Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Vampire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vampire

Article is no longer a featured article

While it is comprehensive, it comes at the expense of a presentation that relies heavily on poorly-grouped lists of trivia. There is almost no use of references. On top this, the article is in the middle of an entrenched edit war. This article needs a major reworking by some fresh eyes. -- Norvy (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with all of that. The more new blood (heh) the better, as many of the most active people edit warring are anon users trying to restore completely unsourced and incorrect information and a guy who thinks vampires are real and wants the article to say that straight out. DreamGuy 03:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as featured: Now that the sockpuppets have been wiped out and the couple of other edit warring editors have been blocked repeatedly for various offenses, this article has finally had a chance to progress. Unsourced material is now mostly removed, a lot of sources have been added, trivia has been mostly culled or moved, and it's a lot, lot better than it was. I think the complaints have mostly been taken care of already, and it's currently being worked on to improve the rest too. It's amazing what can be accomplished when the dead weight is cleared out. DreamGuy 00:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This was closed prematurely before I had a chance to respond. I see that the article has come a long way, but I still don't think that it's up to FA status. My concern about overuse of lists still stands. As for references, there's a cleanup-verify tag at the top! A large portion is either unsourced, or is not attributed to a specific source. I'm happy to keep this listed here until this is hammered out, but right now, I don't think that there is a consensus that this represents Wikipedia's best work. -- Norvy (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am hoping to put in some time on this article, and restore it to a more respectable condition. I believe it is currenly blocked, so I am starting by trying to facilitate agreement on the talk page, by making suggestions of compromise and specific courses of action. Since I don't know exactly what the meaning/purpose is of a featured article, I am not making a vote, only commenting, and hoping to be one of the fresh eyes that helps. BarkingDoc

DreamGuy is seriously pissing me off with his attitude, and his edits. He has gone on this ridiculous crusade of removing everything he considers fiction from articles without caring about whatever anyone else thinks about it. It's not without a reason that so many users are against him. And every user who's against him, is of course branded as something derogatory by DG. Whether it's an "anon" user, "sockpuppet" user, or whatever. DreamGuy has no flaws. The rest of us do though.

EliasAlucard|Talk 04:07, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

OK... First up, that's got nothing to do with what's being discussed here. Secondly, I don't think suggesting that extensively detailed and trivial fictional representations should be moved to Vampire fiction (the article specifically about this topic) is at all a "ridiculous crusade" -- it's just common sense. And considering that you were recently banned for violating 3RR three separate times to remove inoffensive edits I made to articles, with the outright admission that you will not try to work with me on anything and will just undo whatever I do, it seems very strange for you to be claiming that I am the one with a problem. And, yes, the people I pointed out were sockpuppets of a banned user were proven to be so and banned, so don't complain about that either. Please take your personal conflict somewhere else, learn to work with other editors and deal with things as a mature adult. DreamGuy 08:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove "Being uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars" is no longer true for this article. The edit war may be over but there is still a lot of cleaning up to be done. It's been so for quite some time now, so why is this article still in the featured article list?? Jules LT 14:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

keep Why should an article like Vampire be removed? I don't get that. The word Vampire is very often used in today's society. Removing this article is preposterous.

EliasAlucard|Talk 12:57, 19 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a VfD. We're not trying to determine whether vampire is notable enough to have an article, we're trying to determine if it merits featured article status. -- Norvy (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, excuse me for my misunderstanding. I don't hang around much at these voting forums that exist here on Wikipedia. Kind of difficult to keep track on what's what. Anyway, I still vote keep for keeping it as a featured article status, because it's a subject that I have great interest for.

EliasAlucard|Talk 17:10, 19 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

When do these votes end? I mean, this Vf"featured article status removal" has been here for a lot of time, now. Could people please vote so we can move on? (I still hate the idea of people coming here from the "featured articles" page and seeing a big "content to be sourced" banner). By the way, we don't make articles featured articles because the subject is of interest (there'd be thousands) but because it meets the featured article criteria. Because of what I said above, this is no longer true, so this article shouldn't be a featured article anymore.Jules LT 08:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Remove since the referencing has not been dealt with. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Still poor sourcing. All have been added later with no evidence they's been used. Plenty of unencyclopedic writing and conjecture, and poorly formatted and choppy prose. A bit better perhaps, but a ways to go. - Taxman ^Talk 22:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)