What began as one monster turned to two. Should this be renamed to "Phantom Shadows" to reflect that or kept the same? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:21, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
I wondered if I had already said something. If anybody can give their thoughts on this, it would be most helpful, as I really would like to get this addressed. I think it would benefit from the being moved to plural, as it just looks odd the way it is. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:45, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
Since some pages like Windmakers and Shark men are plural, I think we should do the same with this page. I'm for changing it to Phantom Shadows. But
I also have to mention that after the gang discovored
that they aren't really shadows, nobody seemed to call them Phantom Shadows anymore (instead they called them Green Ghosts). Igor2000 (talk) 14:51, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
I think that was more of a description, but I'll look at it and think about it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:49, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, the plural seems more appropriate considering in their original appearance there were two together.
19:43, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
I think it should be plural. It makes more sense and it would make it easier to add details to the page. Fantôme17 (talk) 20:04, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
Green Ghosts[]
I've reviewed the episode, and have come to realise that the first monster seen was called the Phantom Shadow, and once it became a "full-fledged" ghost, it was joined by a second one, who were then called (at the very least) the "Green Ghosts". I propose renaming this page to that (with a disambiguation, of course). I was also wondering if the "Phantom Shadow" should get its own page, or just be a redirect? I'm guessing a redirect, but I'm just throwing it out there. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 09:19, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit of a confusion. I'm for the redirect, too. Igor2000 (talk) 09:38, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
I still think "Green Ghosts" was colloquial reference (like "old Shark Face" for Pescado Diabolico), and in other media (e.g. the DC Comics) they've been referred to as "Phantom Shadows", so I'd personally recommend a redirect of "green ghosts" to
"Phantom Shadow(s)", rather than the other way around.
10:16, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
That's why I didn't suggest "giggling green ghosts". But "Phantom Shadow(s)" doesn't look definite enough. While I agree with how DC referred to it, I don't consider it canon; Velma has her own private monster museum, that we'll probably never see in animated form. Essentially what it is, is a ghostly shadow, the two of them could revert to a shadow at any one time (if they were real or if they made it look that way). So they're really both Phantom Shadows, but only one was exclusively called that, once the second one was introduced that name was dropped, although there's nothing to say that the both of them couldn't continue to be called that, as not even Frankencreepy could be consistent (they even went with "Green Phantoms"). "Green Ghosts" is a generic name, yet simple and effective, even if it's just as a description, while "Phantom Shadows" is more unique and definite. Personally, I was more in favour of "Phantom Shadows" for that reason, but I've started to become accepting of "Green Ghosts". What doesn't help is that "phantom" and "shadow" can mean the same thing. I'm not sure what to go with now... -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:09, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
It strikes me from the episode that Creeps and Crawls wanted people to think there was only one "Phantom Shadow" (hence no plural in the note), and thus the intent of the "phantom" as was meant to be witnessed by others was to be an ethereal shadow; appearing later as "solid" green ghosts (and two of them) was sort of a Plan B when Mystery Inc weren't scared off like the rest of the guests (who could've had the decency to leave a note!). Hence the intent of the criminals themselves was to be a shadow, so I think that should influence how they are referred to. 19:16, April 5, 2015 (UTC)
I can agree with that. However, they are continued to be referred to as two in Frankencreepy. Does my suggestion of splitting them into two pages, have any relevance now, or not? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:22, April 5, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't doubting there were 2. Do you mean splitting them as 1 page per ghost/phantom/woooooey thingy or separate pages for "Shadows" and "Green Ghosts"? 19:27, April 5, 2015 (UTC)
In my first post, I proposed a "Phantom Shadow" page and a "Green Ghosts (episode name)" page. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:31, April 5, 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, got confused between the "Plural/Singular" and "Green Ghosts" sections. In my opinion either a redirect of GG to Phantom Shadow(s) or a separate Green Ghosts page for all other appearances barring the orginal (and any other episodes/films which called them shadows) would make the most sense, though the problem with the latter is there may be some confusion and/or repetition in future should people try to make edits. (Basically, a redirect is probably easier, and maybe an "(also known as Green Ghosts)" in the article.
The intent of the villains to appear singular is never spelled out. They allow themselves both to be seen in costume by the gang at the same time, so I'm for the plural names with a redirect from Phantom Shadows to Green Ghosts. --RockSunner (talk) 07:26, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
