This Page Is Unfinished and Subject To More Edit
| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ectopedia. |
Dan |
|---|
The account Ectopedia was created Saturday, January 26th, 2008, with the intent to remodel a fair amount of the Ghostbusters pages. I also joined to learn how to use Wikipedia's software, since I have heard so much about it. I hope I can contribute a lot to this site and also learn a bit about putting nice webpages together.
Editing History and Plans
editThis section contains what I have edited and what I plan to edit and why. I am extraordinarily specific because I will refer back to this to assist myself in my own editing process.
Thus far I have only edited the Bill Plympton article about the short video called Your Face. I added a significant amount of information which I am proud to say has stayed there for many months. However, I made the edit it long before the creation of this account. The information I added regarded pieces of how the video was put together and a short explanation of the meaning of the short film. Though it was my interpretation, it has stayed there for a long time, indicating to me that it is considered a fairly accurate opinion. This, I am proud of.
The Ghostbusters article used to be a very accurate, nicely put together article, but due to a recent series of events (and the promotion of the new videogame, Ghostbusters: The Video Game), the articles have fallen victim to the editing of many fans, which was nearly vandal in its results, for a lot of valuable information was lost in the process. The Ghostbusters article leaves much to be desired, like the phenomenon it has created amongst fans and its origin.
The characters previously had very detailed descriptions and even trivia that is very hard to obtain. The Wikipedia Ghostbusters articles used to be very thrilling resources and have now been trimmed down to obvious bits of common knowledge that anyone could have easily interpreted simply by viewing the film. This had saddened me very greatly, and I wish to restore the character articles to their former glory. I also wish to reorganize a bit of how the articles have been placed.
First and foremost, the character pages are improperly labeled. Their titles are simply just their names, while it is fairly well known that the characters are doctors. There is also information that suggests that even Winston Zeddemore is a doctor who also obtained a Ph.D. The references to them throughout the articles (Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters (franchise), etc.) are inconsistent. There are great structural errors to the articles which I wish to rearrange and edit. This will be a very complicated and time-consuming operation.
Because I do not have all of the time in the world, the editing of these pages may occur slowly, and just sections at a time.
This is the point where I will note that the quotes on all of the character pages are unnecessary, and I think should be removed. I supposed each of them could have their memorable quote, but half of the article consisting of quotes is a waste of space when everyone knows that Ghostbusters has its own page on Wikiquote. I also believe the trivia sections leave much to be desired.
Dr. Peter Venkman's article is already a mess grammatically, and is in much need of repairs. I think simply rearranging much of the information on this page would greatly assist readers. Here I quote a very difficult piece that even starts early on the page that I plan to reconstruct grammatically.
Born in Brooklyn, New York, Peter is one of three doctors of parapsychology on the team, though he also holds a PhD in psychology. In the movies, he is characterized by his flippant persona, his lackadaisical approach to his profession, and his womanizing demeanor; of the three doctors in the Ghostbusters, he is the least committed to the academic and scientific side of their profession, and tends to regard his field, in the words of his employer in the first film, as "a dodge or hustle". However, he possesses more savvy and street-smarts than either Ray Stantz or Egon Spengler.
It also to me seems a bit casual, and the fact that these are informational articles calls for a bit more formality in the way they are written. His comparison to the other characters is also a bit bland and leaves much to be desired.
Now, there is a section to the right of the screen featuring an image of Bill Murray portraying the character and then some information listed in subcategories regarding details of the character. In this section, it claims that Peter Venkman's occupation is a scientist and Ghostbuster. As a Ghostbuster, his occupation would be accurate, but it would also be accurate to call him a paranormal investigator, but Dr. Peter Venkman was no longer a paid scientist as soon as he and his colleagues were kicked out of the college which had previously funded their studies.
His living location is listed simply as Manhattan, but his living location is actually more specific than that. In the first film, the Ghostbusters were living in the firehouse for a short time, then they spread to live in their own places when they practically went out of business. To be specific about this is nearly impossible, but in any case, calling his living location his "address" would be inaccurate. It is safer to say the film takes place in Manhattan, and not to specify where the characters live.
Peter's religion is not specified. None of the characters are known for going to church. We simply know who is not Christian, which I will describe below.
Peter's article is smeared with personal interpretation and bias. I think it needs more stuff that just talks about the facts. The character article is ridiculously short and leaves much to be desired.moooo
Again, a mess grammatically. I hate to be so critical, but these articles weren't put together by experienced writers. This is why I plan to take the information they have given and restructure it in a manner that is far easier to understand.