Talk:Goosebumps (original series)

Merge Discussion

As per WP:PLOT, the non-notable book articles should be merged into this article. I have tried to find reliable sources, but at the fast rate these books was published there is simply no reliable sources to build an article for each book. d'oh! _talk 15:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that sources for non-plot related content are hard to find or non-existent, but to put all of the information and details found on the individual books' articles would take a lot of time, not to mention make Goosebumps (Original series) a very long article, which could create an issue with WP:LENGTH. I'm not sure if dividing them up chronologically (i.e. "Goosebumps (Original series 1-20), or something) would be proper or advisable, but to put all 62 books with their plot descriptions and infobox info on one article could pose an issue. EW_ikist^Talk 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There not much to merge to create a long article anyways as the plots are too long as per WP:PLOTSUM and the infoboxes are not needed. I have already merged "Attack of the Mutant", so you can see what it will look like. d'oh! _talk 00:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! I knew the plots could definitely be condensed, and the infobox stuff was included quite well. The only thing that I can think of that could be missing is the book covers, but I think we can find a way to include them. EW_ikist^Talk 17:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The article actually looks good with them all merged together. But what about the goosebumps 2000 series. All of the books from that series have articles for them. Are you going to merge them into an article like you have done with the original goosebumps series or what? To have all of the goosebumps series 2000 books have an article on them and not the original goosebumps books is pretty dumb, as the original goosebumps series were more popular than the 2000 ones. Thanks. RevolutionBeastManDK (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all books for each series will be merged, if there is no objections on this merge. d'oh! _talk 09:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have no objections. What about the covers of the books, though? Are you going to include them? RevolutionBeastManDK (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no space to put them, they will not be included. But I do think a section on the book covers with one book cover as an example should be included on this article. d'oh! _talk 09:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should merge the other books since I like each book with it's own info. --Hello, I'm a Wikipedian! (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a merge case per WP:Plot, go for it, if anyone is still thinking about merging it. Sadads (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, these should all be unmerged, by which I mean, the various articles for each book should be restored.  allixpeeke (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The Haunted Mask

I think that this book/episode is notable enough for its own article.

Reasons:

1. It has many reviews, sources etc., more than any other Goosebumps book (I think I've found hundreds of sources, will list later). These include some positive and negative outlooks on this book.
2. R. L. Stine says it is one of his favourite Goosebumps books[1], and is his only story based on based on actual events [2].
3. It is said to be one of the most popular[3], and arguably the most famous Goosebumps book[4].
4. This book was in the USATODAY's top 150 best-selling books for 43 weeks, holding a peak position of 107. Search for the "Haunted Mask".
5. First Goosebumps episode released, making it more notable to many people.
6. For the year 1996, the episode was 75th in sales in total, 12th for kids, more than any Goosebumps episode for that year[5].
7. There are two published sequels to this book, and one that was planned to be published but never was[6]. Most Goosebumps books don't have sequels, and this shows that this book had to be popular amongst fans.

Any comments? Fearstreetsaga (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, as long as the sources are reliable and the reviews are done by a professional. -- d'oh! _[talk] 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this source acceptable? [7]. It lists The Haunted Mask as the best Goosebumps books. The person who wrote it is a writer from Associated Content. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no editorial overview and the website does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, it can not be used as a source. -- d'oh! _[talk] 08:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thought so. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

One Day At HorrorLand

This book deserves an article:

1. It had a sequel in Series 2000

2. Spun-off it's own series title Goosebumps HorrorLand which has three arcs, and two websites: [8] (closed) and [9]

3. It was turned into two video games

4. It is part of the Classic series

5. The novella sold more than 700,000 copies [10]

I mean, The Haunted Mask and The Werewolf of Fever Swamp got articles, why can't this one? --Hello, I'm a Wikipedian! (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the book's notable (due to the video games, TV show and series). Feel free to make it, but consider finding reviews from sources about the book and adding them, or it may just be redirected. Oh yea, and make sure they're reliable (almost made the mistake recreating the Haunted Mask article, I managed to find a review in that case + more info). Fearstreetsaga (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent name change

@In ictu oculi:: Can you revert the name back to "original series"? You can start the RM if you wish, but there are novellas under the same name, like Goosebumps Series 2000, Goosebumps HorrorLand, and Goosebumps. Alternatively, after changing the name back, what about redirecting "(novella series)" to Goosebumps instead? --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Classic Goosebumps" isn't a thing

The reissue series that started in 2008 with new artwork and bonus features does NOT include the word "classic" anywhere on the books themselves. They're simply branded "Goosebumps". The "classic" terminology may be something that Amazon or another retailer made up. I recommend scrubbing it from the article and just mentioning that some of the books were reprinted beginning in 2008. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)