Talk:Werewolf fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Werewolf fiction article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Popular Culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to popular culture.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within popular culture articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

So, I tried a bit of a cleanup, according to what I'd expect from such an article - namely a comparison between different takes of werewolves. If the general public expects something else, well, I guess it can be changed back or edited. Unfortunately I'm not all that familiar with many of the books/movies etc, so it would be great if other people could add more information about the different kinds of werewolves. Anke 18:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Werewolf theory

There are the werewolves that we know from movies, From Lawrence Talbot to Remus Lupin, that turn into an out of control killer every full moon. Then there are werewolves, like Constable Anugala from Discworld, that can transform at will, and control their wolf forms. I suggest that by chaning at will, these latter weres syphon off the power of the curse that would otherwise erupt at the full moon.

[edit] Merge tag

There is absolutely no reason to merge this article with the main Werewolf article. They are both quite substantially large, and by separating them out the people who wanted to list all the minute mostly nonnotable videogames and so forth now have more free reign to add what they like here. This merge notice was put here by an editor undergoing RfC for his abusive edits, including undoing changes I make on articles. I mentioned this as an example of the way things are done here to disprove his point elsewhere and he comes over and tries to undo all the work here. Unless there are objections I will remove the merge tag as clearly inappropriate within a day or so. DreamGuy 06:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

just becasue i have and RFC going ( and btw, LEARN TO SPELL) doenst mean that this article shouldnt be added to the end of the werewolfarticle, as the Vampire article will have Vampire Fiction added to the end thereof. please stop trying to weasel and mention my RFC everywhere to try to influcene opinion. Gabrielsimon 06:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy, this article should stay separate. It used to be part of Werewolf and there was constant conflict as people kept adding relatively trivial examples of modern werewolf fiction to what should be a very large-scale overview of the entirety of werewolfdom. Bryan 06:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wagner the Wehr-Wolf by G. W. M. Reynolds (1848)

Wagner the Wehr-Wolf is being proofed by Distributed Proofreaders. When it gets released to Project Gutenberg it would be nice to create an article page for the book, with a link to the Gutenberg text.

[edit] Different Takes section

I don't think the new Different Takes section (by the way, subheads are not in Titles caps, only the first letter gets capitalized) is an improvement over the way it used to be. It should just basically mention different versions with some examples, but promoting these mostly trivial examples into full subheads as if they were milestones in werewolf fiction or something just looks silly. Some other edits happened recently so I don't want to just revert, but I think it does need to be considerably different than how it is now. DreamGuy 01:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I mainly listed what was already mentioned, and added what I knew. I do see them as examples.
    What should it be like? I find it very difficult to come up with an order that makes sense, since portrayals of werewolfes are so different, and I am not really familiar with the details of many. Something like "Some works treat lycanthropy as a disease spread by bites (link to whatever) or even only injury (Van Helsing) by a werewolf, in others werewolves are a separate race (Discworld)." and appropriate bits for other characteristics? Anke 12:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music

I'm surprised there isn't a section talking about songs featuring or about werewolves - I can probably come up with almost a dozen off the top of my head.

I'm going to make that section now, please help out if you can. The Son Of Nothing 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

...and by "dozen", I of course meant "four". The Son Of Nothing 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Werewolf Lit

I've put this section in chronological order. Hopefully this will help separate modern pop hack-work from the older classics of the genre. Colin4C 12:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why older books should be considered classics and newer books hacks. Shouldn't each book be included or excluded on the basis of its notability? There have been some genre-changing, exceptionally famous werewolf novels in recent years. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem of "recent years" claims is that people do not yet have the sort of historical overview to be able to tell what really is genre-changing and important. Something famous today can be forgotten about tomorrow. Older books have already withstood the test of time so have more clear notability. DreamGuy 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in future people can supply dates when they enter a book into this section? Also I'm not sure of the value of much contemporary multi-volume hack-work in this field. A lot of it appears to me to be mass-marketed trash of the same value as a daily newspaper: i.e. a great waste of valuable trees. Colin4C 12:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
A list page could let stuff be split off and keep this page on the subject matter. Goldfritha 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh! This article was itself split off from werewolf about a year ago for the exact same reason. :) BTW, we should be very careful when considering excluding contemporary multi-volume books from a list like this to avoid being POV. One person's trash is another person's treasure. Bryan 20:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folklore intro!?

