Talk:Proton pack

Cleanup

 * This article is in need of a good cleanup/rewrite. Right now, it reads too much like a fan article, not necessarly encylopedic. Information on the fictional tech specs might be a bit much, or just trimmed down. The quote from GB2 is also a bit much. We don't want the Wiki to be a big fan page, but the subject of the article itself is worthy of addition. Reverend Raven 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to clean it up and move the majority of the information towards the factual side of the "real" props as opposed to movie quotes and cartoon information. There is plenty of information to add, but how much is considered too much? 00:09, 21 May 2007 User:Hdv84
 * I split Proton pack off again from Ghostbusters (franchise), as the editor was complaining that Ghostbusters (franchise) had got too big. I pake the text alterations that happened while it was part of Ghostbusters (franchise). Anthony Appleyard 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut down some unnecessary and redundant text from the article, slimming it by about three sentences. I also added the photo box to the top right of the page to give the page better composition and reference. April 27, 2010

Light housecleaning
I removed the links to words like "metal", "plastic", "time", "weight" and "black". Apparently, someone felt it necessary to link to articles that included colors and common materials. I find it highly irritating, and removed the superfluous ones. Jparenti (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Background and design
There has been concern that this topic is not discussed in any detail in real world sources. In addresing this issue, we need first consider that fan-sites of the series discuss the device in great detail at http://www.studiocreations.com/howto/gb_protonpack/index.html Studio Creations] and Instructabes and GB Fans where Ghostbuster fans are instructed on how to design his own proton pack prop. Though unsuitable for notability, through the topic having a fan-base, we might consider these for descriptives.

History: DIY pack fabricators

 * I removed:

"The original Ghostbusters fandom website was started by a Bill Emkow in January of 1996. Soon after, Norman Gagnon (aka “Paranorman”) joined Emkow in the development of his website including selling Ghostbusters related collectibles. Paranorman expanded from selling GB merchandise to creating the first and original DIY proton pack drawings/plans for the community, to be utilized by all prop making enthusiast, for free.  He finalized his plans and released them in 2001 as Version #4. Paranorman’s, via his prop shop (Façade FX), also scratch built proton pack, ghost trap and ecto-goggle replicas since the late 1990s and have served over 50+ units to Ghostheads around the world, even to George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic personnel! In addition, Gagnon was the technical adviser and fabricator (hero prop) of the new arm-mounted Neutrino Blaster in Hank Braxtan’s fan film ‘Return of the Ghostbusters’ 2007. The term “Ghostheads” was also coined by him in July 3, 1996. Norman Gagnon devised his screen name “Paranorman” for Emkow’s GB message board in ‘96 as well."

"Proton cannon" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Proton cannon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AldezD (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Restore removed information regarding the details of the real prop, materials, how it was made and changed through the movies etc.
We need to reintroduce the information deleted by 2.222.64.214. We added said information about the making of the prop, one of the single most iconic props of all time and one of the most replicated, because of concerns that there were no such info. Then this person comes along, not even being logged in, and delete it all for “not belonging on an encyclopaedia.” First off, this person should have checked to see what others had said before hand, secondly it is relevant information due to the nature of the iconic status of the prop. It did need more sourcing however. Luka1184 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, is that passage OR and un(der)sourced! It does seem worth saving, but can it be saved? Right now, I count:
 * a link to a forum
 * a link to a blog (which I think passes WP:BLOG on ignore-all-rules since he's an owner of one of the props, and thus verifiable)
 * a link to a youtube commercial
 * The first and third seem inappropriate, although maybe the YouTube blog could be a cumulative source along with something like a press release from Hasbro. I fixed the dead link to the Ernest Cline blog.

There's also some unencyclopedic language, for example the part about how it's one of the "most wanted and collectible...of all time".Oblivy (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)