Talk:Goosebumps

Mass Deletion of articles for each indivual book

As a fan of the series from the past, I intend to fill in a lot of the pages with meaningful content. Right now, I am in the process of adding pictures of book covers as well as infoboxes to the books that I've owned since childhood. Eventually, I plan on re-reading the books and adding summaries to their prospective pages. My personal collection is limited to 26 books from the original series. If anyone else has information regarding these books that they'd like to add, I would encourage the use of the infobox book template. I have already completed the infobox for the first book in the series, Welcome To Dead House. I agree that some of the articles seem pointless, but this page would be far too long if summaries would be placed here. For the time being, I will concentrate on expanding the pages of the individual books. --Ravensfan5252 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work, Raven. For the record, I think it'd be better for a scan or Amazon picture rather than a photograph.--CyberGhostface 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too, i have almost ALL the books i only need like 5 more to complete the first series that ran from 1992 to 1998 Ace Fighter.

I'll help you add the infoboxes and templates. Ok? Shindo9Hikaru 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

well guys i have all of em so if u need help just leave a message and ill see if i can look it up.I am Paranoid 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, some of the book's articles are really short. Useight 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the ghostwritten ones?

Is there a list of the ghostwritten ones? --mwazzap 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There are no ghostwritten Goosebumps book, but all Ghosts Of Fear Street books (under R.L. Stine's name) are ghostwritten. (This reply is to inform everybody, since I doubt that this user will read it).Schuym1 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: How do we actually know which books, of any R.L. Stine series, are ghostwritten or not? Do you have a source with this information? (All I'd heard was that it was known some Fear Street books were ghostwritten, and all else was speculation.) 86.136.156.205 (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vague line

Some consider it the Harry Potter of the early 1990s. Who said that? I don't see how it resembles Harry Potter in any way. It wasn't near as popular (I know several other equally popular kids shows from the early 90's) and it was another genre, and another medium. Can someone clarify? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 15:27, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

It was a series of books and its genre is essentially the same (fantastic fiction).

The line probably relates Goosebumps to Harry Potter's popularity and controversy. The Goosebumps series wasn't as popular, but kids in the United States really soaked them up. I remember my teacher (and others at my school) discouraged/banned them from reading assignments because these were the only books some kids would read. Similarly to Harry Potter, many bans were probably related to its subject matter. --Mrwojo 14:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still it seems odd to compare it to Harry Potter when it has had nowhere near the impact as HP did. Besides, "Some" isn't really a reliable source. Does anyone have a suggestion for a somewhat more accurate line that could describe its popularity. We might want to add that it was primarily popular in the US, for example, although the TV show is quite popular in the Netherlands and Belgium. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 16:48, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

True; it should probably be removed unless fixed. The assertion that it's like HP must be more specific and should be supported by facts instead of weasel words. --Mrwojo 23:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Come on! "Goosebumps" was in the Guinness Book of World Records for the best selling children's series of all time (at least until Harry Potter), so you can't really say that it wasn't "that" popular.

HP's 6 or less books (forgot how many were written before they beat the record) outsold Goosebump's 62; also, as a "series" goes, they rarely had continuing characters or storylines, and were pretty much only a series due to an umbrella title "Goosebumps" and (reputedly) the same author. There is no comparison, really. 68.248.6.164 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Goosebumps

I have got some other goosebumps books that don't fit into this, like Goosebumps Scaredy Caps Special, the Special Editions and Goosebumps Triple Header. Should they be mentioned or categorized etc.?--GingerM 18:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone probably should. I won't though, because this is something that I haven't had experience in for a while. Optichan 00:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Night of the living dummy article created

Thought I'd let whoever edits this know that an article on Goosebumps:_Night_Of_The_Living_Dummy has been created. It's in a very poor state, and I tagged it for cleanup, as a stub, and so on. I thought if someone wants to clean it up, it might be appropriate to link it from here, since according to this article it was the author's favorite Goosebumps book. -- SCZenz 08:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That article is redundant. We already have Night Of The Living Dummy. Any relevant info should be merged there. Never mind. Goosebumps:_Night_Of_The_Living_Dummy actually predates Night Of The Living Dummy, and the latter is about the entire Slappy series. I suppose we can keep both articles, but I agree, they both need some cleanup. Zagalejo 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Night Of The Living Dummy

I created that night of the living dummy article and I am offended that you would say such things about it.

