# Talk:One Day at HorrorLand

The cliffhanger ending-killing favorite TV characters for "higher" ratings=an old injoke. {I.E. Captain Kirk in Bread and Circuses (Star Trek)}  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.46 (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 

In the TV Version a horror carries a human head who tells the Morris's to beware of sharp curves!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:One Day at HorrorLand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments
On first pass, this looks pretty good, though I see a few issues that may need to be addressed. I also made some tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Thanks again for your work on this!

It's a bit scanty on secondary sources, but a Highbeam search didn't turn up much beyond what you have here. One review of the graphic novel that might be helpful:
"Three tales of middle-school horror have been adapted from the ubiquitous, long-running Goosebumps series into graphic novel format. Jill Thompson (Scary Godmother) reworks a family's terrifying trip to a haunted amusement park in "One Day at Horrorland" with frenetic lines and mismatched panel sizing." "Destined to be a hit with the "tween" crowd, this collection offers fast-paced versions of the well-known tales... Not quite as chilling as some of the entries in Creepy Creatures, the first book in the series, this volume has the right dash of intrigue, mystery and thrills for a younger audience. "
Stine, R.L. Goosebumps graphix; terror trips, vol. 2. Kliatt May 1, 2007 | Feigelman, Jennifer [1]

"A comic adaptation of the book" -- ambiguous if this is comic as in funny or "comic book"; if the latter, I think the word comic could simply be omitted.
My understanding is that Amazon isn't to be used as a source in Wikipedia articles, both for reliability reasons and to avoid commercial promotion. I'd suggest simply removing these two citations; they're not the kind of information that requires inline citation under GA criterion 2b in any case.
Placing the "episode cast" subsection a few paragraphs after discussion of the episodes seems needlessly confusing. Also, TV.com isn't a reliable source, unfortunately. Is the episode listed at IMDB?
"The VHS release of the television special " -- was it a special? I thought it just appeared as two episodes of the regular series
Can no reviews of the original book be found? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I will fix your concerns. I couldn't find any reviews of the original book which isn't surprising. It is notable, but it is part of a series which R. L. Stine wrote quickly. He released one to two Goosebumps books a month and many of them managed to become bestsellers because of children enjoying them, but it seems to me that adults didn't take enough notice of them to bother writing reviews. Most of the Goosebumps books, in any of its incarnations, are not notable. SL93 (tahlk) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I added the graphic novel review.
I removed comic.
I removed the two Amazon references.
I put the episode cast in its own section.
I replaced the two TV.com references with IMDb.
I changed "special" to "episodes". SL93 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I put the episode information and the cast list together. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not the reviewer, but anyway, I'm not sure how reliable IMDb is as a source for the cast list and release date. I know of a couple of instances where IMDb included release date/cast list info for films that have never existed. Wouldn't the DVD or VHS be a better source for this info? Also, the title of the book is One Day at HorrorLand, with a capital L, according to the publisher, Scholastic.[2] Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I would then have to have access to the VHS or DVD. I should not have to get either one of them just because of someone mentioning two problematic issues with IMDb. IMDb is frequently, as well as commonly, used as a source for the cast and air dates. SL93 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that it is commonly used as a source does not mean it is reliable. One of the problems with using IMDb is that its use is disputed. WP:Citing IMDb suggests there is dispute in using IMDb to cite crew lists and release dates, and WP:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb states it should generally not be used as a reliable source. WP:RS/IMDB states "[t]he use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged", since IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. WP:BIO also says IMDb is not considered credible since their pages are mass-edited with little oversight.
Quite frankly, the source of information for a lot of their content, including the release date, is ambiguous. That, compounded with the fact that the content on the site is largely user-generated, creates the perception that the content there is unreliable. A lot of their content has little oversight, so entries such as the 1999 entry on Superstitious, which has been on IMDb from 2008 or earlier, appear. The Superstitious film was never released, as verified by R. L. Stine.
What I'm suggesting here is that a source that is more reliable and not disputed be used in place of a source whose reliability is questionable. Sources of higher quality trump questionable sources. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It is commonly used as a source including in Featured Articles. If you don't want IMDb as a source in articles, I would suggest getting consensus first and then start a mass-removal in the hundreds of articles. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I will not spend money to rent or buy the release. However, I am completely fine with you spending your money to fix your own concern. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't have time to respond in more detail here tonight--Mrs. Khazar and I somewhat unexpectedly made an offer to buy a house today!--but I don't consider this an issue for GA purposes. A cast list does not fall under the type of claims that need citation under criterion 2b, so a weak source or no source would be equally fine. I'll try to complete the review in the next 1-3 days; sorry for the wait. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I was looking around and found a couple sites that could be used to replace IMDb as a reference for the release dates of the TV episodes: [3][4]. As for the cast list, couldn't the TV episodes themselves be used a reference? I can definitely verify they include closing credits with this information. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
If no one has any objections to this, I'll go ahead and replace the references accordingly. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't care as long as it's referenced. SL93 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 Ok, cool. I've went ahead and made the change. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Which reference did The book was also adapted into a board game titled Goosebumps One Day at HorrorLand Game, which was released by Milton Bradley Company. come from? maclean (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It was sourced to Amazon, but the reviewer said that couldn't be used, and said that it didn't need to be referenced under the Good Article criteria. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It can be sourced easily with this source, which is not user edited. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have sourced the board game. SL93 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, to be clear, only the board game's game play description can be edited. If someone wants to add information about the game play, besides that it involves rolling dice to move, it would need to be referenced with something else. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
As I'm sure Khazar knows, GA criteria 2 requires all content be referenced (verifiable), though not all info requires inline citations. See this. maclean (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


