of it'sown.it would be great if someone were to write one.- Vmrgrsergr 05:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
What font did R.L. Stine used to make the title of the logo? -- Boogster Go! 04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In Canadian French, the translation is Chair de Poule (literally "hen flesh", the French phrase for goose bumps). I think we should remove the word Canadian because it is also known under the same title in France/Belgium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.181.59 ( talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This section is very dubious. First it is added by an IP user and deleted. Then User: Jonamatt, most likly the same IP user that added the section in the first place, reverts the deletion, with the edit summary: Overrulled edit because article was not infact an infringment upon copyright. Submitted by origonal writer; hence, no copyright infringment. It was then removed again because it was unreferenced and original research. It has been added back, deleted, and added back again. The "cited" sources only refer to Goosebumps page numbers and do not support any of the claims in the text. User: Jonamatt can't or doesn't want to understand that this original research doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please discuss. - NatureBoyMD ( talk) 19:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Natureboy, I understand why you have deleted this post over and over. I must say that when the article was first posted it was done so by a member of the Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society (SGAS). I, the author of the writing, reposted it from my account. I have included a citation for the article. In my defence, the guidelines to posting research do state "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." I think that the citation I included should make this review appropriate, but if it is not let me know and I will be glad to fix it once again.
Sincerely, Jonathan Mattox President of the Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Any notion whatsoever that the Goosebumps series has any merit other than a quick scare has to be one of the most laughable things I have ever heard. There is no citation in this "scholarly" part because there is no scholar to support it. This section should be continuously deleted. Good luck NatureBoyMD. Macman202 ( talk) 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
TonyFox,
It is quite obvious to me that you do not have much of an understanding of the components of literary review, if any at all. If you think that an analysis of a book is "weighted towards praise" by definition, you are seriously mistaken. Adressing the themes and symbols of a book does not mean the writing is slanted. If there were any "peackcock" words, they were replaced before you deleted the article. I will review this article again to make sure I did not miss any words that you could construe as "praise." If you delete this article again, I will submit a vandalism report to Wikipedia.
--Jonamatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that user Jonamatt isn't serious. There's absolutely no way. Macman202 ( talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
NatureBoyMD, Macman202, Tony Fox:
I have considered your disrespectful comments towards my Scholarly Review article and, now that the Christmas holidays are over, I am obliged to let my anger with your remarks be known. I shall start with you, NatureBoyMD. NatureBoyMD, you reffered to my article as dubious. This is ironic, considering that you as a person are quite dubious. When I read your opinions of my article, I scoff at you. Your argument is so ill founded that I cannot even take you seriously. It is quite obvious to me, and all the memembers of the SGAS, that your dissatisfaction with the page citations is not an indication of the article's "dubiousness", but rather an indication of your ignorance of Goosebumps and literature in general. If you think people need a citation as to where the camera in Say Cheese and Die came from,, then you need to understand what is common knowledge and not. For instance, If i were to write that the sky is blue, or that the earth is round, or that MACman202 has no idea what he is talking about, most reasonably intelligent humans would agree with such widely known facts. Such is the same for Goosebumps and R.L. Stine. When I say that the plots "are masterfully formulated" or imply that R.L. Stine is brilliant, the majority of people recognize that the two statements are widely known facts. As for you MACman202, any notion what so ever that you have the ability to recognize fine literature "has to be one of the most laughable things I have ever heard" (NatureBoy, I included quotations in the last quote so that you, always one to want a citation for the obvious, will know that I quote this MACman202 himself). MacMan, it is quite bold of you to assume that there is so scholar behind my article. Perhaps you should stick to editing the Simon and Garfunkel page on wikipedia. I am sure you are quite familiar with it already. Tony Fox, you and NatureBoyMD seem to be on the same page as far as your inability to recognize common knowledge is concerned. To me it seems that you label anything you do not agree with as a "peacock term." I find this most repulsive, as I, like most free thinking, intelligent people believe that speech should not be censored because someone does not agree with it. You can take comfort in the fact that you are not the only one guilty of this unjust censorhip. MACman202 and NatureBoy are just as guilty. Each of you should devote, as I have, your mind to understanding the beauty and brilliance of Goosebumps. When you feel that you have researched Goosebumps as much as I have (it is very unlikely that you ever will) then you may suggest alterations to my scholarly review. Until then, your comments are not welcome, and they certainly will not be tolerated any longer.
Sincerely,
The Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society
I just discovered Wikipedia had this article, which I don't believe is linked anywhere on the other Goosebumps pages. Do you think it should be merged, or will the HorrorLand books be notable enough to have their own page? (At any rate, I'll go expand it to include the information recently dug up on the series.) Note: It should be HorrorLand, though, with a capital L - that's how it appears on the covers.