Don't take this stuff personally; it's just constructive criticism. Zagalejo 00:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Goosebumps in other languages

Not all spanish speaking countries translated Goosebumps as Escalofríos. In Spain it was translated as Pesadillas (that means Nightmares). The information in the article is inaccurate, but I don't know exactly how to write it propperly.--62.43.237.98 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also in Hebrew it's more like "Shiver" rather than Goose-bumps. Goosebumps is usually translated "duck skin" עור ברווז. Should I replace it with Shiver? I don't know if duck skin is the formal translation but it's the common name for the phenomena of the skin turning dotty when it's cold (hair is raised to catch hot air is the explanation to the phenomena I was always given). --89.139.48.67 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you know more about the non-English translations than the present page, go ahead and change it. There's no problem so long as you know what you're talking about it. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the Goldbook Goosebumps?

I remember reading up on a few things and I noticed that R.L.Stine was going to make a Goosebumps goldbook. Once again those were also banned. Shouldn't there be a section for that here? ~*~Punk18~*~

I don't recall the Goldbooks ever being published???--CyberGhostface 00:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I mean, they stopped those books from being published----Punk18

I don't think it was 'banned', its just that Goosebumps was no longer profitable...if you recall ,near the end, the sales had seriously plummeted. Goosebumps has been been banned in schools before, but never by Scholastic itself.--CyberGhostface 00:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I heard about the sales figures. Pretty sad really. It really looked like R.L.Stine was trying to bring back Goosebumps. I wonder what'd happy if he did.--Punk18

Why it ended?

Shouldn't there be a section for why Goosebumps was suddenly stopped?----Punk18

Nothing major...R. L. Stine's contract ended, and they decided not to renew it. Interesting factoid is that the sales plummeted yet they were obligated to keep on publishing it, so when the series was finally over Scholastic was doing pretty poor financially. If it wasn't for Harry Potter it'd be off a lot worse.--CyberGhostface 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was because of the parents, who made libraries ban it.Punk18

Considering the amount that libraries pay to authors, I'd imagine that it wouldn't have made any significant difference --82.44.114.101 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sales

How many copies of these books were sold worldwide?

Banned

Why was this banned? KinseyLOL 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

because some stupid people thought it was too scary Sir Robert Castellano 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this not explained in the article? ~ Hibana 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

no information about goosebumps gold?

i know it was cancelled but ive seen on amazon that some are in production. any information where they are or anything?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.154.78 (talk • contribs)

None were made.--CyberGhostface 13:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

but i read that some people have them because they were made before they were cancelled and than they never got released again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.154.78 (talk • contribs)

Really? Sources?--CyberGhostface 00:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

well amazon had a page about slappy new year and the haunted mask lives with reviews from people and they arent there anymore so i cant give sources sorry :( crap i wanna read them http://www.thebookplace.co.uk/bookplace/display.asp?ISB=0007104634 and http://www.whsmith.co.uk/whs/Go.asp?isbn=0007104634&shop=26985&tduid=d5310bfc393326c21d25a847ccfae216&affId=935910 dont know if they are true but maybe.

any comments?

Try ordering a book if you want. But I noticed of how both of them have are out of stock.--CyberGhostface 14:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Fan Sites?

Are there any good fan sites for the Goosebumps series?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry 4k (talk • contribs)

Not really.--CyberGhostface 20:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How Many?

I'm not quite sure how many Goosebumps books there were. I know its a very high number, and considering each book was roughly 100 pages, Stein must've been busy. Also it didn't seem to follow any series, but were random horror stories under the same title. FinalWish 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Goosebumps books

Would it be a good idea to merge that article here? Neither one is that big. Madman Marz 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an idea, granted, but I don't think it's a good one. It's just that people seem to like it better with both separated, not to mention the many people who have protested the merge. Mack-the-random 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Goosebumps Series 2000

Goosebumps Series 2000 links to this page. Doesn't it have its own article?