### Checklist
Looking at these sources, this topic unfortunately does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I would suggest merging its contents into an existing series or list article if this is the most sourced commentary that can be found on the book, e.g., missing basic reviews, descriptions of how it was developed, plot sourcing, plot analysis. czar 05:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Czar I will not be merging this article that I nominated for FA and passed GA in 2013. The general notability guideline clearly states, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Such a merge wouldn't work because the episode adaptations do have significant coverage also with the episodes being the main focus. Sourcing the plot has never been required in any article. This article also has more coverage than the other GA Goosebumps articles. WP:BK clearly states, The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. which would be the episodes. Pinging FA reviewers Aoba47 and Kavyansh.Singh. SL93 (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NBOOK states that any book that has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, is notable per Wikipedia standards, and can have a separate article. Seeing the sources, I feel that there are more than two such sources, thus I happen to believe that there is no need to merge. I'll admit it is an obscure topic, but notable enough to have its separate article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Kavyansh.Singh On top of that, I feel it would be stupid to have an article on just the two episodes without the book and its other adaptations. I have never heard, in my all my years on Wikipedia, of someone suggesting to merge an article with over 1,000 words. Czar's comment isn't just about this article in reality - it also has to deal with the other Goosebumps GA articles that other editors have worked to improve and experienced editors have passed. SL93 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I messed up. There is one Goosebumps GA which is The Haunted Mask. However, the other articles are similar and have been around for years. SL93 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Kavyansh.Singh Czar The book is also used for school instruction courtesy of Reading Is Fundamental here. SL93 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
More school instruction here. SL93 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Just found out it was also once a Walt Disney World attraction here. SL93 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
A few things: 

