Talk:Spin-off

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Star Trek[edit]

Is "Star Trek TNG" really a spin-off of the "Star Trek"? I think it's a sequel.

Ghost[edit]

Don't you think that the movie Ghost(1990) has made many spin offs, such as The Sixth Sense, Tru Calling, Ghost Whisperer, and many more. So please include it as an example. 201.145.144.97 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. VERY wrong. I don't mean to snap here, but I can't lie, either. The three titles you just listed have almost nothing in common with Ghost except being in the speculative fiction sub-genre of the ghost story. I.e. the only thing they have in common with Ghost is ghosts (and if that makes them "spin-offs", then Ghost is also a highly derivitive spin-off, because ghost stories date back well past actual recorded history!).

Here's why: NONE of the same characters are used, and they do not specifically take place in the same (story) world, nor were they noted as being "spun-off" of Ghost. Furthermore, while I suppose Ghost could be easily crossed-over (har!) with The Sixth Sense or Ghost Whisperer (and by the way, you forgot NBC's Medium, another series with a psychic who can see and communicate with ghosts), as a matter of fact Tru Calling was not even a "ghost story" series in the traditional sense at all, and was more of a sort of time travel series. The only "ghostly" event in any given episode was her hearing the whispered message from the dead body - the "rewinding" of days was far more integral to the plot and her power is labeled on the DVDs, publicity material, original TV ads, etc., as more of a "reliving days" power than a "talks to dead people" power, by far. While this would not preclude characters from the Tru Calling universe from talking to ghosts, the issue of ghosts was actually never brought up, since Tru was always more concerned with saving lives than with where they went post-mortem (and, furthermore, it seems as if she can only have the chance to save one specific person ONCE - I don't recall her ever having been able to relive the same day via hearing the pleas of the same person a second time, even though she was able to partially relive the same day multiple times in one episode thanks to mulitiple people's dying and asking her to save them. In other words, she apparently has VERY limited ability to communicate with the dead -or rather, have the dead communicate with her - and that's only if you take the stance that it's actually ghosts asking for her help as opposed to some other phenomenon. Hey, don't look at me like that - what with the "Is Tru really fighting on the side of good?" plotline brought up before the poor dear got her show canceled, you could make a very good case for that kind of thing, so I would actually hesitate to label it a "ghost story" series per se, since there's almost no telling what stance they would have taken in regards to the human soul in later episodes had they not gotten canceled, especially with the main issue of the series ending up being more the asking of the question "is altering history ethical - even if it saves one or more lives in the process?").

In short - you're confusing being in the same or related genres or having similar setups, plots, gimmicks or themes with being a "spin-off". :) Generally, a series or story would have to be very explicitly using the same characters and/or world as another, previous series, and to have delibrately and obviously and explicitly been derived from that series, in order to be considered a "spin-off." Runa27 00:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning off a new article[edit]

There should be a separate article on spin-off corporations because there's not really much connection with media spinoffs. I think that someone looking up "spin-off" probably has either media or corporations in mind, and isn't looking for a complete treatment of the concept. If they anyone is, a disambiguation page with a bit of an intro would work nicely. Either this page should just be a disambiguation page with "Spin-off (media)" and "Spin-off (corporation)" articles listed, or corporations should be split into "Spin-off Corporations". --AAMiller 01:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Support. I agree completly.

I don't - just CHANGE IT Mgway 03:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's overdue to split it off. The topics are not directly related, and in fact there should be a disambiguation page since (depending on the reader and context) different people will assume different meanings. JoelWest 07:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please change it, its a bit out of place half a page down from a description of TV spin-offs.

The same for me - It's interesting to see that it's the same name for movies industry, but I came here with an absolute business background and was kind of puzzled. (SMI, 07 June 2006)

I am in support of spinning off an article on spin-offs. Kent Wang 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too am in favour. elvenscout742 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please spin it off! But do include a disambiguation...I was looking for the corparate definition, and had it not been there I may have assumed there was no such article...

I also completely agree with this idea. Do it now.

Love the irony! But seriously, two such hugely different contexts (in storied media vs. business), it definitely warrants two seperate articles, and a disambig. Runa27 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is still a link in this page, itis a good idea and should be implemented as soon as possible :-)

82.40.75.55 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company section was already there , Spin out, moved media also to its own. reg . Mion 12:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somenone wikify Spin out ? . Mion 12:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

The entry about Trapper John M.D. dosn't make any cense.Bow down and pay taxes to your king. 05:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better.Kingjoey52a 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about spin-off technologies?[edit]

I'm surprised this page does not mention the technological spin-offs derived from e.g. space projects. Philcha 11:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a separate Spinoff page about the eponymous NASA magazine and spinoff technologies, which a lot of students end up searching for (on the NASA pages.) I'm not sure how to setup this page (spin-off, with the hyphen) in order to explain the differences in a convenient, constructive way. Any suggestions are welcome, such as setting up redirects and disambiguations. --User:Amiralia (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to add my support for some sort of spinoff/ spin-off disambiguation page. I'm new to Wikipedia authoring, though, so I don't want to try it alone. I do think people are searching for completely different things and usually don't know how "spinoff" or "spin-off" is spelled. (I only know how NASA does it.) --AM at Spinoff office (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media Spin-off[edit]

I removed:

In most television spin-offs, atleast one major character from the original show is not a major in the spin-off. They may be referenced, or guest-star.

Because, frankly, it doesn't make sense, is unclear and is covered better on the media spin-offs page. I also think that it's preferencing shows that are retooled after a character leaves, rather than, say a show based around a character that leave... but, once again, it doesn't really make sense, so I'm not sure. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

religion[edit]

Does anyone really refer to a schism as a "spinoff"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]