No it doesnt have an article of it'sown.it would be great if someone were to write one.-Vmrgrsergr 05:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Font Title

What font did R.L. Stine used to make the title of the logo? --  Boogster  Go!  04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

French Title

In Canadian French, the translation is Chair de Poule (literally "hen flesh", the French phrase for goose bumps). I think we should remove the word Canadian because it is also known under the same title in France/Belgium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.181.59 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Scholarly Review"

This section is very dubious. First it is added by an IP user and deleted. Then User: Jonamatt‎, most likly the same IP user that added the section in the first place, reverts the deletion, with the edit summary: Overrulled edit because article was not infact an infringment upon copyright. Submitted by origonal writer; hence, no copyright infringment. It was then removed again because it was unreferenced and original research. It has been added back, deleted, and added back again. The "cited" sources only refer to Goosebumps page numbers and do not support any of the claims in the text. User: Jonamatt‎ can't or doesn't want to understand that this original research doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please discuss. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Natureboy, I understand why you have deleted this post over and over. I must say that when the article was first posted it was done so by a member of the Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society (SGAS). I, the author of the writing, reposted it from my account. I have included a citation for the article. In my defence, the guidelines to posting research do state "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." I think that the citation I included should make this review appropriate, but if it is not let me know and I will be glad to fix it once again.

Sincerely, Jonathan Mattox President of the Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What citation? The only citations you have included are for pages to the original books. They don't support anything that is said in the article. It also uses a number of dubious/weasel words. For instance, the series is "respected by notable critics." What critics? In other words, prove it. The entier section sounds like a joke (no offence, if it is sincere). It also uses the first person: "I say children's writing not out of my own opinion but out of other's", which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Your opinion (OR) and other's... WHO?

Also, don't forget to sign your posts with -~~~~ -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Any notion whatsoever that the Goosebumps series has any merit other than a quick scare has to be one of the most laughable things I have ever heard. There is no citation in this "scholarly" part because there is no scholar to support it. This section should be continuously deleted. Good luck NatureBoyMD. Macman202 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section; it was heavily weighted towards praise for the books, which failed to meet neutral point of view, and as a synthesis of information that appeared to be based on an article in a publication that does not appear to be notable (it receives no Google hits when I look for it, which a notable publication would be rather likely to do), appeared to be original research which is not allowable. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

TonyFox,

It is quite obvious to me that you do not have much of an understanding of the components of literary review, if any at all. If you think that an analysis of a book is "weighted towards praise" by definition, you are seriously mistaken. Adressing the themes and symbols of a book does not mean the writing is slanted. If there were any "peackcock" words, they were replaced before you deleted the article. I will review this article again to make sure I did not miss any words that you could construe as "praise." If you delete this article again, I will submit a vandalism report to Wikipedia.

--Jonamatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Phrases such as "Serious viewers observe Goosebumps to enjoy it's complex themes and masterfully formulated plots," "There are many amazing Goosebumps episodes," and others are rife with peacock phrases; they were present in the version I removed. The entire section was a distillation of personal viewpoints, and is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article; as I state above, the section was inadequately sourced, as well. If you have properly sourced information that may be of use to the article, you're more than free to add it in; however, I'd advise against continuing to insert personal opinions. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that user Jonamatt isn't serious. There's absolutely no way. Macman202 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

NatureBoyMD, Macman202, Tony Fox:

I have considered your disrespectful comments towards my Scholarly Review article and, now that the Christmas holidays are over, I am obliged to let my anger with your remarks be known. I shall start with you, NatureBoyMD. NatureBoyMD, you reffered to my article as dubious. This is ironic, considering that you as a person are quite dubious. When I read your opinions of my article, I scoff at you. Your argument is so ill founded that I cannot even take you seriously. It is quite obvious to me, and all the memembers of the SGAS, that your dissatisfaction with the page citations is not an indication of the article's "dubiousness", but rather an indication of your ignorance of Goosebumps and literature in general. If you think people need a citation as to where the camera in Say Cheese and Die came from,, then you need to understand what is common knowledge and not. For instance, If i were to write that the sky is blue, or that the earth is round, or that MACman202 has no idea what he is talking about, most reasonably intelligent humans would agree with such widely known facts. Such is the same for Goosebumps and R.L. Stine. When I say that the plots "are masterfully formulated" or imply that R.L. Stine is brilliant, the majority of people recognize that the two statements are widely known facts. As for you MACman202, any notion what so ever that you have the ability to recognize fine literature "has to be one of the most laughable things I have ever heard" (NatureBoy, I included quotations in the last quote so that you, always one to want a citation for the obvious, will know that I quote this MACman202 himself). MacMan, it is quite bold of you to assume that there is so scholar behind my article. Perhaps you should stick to editing the Simon and Garfunkel page on wikipedia. I am sure you are quite familiar with it already. Tony Fox, you and NatureBoyMD seem to be on the same page as far as your inability to recognize common knowledge is concerned. To me it seems that you label anything you do not agree with as a "peacock term." I find this most repulsive, as I, like most free thinking, intelligent people believe that speech should not be censored because someone does not agree with it. You can take comfort in the fact that you are not the only one guilty of this unjust censorhip. MACman202 and NatureBoy are just as guilty. Each of you should devote, as I have, your mind to understanding the beauty and brilliance of Goosebumps. When you feel that you have researched Goosebumps as much as I have (it is very unlikely that you ever will) then you may suggest alterations to my scholarly review. Until then, your comments are not welcome, and they certainly will not be tolerated any longer.