Please do not take this personally. We're discussing the article's sourcing, not the effort of editors ("editors have worked to improve").
re: "all your years on Wikipedia", GAs and even FAs have been merged—the question of independent notability is considered separately from the GA and FA criteria. Article standards have also increased over time such that some articles promoted a decade ago are in need of review to meet today's standards. Articles longer than "1000 words" are regularly merged—it's about the quality of the sourcing, not the article length.
This thread isn't about the FA nomination but because it was mentioned: The quality standard of FA is a notch above the rest of the encyclopedia. I can't see the case for why bookconnections.org or rif.org would be viewed as a high-quality source.
"NBOOK" is a subject notability guideline, a minimum bar: Such articles "may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I see many passing mentions but little enduring coverage about the book itself.
The other Goosebumps book articles are another matter. Each should be considered on its own merits.
Ultimately this comes down to the coverage of the book itself. That HorrorLand became a theme of the series is all well and good but that and its spin-offs/adaptations would fit fine within the parent series articles, especially considering that the HorrorLand series has its own article. What then are the three best sources on this specific book's independent notability from the series? The book itself, not its theme or connection with the series.
czar 14:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Czar Ultimately, I will not merge this and you will need to start a merge discussion or an AfD if you desire. SL93 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Czar From your talk page, the theme park attraction was NOT based on Goosebumps HorrorLand which did NOT exist in the 1990s. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Not the 2010s series but the two books in the original series, i.e., per your Orlando Sentinel source, it was based on the "HorrorLand" intellectual property and not the individual One Day at HorrorLand book. My point is that there is little coverage of the book itself and that all of the adaptation/additional info belongs in other existing articles. czar 15:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In response to your passing mentions comment, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." We now have details of the creation of the artwork, its adaptations, thoughts on the book and its adaptations, a theme park attraction, coursework offered to schools - all a clear example of but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." WP:BK also says "may" and not that it needs to be done. On top of that, how do you expect to redirect this one article to multiple articles for proper attribution? SL93 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains our standards for attributing merged text within Wikipedia. I'd suggest redirecting this title to the main series but open to other options.
I know the significant coverage guidelines (which I linked in my original post) so you don't need to quote them for me twice. "Does not need to be the main topic" refers to the substance within any individual source, meaning that the source needs to cover the topic in some depth (beyond just a passing mention or individual factoid) but need not be the sole subject of the source. It does not mean that piling up brief mentions from various sources somehow creates notability for that topic. (This is why we don't have articles, for instance, on every individual Pokemon or Goosebumps book.) From the sources I've read, I haven't seen any in-depth coverage of the book itself beyond passing mentions. czar 15:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sticking by my decision that that the book is notable with more than trivial mentions and that, per WP:BK, it has resulted in notable adaptation. "May" does not mean "must be done". SL93 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It is now at AfD to end this either way - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Day at HorrorLand. I refuse to do anything significant to an article based on one person. SL93 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Czar I just found a scholarly article only about the book and an article about a clothing line which features a reiteration of the original book cover. I have no idea how to please you and you honestly are the biggest deletionist I have ever encountered - and that is coming from a deletionist. SL93 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Czar Apologies for my delayed response to your ping. I am honestly not familiar enough with notability standards around books to comment about this specific one. I recommended that the FAC be withdrawn in my review, partially based on this discussion, but also because I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that it wasn't my ping—sorry! czar 19:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Apparently I'm a failure at editing Wikipedia and writing in general. Do what you want even though I worked so hard on the prose and the sources. Looking at the talk pages of people who have completed similar Wikipedia work as myself, incuding editors who haven't been here long, their talk pages are filled with congratulations and barnstars. I have obviously not improved since my 2010 RFA. Damn it. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Please don't take it personally. I'm sure Czar didn't imply to discourage you. You have done great work on Wikipedia. It is a normal part of editing to have conflicts and disagreements, don't be too concerned about it. As for barnstars, I honestly don't know if that matters. I've seen many experienced editors and admins write on their talk page: 'please don't post barnstars or anything of that kind on this page' (roughly quoting). I'm confident that both you and Czar are trying to improve the encyclopedia. There is just a disagreement about the way to do so, and I'm sure that constructive discussion can resolve this issue. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No one here is a failure. There are a lot of great sources here that—no matter what happens to this one—should be added to other articles. This said, the comments above indicate that this conversation needs some time to cool off. After some time away, I would suggest using these sources to expand the existing articles on the series. If needed, I can start a merge discussion at that time, but not while an AfD is active and not if it's going to be this heated. czar 19:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)