The new intro, starting with folklore, seems awkward, vague and slightly off-topic. We've got a whole nother article dealing with folklore, why introduce it in a confusing manner here? I vote for a re-write of the intro, excluding folklore, and tightening up the writing so it doesn't sound as if it doesn't know what it is going on about. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are folklore stories, and they are properly treated as part of fiction. And neither Bisclavret nor Gothic fiction is folklore. Goldfritha 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Bisclavret or Gothic fiction. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Werewolf fiction is rooted in folklore. Should the mere mention of this fact be concealed from the readers of this article? As for rewriting - this article would benifit from major changes IMHO. I think more prominence should be given to the older legends, Little Red Riding Hood, Gothic fiction etc and less on Buffy and Harry Potter and pop-culture froth. Colin4C 18:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the origins be concealed (indeed, anyone with half a brain knows that werewolves have roots in folklore and mythology and there's nothing wrong with mentioning that) I'm just saying that folklore is much more than just a variety of fiction, and confusing folklore with fiction (especially in the wholesale and confusing way it is done in the current intro) is not the sort of writing that is up to encyclopedia standards, especially when there is another article on the topic. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There is merely one sentence in the intro mentioning the derivation of werewolf fiction from folklore and the salient characteristics of such folklore. That is all. I agree that this article is fairly hopeless: but not for that reason. For instance I amended the bit in the intro that suggested that the werewolf is synonymous with 'The Wolfman': au contraire in Captain Marryat's early 'White Wolf of the Hartz Mountains' (1839) the Werewolf is female (and a manifestation of an evil spirit). Also Marryat's werewolf is the folkloric werewolf in fictional form. The intro would make more sense if it was chronological and genealogical: i.e. explaining and illustrating the historical roots of contemporary werewolf fiction. It didn't all begin with Lon Chaney! And mentioning folklore how would you class Grimm's Fairy Tales (thinking of Red Riding Hood here....)? Are they folklore or literature? From what I've read the Brothers Grimm improved on the old-wives tales they heard and put the old tales in a fairly sophisticated literary framework...Later Angela Carter used this folklore in her werewolf story 'The Company of Wolves'. Just to re-iterate that without a sense of the folkloric and/or fairy tale origins werewolf fiction makes little sense. An encyclopedia should explain such things.... Colin4C 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking back at the article I see that there is no distinction made between an intro/definition and the body of the article. Compare Vampire fiction which has a two line intro, with the rest of the material put into an historical section. Maybe we should use that as the model for this article? The only trouble with providing a definition, however, is with the title of this article, viz 'Werewolves in fiction'. It would be so much easier if it was called 'Werewolf fiction', then you could say 'Werewolf fiction is....whatever'. However when we try the present title 'Werewolves in fiction...' you cannot use an 'is' cos it is a plural and using an 'are' mires us in conceptually confusing quandary as to whether we are talking about the Werewolves in Werewolf fiction or Werewolf fiction itself and/or both. Werewolves in fiction is the definition itself rather than that which needs to be defined....oh dear....and I expect it's a full moon soon as well... Colin4C 13:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the confusing and vague references to folklore aren't the only problem. The intro isn't a proper intro at all, and it's tendency to switch back and forth between describing themes and describing history, usually without showing any direct link between the two when it switches, is just bad. Unless it can link a particular theme (such as silver bullets) to a particular piece (or pieces) of fiction, it would be better to block off the theme sections of the intro and the history sections of the intro separately. Perhaps even have one short paragraph on the broadest themes (outlining the general bounds of the werewolf in fiction and defining the werewolf in fiction) then an actual section that describes the history of werewolf fiction, then an actual section that describes the themes of werewolf fiction in more detail. The intro is too long for a mere intro and wanders all over the place. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What if we changed (somehow....I'm no wikipedia whizz when it comes to technical things like this...) the title of the article to 'Werewolf Fiction' and take it from there? The more I think about the present title the more inadequate it seems. For instance who would think of using the term 'Criminals in Fiction' rather than 'Crime Fiction'? What do you think? Colin4C 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Changing it to "Werewolf fiction" seems like a good idea. I'm certainly in favor of uniformity in titles, and we could do worse than follow the lead of Vampire fiction. The only possible problem I could see coming up is when things are included in the lists that have only a quick scene with a werewolf (such as Big Fish). Such things could easily be included in an article called "Werewolves in fiction" but would seem to have less of a place in an article called "Werewolf fiction." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case we could retain this article under its original name as a sort of werewolf listing and transfer relevent info here to a new Werewolf fiction article? Colin4C 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting splitting off the "lists" portion of the article under the title "Werewolves in fiction" and putting all the rest of the material into an article called "Werewolf fiction"? We'd have to be sure there was a consensus so that the two articles didn't immediately sprout merge tags. Does anyone else want to chime in with a vote? Or should we put a split tag on the article as it is now, and have more discussion for everybody here on the talk page under a new subheading called "Split"? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, yes, on second thoughts, best to avoid all that 'Merge' shenanigans. Therefore I'll wave my magic wand and.....Colin4C 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Edits