Sincerely,

The Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society

Goosebumps Horrorland article

I just discovered Wikipedia had this article, which I don't believe is linked anywhere on the other Goosebumps pages. Do you think it should be merged, or will the HorrorLand books be notable enough to have their own page? (At any rate, I'll go expand it to include the information recently dug up on the series.) Note: It should be HorrorLand, though, with a capital L - that's how it appears on the covers.

Fair use rationale for Image:Goosebumpscastwithstine.PNG

Image:Goosebumpscastwithstine.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a primary topic for the page heading of goosebumps. "Goosepump" is another spelling of "goose bump" (see wiktionary), and "Goosebumps" should be redirected to "Goose bump". There is a disambiguation page at "Goose bumps (disambiguation)" Snowman (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

quite a few articles currently link to Goosebumps; probably in the expectation of finding the current content there. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

They can be redirected. It is not the primary topic for "goosebumps". Snowman (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That redirection would need to be accomplished by individually editing each one of those articles, right? Or is there a bot which can do the editing? Perhaps everyone except me has already considered this; if that's the case, excuse me for pointing out a non-issue. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bots do redirect links. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps this move request was not meant to imply that Goosebumps should redirect to Goose bumps. I see that nothing links to Goose bumps (disambiguation); that disamb page could be moved to Goosebumps to obviate the need for the above-mentioned editing. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My request is to move this page to "Goosebumps (stories)" and then "Goosebumps" be redirected to "Goose bumps (disambiguation)". I think that "Goose bumps" is the more widely used than "Goosebumps", because the article on skin is at "Goose bumps". It is an aim that all disambiguation should pages have few links going to them (ie all the links are linked to the correct article pages). Snowman (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "Goosebumps (stories)"; the terminology seems a little... well, inexpert? I'd normally expect to see something like "Goosebumps (horror novellas)", but that would be a bit clunky. "Goosebumps (fiction)" might be better, but I'm no expert at Wikipedia's preferred naming conventions. While this may not be the primary topic for "goosebumps", how do you know that most people searching for Goosebumps on Wikipedia are looking for the pimples rather than Stine's horror stories? (Especially if the two are spelt differently, "Goosebumps" vs. "Goose bumps".) Isn't there a Wikipedia tool for determining the number of page views within a certain period of time? 86.136.156.205 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Goosebumps (fiction)" is probably a better name. "Goosebumps" on skin can also be spelled "Goose bumps"; see Wiktionary. The previous editor here was not logged in. Snowman (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the convention would make it "Goosebumps (series)" or "Goosebumps (novella series)", etc. But I think this page should stay where it is. You might like to note that the Dictionary.com entry is under "goose flesh" - not "gooseflesh", which is a secondary term as is "goose bumps", and "goosebumps" isn't listed on that page at all. So it seems that "goosebumps" is a minor secondary term for the skin phenomenon, whereas "Goosebumps" is the only term used by the series. Also, I don't know about a Wikipedia tool, but there is an external tool for seeing how many page views a specific article has had: http://stats.grok.se/ According to which, during April, Goosebumps received 41684 hits, while goose bumps received 12144 hits. Even if you presume that all of those looking for goose bumps first came to Goosebumps (possible, but unlikely) that means that 29540 of Goosebumps's 41684 hits are genuine, which is more than twice the hits of goose bumps. So personally I don't see any reason to move and redirect. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary has "goosebumps" and "goose bumps". I do not know what locality your dictionary is for. "Goosebumps" and "goose bumps" are widely used throughout the world for the skin bumps. These are commonly used terms in the English language and the exact number of hits per page is a secondary consideration. I think that most people would expect "goosebumps" or "goose bumps" to mean the skin bumps and the vast majority of people would not have even heard of it referring to books. Presumably, the books are named after the skin bumps. Clearly the skin bumps is the original meaning of the word from which the name of the series of books is named after. It would be bizarre to have the books as the primary topic, which were named after the skin bumps. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was considered best for precedence to go to the most-used or best-known term; if more people come looking for the Goosebumps books than the little skin bumps, it makes sense for the little skin bumps to play second fiddle. That and the little skin bumps have alternative names (goose bumps, gooseflesh, goosepimples, goose flesh, goose pimples), which the books don't. And it's not like Goosebumps, the books, were unknown; they were massive, and may well be undergoing a revival now thanks to the new Goosebumps HorrorLand series (I guess there'd be sales figures available in a few months, but that's probably besides the point). You could probably make an argument that the books are more important or more significant, or more notable, than the little skin bumps; they're copyrighted, they're famous, they're a cultural reference point, they make (well, made) a lot of money. This probably really comes across like I hate the idea of the page moving, but it'd be more accurate to say I think it's not worth the fuss. There doesn't really seem to be a problem. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but, as we know, Wiktionary can be edited by anyone! ;) (I believe Dictionary.com is American, but it searches several dictionaries so I can't be sure.) As to whether it would be "bizarre" to have the books as the primary topic, perhaps we should refer to WP:PRIMARYUSAGE which says: "this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings". So, I think the the number of hits does count. Also, if you look at the number of internal links to these articles, Goosebumps has 293 while goose bumps has 58. (Admittedly, some of the links to Goosebumps may be a result of people not checking their target, but I did look at the list and couldn't see any that were obviously wrong; all of the scientific-sounding ones are linking to goose bumps.) It seems to me that the books are the most commonly searched for, looked at and talked about of the two meanings. Maybe the majority of people haven't heard of the books - but the majority of people using Wikipedia seem to be more interested in the books than the skin bumps. You say that the skin bumps should be the primary topic, because they came first, but I don't think that's necessarily right. As an example: if one person was named after another, would that mean the first of them had more claim to the name than the second, regardless of notability? Even though the skin bumps precede the books, I think that the fact that more people seem to want to read about the books is more important. So, sorry, but I still see no reason to move this article. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• My spell checker accepts both "goosebumps" and "goose bumps", lots of websites use "goosebumps" for skin bumps - like this one. All this is inline with the Wiktionary, which seems to be correct with "goosebumps" and "goose bumps" being both used for the skin bumps. Goosebumps and goose bumps are both widely used in the English language for the skin bumps, and so skin bumps should be the primary topic. Use for the stories is a rather specialized use of goosebumps, perhaps used by fans of the books, which are fully represented on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Goosebumps (fiction) sounds like it might mean "fictional occurrences of the skin bumps called goosebumps". Goosebumps (horror novellas) seems clear and short enough. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that by Wikipedia:Use common sense "Goosebumps (horror novellas)" is a good new descriptive name for the page. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, shouldn't it be something like "Goosebumps (horror franchise)"? Because this page also acts as a hub for the graphic novels, the TV series, and eventually the movie. And we should really put up a short section for the computer games, too. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Here in England the skin bumps are often called "gooseflesh". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also live in England, and while I don't recall anyone using "gooseflesh," those that used "goosebumps" almost certainly did so because of the book series. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We use "Goosebumps" in the midlands of England for the skin bumps. I do not recall anyone using "gooseflesh" for the skin, but I would understand what they meant by context. Perhaps the exact usage is by locality, but I am sure that the history of the word "goosebumps" for skin goes back further than the books. Snowman (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, I'm not saying that the books invented the word "Goosebumps" (if it had, that'd be a pretty lame name), just that whenever I heard it used it was often with a conscious reference to the book series. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you logged in. I guess that if an individual is a goosebumps fan, then their friends may be also. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just an IP editor; I can't log in. In much the same way as there are plenty of registered vandals on Wikipedia, there are also positive contributors who continue to be unregistered. And like I said, it's not like Goosebumps was unknown; the series was huge. You could probably still say Goosebumps to a lot of people, and the books would be the first thing they'd think of - although that'd be original research. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• That seems to be speculative only. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This gives "me the goosebumps", and it is giving "me the goose bumps". The former version goosebumps has about 3 times as many hits, indicating that this spelling is used in the saying about the skin condition rather than literature named after it. So let's move Goose bumps to Goose bumps (skin), Goosebumps to Goosebumps (horror/novella/series/franchise), and redirect both spelling variants to Goose bumps (disambiguation) or Goosebumps (disambiguation). -- Matthead  Discuß   08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that is entirely logical and better than the current situation. I just wonder if "goosebumps" about the skin bumps is the primary topic, so the page about the skin bumps can be called "Goosebumps", and "Goose bumps" be a link to "Goosebumps". The "Goosebumps" page would, of course, have a signpost header pointing to the dab page. If there is not a primary topic, then the dab page can be called "Goosebumps" (with a redirect to it from the alternative spelling) and the pages for skin bumps and horror books be named as you suggest. Both ways, if there the skin bumps page is a primary topic or not, this page is moved. Snowman (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're looking at Goosebumps (disambiguation), Goosebumps (horror franchise), and Goose bumps (skin). But would Goose bumps redirect to Goose bumps (skin) or Goosebumps (disambiguation)? I suggest the former; people searching for Goose bumps probably aren't thinking of the book series. Ditto Gooseflesh and Goose flesh. (It's debateable whether "goosebumps" or "goose bumps" is the primary name for the skin bumps, but I really think we'd be better off assuming the latter - like it is now.) Also, we'd probably need to get a bot in to convert all the links on other pages. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowman, you ask if the skin bumps are the primary topic - no, they're not. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a Wikipedia guideline, the things that can indicate the status of a primary topic are:

