Talk:Ghost Hunters (TV series)/Archive 3

message: I think this article is doing well so far, aside from the bickering going on about it in discussion. If everything is kosher with the Ghost Hunters page, I'd like to see about submitting it for a Peer Review to see if it can become a featured article. Or call me crazy for thinking this. If Star Wars Episode One can become a featured article, and I remember all the BS involved with those articles, I think Ghost Hunters can too. Cyberia23 21:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ghost Hunters page is in Cabal Mediation review at the moment, and pending the outcome, some things will likely change. Probably not the best time for a Peer Review. The constant bickering on the Talk page tends to command all one's attention. So you begin to overlook the needs of the article itself. For example, I was noticing the "Episode Format" section reads like a TAPS brochure promoting some idealized professional investigation process. What actually happens in the show is quite different. There is a lot of interpersonal drama concerning staff assignments and who's doing their job correctly, various equipment snafus, postulation about demons, poltergeists, and entities, and a fair amount of advice given to the occupants on how to deal with their 'ghosts'. LuckyLouie 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: RE; a screen shot of the credits, here's one.   http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/4909/producerswd6.jpg    LuckyLouie 21:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great find, LuckyLouie! I was hoping someone here would already know how to put an image into this article. Yes, I don't think the article is ready for a peer review yet, but I am confident it will be at some future time--thanks for suggesting it. It will be really helpful to get all the contributors working together on these types of things. VX 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree with the episode format, it should be expanded to included further truths about the show, as Lucky indicated. ;) Lucky is good at wording those types of things, so why don't you go ahead, give it a shot, and then if there is anything other parties find disagreeable, we can hash it out then. Does that sound OK? --Ira-welkin 01:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your trust.  I'll see if I can throw something together soon. If not soon, later this weekend. LuckyLouie 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no hurry! If I have any ideas for additional sentences, I will post them here first. But yeah, we all got things to do! --Ira-welkin 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just noticed the cast list in the article follows the imdb entry, which is dated 2004(?). The current season's episodes aired on SciFi are updated, wich add Jason and Grant's producer credit and delete long-gone cast members like Andy Andrews. LuckyLouie 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "long-gone" people should still be given some credit as they were on the show and still mentioned on other sites like the IMDb. Cyberia23 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should say "current and past cast" or something. I don't know. Regarding the producer credit, I checked Jason's myspace and he lists his occupation as "Main talent on TV show, also a producer". LuckyLouie 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I made an image for the main page - see how you guys like it. If you like/don't like it then offer an opinion don't bash or give me any "ZOMG! BALETE!" or lame stuff like that. I can always modify it or find something else. Cyberia23 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good, recognizable image for the show, eh? VX 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ZOMG! BALETE! :-) OK I'm kidding. It looks fine. I bet we could get an even better, cleaner one, but I read the Wiki policy on images and it's unfathomable to me.  I'm confused about what we can and can't use. LuckyLouie 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image copyright thing around here is really a crap shoot. I've posted images with no source or copyright info before and they either get hit with a violation within hours or continue to remain here untouched for months, some going on 2 years now. I guess it depends on who finds it and when, and who thinks it's a violation - but most of it is BS. Supposedly screenshots are allowed for illustrative purposes, but some get taken down others stay. I've even seen Wikipedia "Pictures of the Day" that have no source content, and the same for pics in featured articles that have no copyright info. Cyberia23 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, being the image manipulation dork that I am, I was bored and made an animated gif of the Ghost Hunters logo giggling around like it does in the show. I could put that here, but that's probably going overboard. It would be funny though. Cyberia23 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the image you put up but how do we know if we like the giggling text if we don't see it? You can always change it back. VX 04:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to say jiggling - not giggling, I can't type sometimes. I'm not posting it here, I might put it on an image host site somewhere when I get it done and post a link if your really want it. Cyberia23 08:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I spelled it wrong too. It would be cool to see your work. VX 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this link to it -> animated GH logo. It's cheesy :) Cyberia23 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda like it. The thing is it's not always moving. Every once in a while it flashes. Yes, I like it. VX 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to select a completely different image for the TAPS article, one that defines it in a way that says, TAPS is the paranormal investigation group, not the show. But this image clearly represents the TV show, I think. VX 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could probably get the TAPS "running ghost" logo for that, but that could require permission from them. Cyberia23 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a 5 second delay then it jiggles. I thought if it jiggled constantly it would get annoying. Cyberia23 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review?

