Talk:Vampires in popular culture

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles

Strigoi in popular culture was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 05 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Vampires in popular culture. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Nosferatu

Sorry, I made a dumb comment based on not having read the most recent change sufficiently carefully, so have deleted it. Apologies. Accounting4Taste 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article

I have been making some extensive changes in the body of the article, clarifying the chronology and themes. The old version was 99% plagiarised from some film book, by the way...Colin4C 09:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've been adding a few of the weirder vampire movies. One thing: the lede suggests that Dracula is in more movies than any other character, and later on in the article he's second to Sherlock Holmes. Which is it, and who said so? I can't offer a reference or citation either way. Accounting4Taste 21:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are bits I retained from the old version of the page, which I can't verify either way...though I guess we might look at the Sherlock Holmes wikipedia page for further elucidation. As for adding weird vampire movies, good idea! And just to say to any doubters that The Vampire's Ghost (1945), which I added really does exist...It was a very low budget film by poverty row studios Republic Pictures, starring John Abbott (actor) in the title role. Colin4C 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was move from "Vampire films" to Vampires in visual media, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article already covers television, so vampires in film and television would be a more accurate title. -- Gordon Ecker 00:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article name needs to be broadened - how about vampires in visual media (which covers video games as well as film and TV). Comics can go in literature, though could go here if graphic I guess....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual media would allow anime and manga to be grouped together, but would split video games from tabletop RPGs and LARPs. I think this would be acceptable, as, although there are exceptions (such as Kindred: The Embraced and the Buffyverse role-playing games), the tabletop RPGs generally only cross over into literature, and the video games generally cross over into anime and manga. -- Gordon Ecker 03:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is Vampire fiction, which would follow Werewolf fiction. As long as this decent article on a specific genre doesn't become a "Vampires in popular culture" type list, with a huge list of every trivial appearance of a vampire in anything. Crazysuit 04:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently Vampire fiction is a redirect to Vampire literature. The two articles should probably be merged, neither is huge. Crazysuit 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both could be very large - also there are plenty of books on both vampire film and literature so there could be plenty of references. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~If they get large, they can be split off.~~ -- Gordon Ecker 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history you will see that this article split off from Vampire literature because that article was getting too big. It would be crazy to merge them again. Films are different from books. Colin4C 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice Crazysuit's comments, and thought Casliber was responding to me. -- Gordon Ecker 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The name of this article

It seems that those who proposed a change of name for this article have done nothing to change the head words to correlate to the new title or contributed anything further to this article. I am mystified why an inconclusive discussion by editors who hardly contribute to this article resulted in a name change which is both vague and inaccurate. What is 'Vampires in visual media' meant to mean? There are many books and encyclopedia entries on Vampire film or Vampire cinema. That has a clear and precise meaning. I propose changing it to 'Vampire Cinema' and putting the comic books etc in the Vampire literature article and the other stuff into a 'vampires in popular culture article' or getting rid of it entirely if it is, as a lot of it seems, just useless trivia. Colin4C (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger

I oppose merging this article with Vampire movies. Vampire movies are a seperate subject with many books written about them. There is no reason whatsoever that an article on Vampire movies should be lumbered with the 'assorted vampire trivia' which this present article contains. Wikipedia articles should be encyclopediac - not dumping grounds for stupid trivia. Colin4C (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Vampire lovers cap.jpg

The image Image:Vampire lovers cap.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Vampirella1.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]