I reverted this this modification:

The earliest printed fiction was often derived from folk tales and medieval theology, with the werewolf often being due to a demonic pact, part of Satan's army of darkness, inimical to the human race and having a craving for human flesh.

'Earliest printed fiction' seems somewhat meaningless and inaccurate. It does not clarify any putative vagueness, but rather adds to it. 'The werewolf often being due to a demonic pact' is not good English. I guess the meaning might be 'Transformation into a werewolf is often due to a demonic pact', though I'm not sure that this would fit into the context of the rest of the intro...Colin4C 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't improve the problem as much as I had hoped. However, "some stories" is still the king of vague. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "some stories", is followed by an example of the kind of story adverted to. I.e. "The White Wolf of the Hartz Mountains" by Marryat. Colin4C 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books in Date Order

I'm trying to put all the books mentioned in the book list in date order. Does anybody know the dates when these books were published?:

Lord of Wind and Fire Trilogy by Elaine Corvidae
Shadow on the moon and Shadow of the Wolf by Carol Flynn
The Crimson City series by Liz Maverick, Marjorie Liu, Patti O'Shea, and Carolyn Jewel.

Colin4C 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Fantasy Werewolf Info

I've moved the info from the Fantasy Werewolf Section into the Lists. Hope everyone approves...I was just thinking that the particular fantasy werewolves featured in this section seemed to be picked at random and were no more special than the 1000 or so other examples from modern fantasy fiction mentioned in the Lists and that therefore the info might as well be put in the latter place... Colin4C 11:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The removal of external links

DreamGuy has removed most of the external links (see diff ). I think he removed some of the best quality ones. Also, it is possible that DreamGuy is doing this because he thinks I am on a mission to persecute him, and this is one of the pages I edit the most. Do others here agree or disagree with DreamGuy's massive changes? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got be kidding me... I was editing Werewolf related pages before you ever came around (in fact, I'm the one who made this particular article into a full fiction article instead of just a list of films), so claiming that I made the change to spite you is just ridiculous, not to mention a clear violation of WP:Assume Good Faith.
I also note that your idea of best quality links, as discussed on Talk:Dragon where you also objected to my removing of nonencyclopedic links, would seem to be greatly at odds with what the Wikipedia:External links guidelines say, and as confirmed by multiple editors on that page. DreamGuy 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mermaid. I will revert Dreamguy's stupid edit and keep on reverting it if he tries to change it back. Colin4C 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is what the wikipedia guidelines ACTUALLY says are the links to be avoided. Not one of the links that Dreamguy deleted comes under their remit:

[edit] Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.

Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.

Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.

Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject.

Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. Colin4C 10:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

These are links to personal web pages, information that is not verifiable or trustworthy, sites that were added by people self-promoting the site, and just all around very poor quality sites. I find astounding that anyone can actually look at any of these sites (and I really doubt Mermaid and Colin have, as they just go around argung with me acoss a variety of articles... Colin starting from Jack the Ripper, Mermaid from Dragon) and actually read WP:EL and say that these links are at all encyclopedic in any way. DreamGuy 23:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam template