message: :::I just noticed the cast list in the article follows the imdb entry, which is dated 2004(?). The current season's episodes aired on SciFi are updated, wich add Jason and Grant's producer credit and delete long-gone cast members like Andy Andrews. LuckyLouie 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "long-gone" people should still be given some credit as they were on the show and still mentioned on other sites like the IMDb. Cyberia23 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should say "current and past cast" or something. I don't know. Regarding the producer credit, I checked Jason's myspace and he lists his occupation as "Main talent on TV show, also a producer". LuckyLouie 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I made an image for the main page - see how you guys like it. If you like/don't like it then offer an opinion don't bash or give me any "ZOMG! BALETE!" or lame stuff like that. I can always modify it or find something else. Cyberia23 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good, recognizable image for the show, eh? VX 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ZOMG! BALETE! :-) OK I'm kidding. It looks fine. I bet we could get an even better, cleaner one, but I read the Wiki policy on images and it's unfathomable to me.  I'm confused about what we can and can't use. LuckyLouie 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image copyright thing around here is really a crap shoot. I've posted images with no source or copyright info before and they either get hit with a violation within hours or continue to remain here untouched for months, some going on 2 years now. I guess it depends on who finds it and when, and who thinks it's a violation - but most of it is BS. Supposedly screenshots are allowed for illustrative purposes, but some get taken down others stay. I've even seen Wikipedia "Pictures of the Day" that have no source content, and the same for pics in featured articles that have no copyright info. Cyberia23 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, being the image manipulation dork that I am, I was bored and made an animated gif of the Ghost Hunters logo giggling around like it does in the show. I could put that here, but that's probably going overboard. It would be funny though. Cyberia23 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the image you put up but how do we know if we like the giggling text if we don't see it? You can always change it back. VX 04:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to say jiggling - not giggling, I can't type sometimes. I'm not posting it here, I might put it on an image host site somewhere when I get it done and post a link if your really want it. Cyberia23 08:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I spelled it wrong too. It would be cool to see your work. VX 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this link to it -> animated GH logo. It's cheesy :) Cyberia23 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda like it. The thing is it's not always moving. Every once in a while it flashes. Yes, I like it. VX 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to select a completely different image for the TAPS article, one that defines it in a way that says, TAPS is the paranormal investigation group, not the show. But this image clearly represents the TV show, I think. VX 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could probably get the TAPS "running ghost" logo for that, but that could require permission from them. Cyberia23 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a 5 second delay then it jiggles. I thought if it jiggled constantly it would get annoying. Cyberia23 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshots, Credits

message: OK. I slapped this together and threw it on the page. Here are the links for the cites if anyone cares. Discuss.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_412447.html
http://www.netcrimes.net/archive/2006_06_01_archive.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/paw/pr/2006_january/2006_01_05_3.html
LuckyLouie 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that certainly adds some interest! ;) VX 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: People are adding links, removing links, making edits and running away. LuckyLouie 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's WABBIT season... Cyberia23 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's Vandal Season

message: I have started watching season 1 & 2 for the first time. I noticed the listing here for s2ep10 says NY. The Worthington House is in NH. Not sure if that should be noted or if its considered unimportant. Other than that, this article is very informative! M8gen 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the reference is to Rolling Hills, which is in NY.LuckyLouie 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably my goof originally. Cyberia23 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episodes

