Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)

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.

Previous discussions:

• 2016 Talk:Ghostbusters_(2016_film)/Archive_3#Consensus_on_excluding_summary_statement_for_critical_reception
• 2017 Talk:Ghostbusters_(2016_film)/Archive_4#On_that_lede_change

Could editors familiar with the past discussions please restore the to whatever the consensus was (or delete the warning comments). -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

MASEM has cleaned up the intro.[2] I will take this as the last good version.

If editors want to do something different please discuss and establish a consensus first. -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The warning comment was ignored again, so I removed the attempt at a summary of the critical response again.[3] -- 109.78.196.125 (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ignored again, but promptly reverted.[4] Are editors actively ignoring the warning or is it invisible to visual editor users? -- 109.79.73.171 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.]

Please WP:DISCUSS before changing. -- 109.77.198.20 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Warning comment ignored again(diff) and reverted. -- 109.79.72.19 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ghostbusters publicity statue, Waterloo Station.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2021

• Ghostbusters (2016 film) → Ghostbusters: Answer the Call
• 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)

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.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Ghostbusters (2016 film) → Ghostbusters: Answer the Call – the move was discussed months ago. NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SUBTITLE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  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)

• Oppose - vastly not the WP:COMMONNAME per the sources used in the article. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, had anything changed since this discussion Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)/Archive 4#Requested move 4 September 2016.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• 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. -- Calidum 17:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - The articles used as sources were written before the subtitle was added. Daemonspudguy (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)