1. That it has the most incoming links from other Wikipedia articles.
2. That it is more commonly searched for and read.

These are not true of the skin bumps; they are true of the books, as I showed above. (The skin bumps had 58 incoming links, the books had 293. Likewise the skin bumps had 12144 visitors during April, the books had 41684.) So I think Wikipedia guidelines support this page remaining where it is. As far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong) your reasoning for wanting this page moved is that the skin bumps is a well-known real life topic, whereas the books are a more "specialised" pop culture topic. If it were true that more people were interested in the skin bumps in the context of Wikipedia then I would have no problem with this page move, however:

1. The skin bumps are more widely known, but there aren't that many people wanting to read and write about them on Wikipedia.
2. The books are known by fewer people, but there are more people wanting to read and write about them on Wikipedia.

You seem to be judging this issue of the first part of each of those points (the number of people who have heard of these subjects), whereas I am judging it on the second (how people actually use Wikipedia). And I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supports my position. After all, why shouldn't people's usage of Wikipedia determine how easy Wikipedia is for them to use? It seems like common sense to me. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: Regardless of whether this page gets moved or not, I don't think goose bumps should be moved to goose bumps (skin). "Goose bumps" has never referred to the books, the TV series or anything else in the franchise; the only possible meaning for "goose bumps" is the skin bumps. There's no confusion there. If you type in "goose bumps", you're looking for goose bumps!

I looked at the online Oxford English Dictionary "goosebumps" links to "goose, n." and under meaning "8a ...goose bumps N. Amer. = GOOSE-FLESH..." the citations it gives are:

:1933 C. MILLER Lamb in Bosom xi. 148 She rubbed down the skin of her arms and legs where *goose-bumps stood on every pore as though it were cold weather. 1968 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. XLIX. 17 Goose bumps..seems to be replacing both goose flesh and goose pimples. 1970 Washington Post 30 Sept. D3/1, I no longer get goose~bumps before a game.

OED "'goose-flesh', gooseflesh" meaning 2. "A rough, pimply condition of the skin resembling that of a plucked goose, produced by cold, fear, etc.; horripilation." the citations given are:

:?1810 COLERIDGE Lit. Rem. (1839) IV. 342 The very term by which the German New-Birthites express it is enough to give one goose-flesh. 1868 BROWNING Ring & Bk. VIII. 282 This cold day!.. Guido must be all goose-flesh in his hole. 1876 DUHRING Dis. Skin 29 The condition known as cutis anserina, or goose-flesh. 1880 BROWNING Clive 192 The memory of that moment makes goose-flesh rise!

So it seems that in British English as with most similar words eg "south east", "goose bumps" is not usually concatenated.

Wikipedia should be optimised for readers over editors and defiantly over bots! Therefore the argument about disambiguation pages are easier for bots is a not relevant. For readers if they search on "goosebumps" the Wikipedia:Hatnote takes care of it with one extra click if they meant "goose bumps". So given the OED uses "goose bumps", that there is not a clear consensus among interested editors involved in this discussion to move the page, and no clear guideline reason to move the page, I am closing this request as no consensus to move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)