message: Is it appropriate to mention that there are DVD's of the show somewhere? The DVD's for season two in september feature a few unaired investigations, and have some more unreleased and extended footage. Lots of this footage is clowning around, but much of it is also further research, further investigation footage, and also unedited versions of the 'edvidence' of activity, often in multiple speeds and zoom sizes. --Ira-welkin 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited note about DVDs in the criticism section to include multiple DVDs for sale. VX 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You can post DVD info, as long as you don't provide a link to a place selling it, since that would be technically be advertising and/or spam. Cyberia23 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ira. Can you give us a bit more info? Can you define which/how many scenes are extended/unedited? Can you clarify the nature of the additional research shown? Can you clarify  "unedited" as opposed to "extended" and why you believe it is unedited? I think we'd like to understand if these are sold and intended by TAPS to be used for legitimate analysis, or if they are simply the usual "extended scenes" found in most entertainment DVD's. One clue would be the length. If, for example, the "uncut" scene is 45 minutes long (length of an original DV cam tape) it adds  a tiny bit to the legitimacy. But you know I'm a skeptical guy, and my skepticism extends to everything, not just Ghost Hunters. If someone were selling a "Bigfoot" DVD with "unedited scenes" of the monster stomping around the woods, I'd be just as skeptical. :-) LuckyLouie 22:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest this type of content works into the information about all the stuff the group sells, like T shirts, hats, whatever else. Mention it all together. VX 22:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I asked a 3rd party who owns the DVD's to review them for me also. So far, I've found out two of the "bonus scenes" consist of Jason and Grant arguing. The disc itself lists deleted scenes for episodes 7, 8, 9, and 10. Is this what you're talking about? Or is there another section? LuckyLouie 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a 'deleted scenes' umm... 'reel' or whatever you might call it for all 10 of the episodes in Season one on each of the three discs. You can actually see lots of these at scifi.com. (You can also see lots of the season two extras there, before they are on DVD). Yes, there are some non-paranormal related bonus scenes like coaxing vertigo-suffering Steve to go on a lift. But there is also longer clips of their evidence as well as more insight into many investigations. --Ira-welkin 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what context would you like to put this information into the article. I made a suggestion, above, otherwise I cannot think of one. VX 04:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ira, I don't have a lot of time for this right now, but perhaps you could make a list of the extra scenes? My concern is that a short sentence saying "the DVD contains unedited versions of the edvidence of activity, often in multiple speeds and zoom sizes" might be slightly misleading, unless there is a LOT more than just multiple angles of Frank The Soundman's fall. But a short, punchy paragraph describing both the "fun" stuff and the "evidence" stuff in the DVD may be good for the article. And this brings up a thought I've been ruminating about recently. I realize the article must be NPOV, but in its present form, it comes across as a dry, clinical, quasi-scientific documentary about people in white lab coats taking measurements. Read it over. I mean, really read it. The entertainment aspect of the show has been completely lost. And in that respect, it's not a truthful article. What about the kooky, human side of the gang? The tiara-wearing? The "dude run"? The matching caps and coats? Brian's resignation and rehire? Steve's phobias? We have failed to describe 1/2 of what this show is all about. If this can be done without making it sound like an ad promoting the show, I think a stab at it should be attempted. Opinions? Please bear in mind I am not "the leader" here in this discussion. My opinion is just my opinion. I'd like to hear what others think. Let's discuss. LuckyLouie 04:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the human, funny side has been completly lost. And I really don't think huge detail about what's in the DVD is important, I was just kind of describing it in depth here so you would know what it is really like. I think over the next day or two I could consider some passages, place some of my wordings here first and see what is said. --Ira-welkin 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we needed to get dry about it. It was confused previously. This is just part of the process--just take a stab at it; it will be edited forever. This is what wikipedia is about--too bad there are fans of the show who've been saying negative things about the validity of wikipedia articles--this article is definitely accurrate, at this point.  I look forward to reading what you come up with. At this point I'm not sure about what you mean, but I'll wait to see. ;)--VX 06:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD Section?