Image:Goosebumpscastwithstine.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 ensure 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) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no move -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is not a primary topic for the page heading of goosebumps. "Goosepump" is another spelling of "goose bump" (see wiktionary), and "Goosebumps" should be redirected to "Goose bump". There is a disambiguation page at "Goose bumps (disambiguation)" Snowman ( talk) 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This gives "me the goosebumps", and it is giving "me the goose bumps". The former version goosebumps has about 3 times as many hits, indicating that this spelling is used in the saying about the skin condition rather than literature named after it. So let's move Goose bumps to Goose bumps (skin), Goosebumps to Goosebumps (horror/novella/series/franchise), and redirect both spelling variants to Goose bumps (disambiguation) or Goosebumps (disambiguation). -- Matthead Discuß 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Snowman, you ask if the skin bumps are the primary topic - no, they're not. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a Wikipedia guideline, the things that can indicate the status of a primary topic are:
These are not true of the skin bumps; they are true of the books, as I showed above. (The skin bumps had 58 incoming links, the books had 293. Likewise the skin bumps had 12144 visitors during April, the books had 41684.) So I think Wikipedia guidelines support this page remaining where it is. As far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong) your reasoning for wanting this page moved is that the skin bumps is a well-known real life topic, whereas the books are a more "specialised" pop culture topic. If it were true that more people were interested in the skin bumps in the context of Wikipedia then I would have no problem with this page move, however:
You seem to be judging this issue of the first part of each of those points (the number of people who have heard of these subjects), whereas I am judging it on the second (how people actually use Wikipedia). And I think
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supports my position. After all, why shouldn't people's usage of Wikipedia determine how easy Wikipedia is for them to use? It seems like common sense to me. --
KittyRainbow (
talk)
10:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: Regardless of whether this page gets moved or not, I don't think
goose bumps should be moved to
goose bumps (skin). "Goose bumps" has never referred to the books, the TV series or anything else in the franchise; the only possible meaning for "goose bumps" is the skin bumps. There's no confusion there. If you type in "goose bumps", you're looking for goose bumps!
:1933 C. MILLER Lamb in Bosom xi. 148 She rubbed down the skin of her arms and legs where *goose-bumps stood on every pore as though it were cold weather. 1968 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. XLIX. 17 Goose bumps..seems to be replacing both goose flesh and goose pimples. 1970 Washington Post 30 Sept. D3/1, I no longer get goose~bumps before a game.
:?1810 COLERIDGE Lit. Rem. (1839) IV. 342 The very term by which the German New-Birthites express it is enough to give one goose-flesh. 1868 BROWNING Ring & Bk. VIII. 282 This cold day!.. Guido must be all goose-flesh in his hole. 1876 DUHRING Dis. Skin 29 The condition known as cutis anserina, or goose-flesh. 1880 BROWNING Clive 192 The memory of that moment makes goose-flesh rise!
May I propose that there should be a 'List of charcters' page for characters that have appeared in all three series of goosebumps. (Ordered by status (Protagonist, antagonist and neutral) and species (human and monster) 10 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.28.64 ( talk) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few Goosebumps-related pages now. Does anyone know how to make templates and infoboxes and such, to form a quick index of/for Goosebumps pages? 86.134.250.16 ( talk) 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here may be of interest to editors frequenting this board. d'oh! talk 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Cross out when complete.
- Structure, genre and format - Goosebumps HorrorLand
- Inspiration and themes - Themes
- Legal dispute - History and final outcome of case.
- Literary criticism and reception - One source.
- Clean-up - Last paragraph structure, genre and format section/literary criticism and reception section.
Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 18:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Needs more improvement. Cross out when complete.
Could someone please fix the reference issue in the "Literary criticism and reception" section? If you look at the section in edit mode, you'll see:
...nothing more important than the love of your family and friends." <ref name="okay to read." Histic violence to set forth a random...
I tried to use Article Blamer to figure out what happened, but it just pointed me to a May 2012 revision that already had the problem. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ought to be a footnote that it's found in one of the most popular internet memes: Ermahgerd! Gerseberms es mah favorit berks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.189.31.1 ( talk) 23:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
lol, I also came to this talk page because of the meme. Gotta have it! 190.49.145.36 ( talk) 05:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Mariano G.
That reference is not terribly helpful. I'd add these:
I'd also expand what the attraction is a bit, so it doesn't sound like they created a ride. Also, the link should be to Disney-MGM Studios. -- Zanimum ( talk) 14:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This should be changed back to 350 million. There are a lot of refs saying 350 million, so this is a much more conservative estimate ( [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.). Plus this figure seems unlikely; before 2014 they were saying more than 300 million were sold, and in 2014 they were saying it sold 350 million copies. It would have had to sell over 50 million copies in one year in order to achieve this figure. Even back in 2008, they were saying these books were only selling 2 million copies a month, [5] plus Publishers Weekly is saying one of the latest Goosebumps Most Wanted books only had a printing of 50 thousand copies. [6] I suspect what's happening here is someone misinterpreted "400 million books in print" with "400 million books sold". Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 20:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Goosebumps. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.goodreads.com/series/42520-goosebumps-triple-headerWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would likely qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible ( talk) 18:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Goosebumps. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody please make a page detailing the characters/monsters that appear in the series? Thank you.
( Garlic Zamasu ( talk) 20:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC))
We all know that goosebumps is one of the greats, but unfortunately not THE best. It has been shadowed by Harry Potter. People just kind of moved on. They traded fear for fantasy, screams for spell, slappy for mouldywart, sorry, voldamort. I agree, Harry Potter is really good. But like most common reader, they just move on to whatever is new Thank you for listening.🙂 111.220.178.20 ( talk) 00:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The general information listed on the top right of the article says the original series ran from October 25, 1992 til December 1997, but elsewhere in the article it specifies that the first book was published in July of 1992. So where is this October 25 date coming from? 101.181.59.152 ( talk) 04:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
What to do the book said that for kids no to be scared 47.144.248.249 ( talk) 22:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)