After DreamGuy's changes were opposed by this talk page, he is now trying to force the issue with a template. I removed the template, because it smacks of beating a dead horse. DreamGuy reverted. I will now remove it one more time, and ask that DreamGuy follow the rules and not try to keep pressing an issue where neither policy nor other editors are on his side. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem here is that two editors with a long history of doing nothing but objecting to everything I do because I am doing it and who cannot give a reason for these links that meet WP:EL cannot just pretend that they can control the article. The links are under dispute, so the tag stays until such time as the dispute is resolved. You haven't even tried to do so. This is sheer bullying. DreamGuy 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It is your responsibility to show why policy is on your side whenever other editors agree it isn't on your side. We haven't gone anywhere near 3RR, or any other policy violation. Provide some real reasons to support your position, or gracefully back out. Calling names, starting weird conspiracy accusations and becoming upset doesn't help your case. Prove it using Wikipedia rules or stop beating a dead horse. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to this, how can you say the dispute wasn't resolved when everyone who responded to you on this very talk page disagreed with you, over a 20-day period? Hmmmm? People had more than enough time to comment if had they agreed with you. Stop declaring victory all by yourself and adding disruptive templates. Your template is going away again. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of a couple of people wanting to violate policy, that doesn't mean you can get away with it. You never tried to justify those links, you just put them back. Since you don't want the template, I got rid of the problem links. It's one or the other until you can give a real encyclopedic reason why they should stay. But of course you can't, as you've lost this same argument across a wide variety of talk pages and only now claim that you have consensus because you tracked down Colin4c, another editor with a long history of blind reverting any and all changes to articles he marks as his own and making personal attacks on me and so forth. All you have to do to justify the links is give a reason for them that meets with policy, You are unwilling or unable to do so, so the links must go or be tagged. That's how it works here. Sorry you refuse to accept that. DreamGuy 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
When you accuse people of violating policy you really should provide an example, as I've told you many times already on other talk pages. Claiming that the removed external links violate every policy in the book doesn't mean that they do. You really ought to provide a quote or an example showing exactly what you mean when other editors who've read the policy have no idea why your arguments should apply. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Werewolf Fiction

I have restored mention of werewolf tales deleted by Dreamguy as 'non notable' as this seems to be just his personal POV. To take just one instance H. R. Wakefield's "Death of a Poacher" which Dreamguy deleted is described, as a 'classic of the genre' in The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural's entry on Werewolves (page 455).

i agree. what, for instance, is non-notable about Murcheston? DreamGuy, since you are making these assertions, would you care to back them up? Whateley23 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I simply deleted items that did not have an article for the title or the author, as well as TV shows that only had a werewolf in one episode instead of being central to the plot. Those are pretty basic standards. If you think the ones without articles are notable, make article for them and have them survive any potential votes for deletion and then they are notable. Frankly, notability should be established before anything is listed, not assumed and cluttering the page up. DreamGuy 06:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You are in a minority, Dreamguy, and unlike the other editors here, seem to know little or nothing about werewolf fiction. I have therefore restored the valuable stuff which went missing in your latest thoughtless blanket deletion. If you want to engage in deletions please have the common courtesy to mention it on the Talk Page beforehand and abide by the majority decision. Colin4C 15:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in the minority, I am following policy,and the policies were set by a very clear majority. The actions of you and mermaid -- well known problem editors going around blind reverting all of my edits, even ones you aren't even trying to support here, like fixing capitalizatios, getting the correct wikilinks and so forth -- just for pure spite purposes. DreamGuy 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, i don't agree with you on the tv shows with only one episode, but i wouldn't fight it hard, either. i feel that one of the reasons people come to wikipedia regarding this kind of pop-culture type articles is to find such obscure information, but that's really a debate for another place. on the other hand, you're just wrong on the redlink issue. see WP:REDLINK. Whateley23 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:TRIVIA -- you are clearly in the wrong here, that's a policy page. Wikipedia, and encyclopedias in general, are not collections of mere trivia. Encyclopedia is for notable information. Trivia is not notable... it's the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. If you have a problem with it, go debate them there. If you oppose policy then you need to try to get policy changed, not ignore policy and try to vote to do whatever you want. And if you would like to make an argument that some of those deleted items are in fact notable and not mere trivia, plus make a case that on an instance by instance basis so we can have proof of notability. Until such time all that's happening here is we have some stubborn people directly opposed to the way things are done on Wikipedia going through and refusing to accept any changes, not even ones that are simply cleaning up poor grammar and so forth. DreamGuy 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So clearing up bad grammar and format changes gives you the excuse to engage in wholesale deletions of relevant material against the majority opinion here? You can engage in all the personal abuse against me you like but I will continue to revert your edits until you obey the spirit and letter of wikipedia policy. It is YOU who are the problem editor, as is proved by the continual warnings you get from the admins, for your abusive attitude to other editors, on your personal Talk Page. WP:CIV is OFFICIAL wikipedia policy Colin4C 09:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, I was polite to you when you first started eviscerating large portions of the pages that I most frequently edit whilst you went around claiming that I was blindly reverting all your edits for no reason. I calmly explained my reasons for a while. I backed off every time that a talk page concensus supported you (which was rarely) and I even backed off on some pages where no concensus supported you but you kept being stubborn. Then I stopped being so polite. I even took a couple of time-outs to cool down so that I would be polite again when I returned. Now I have realized that I need to be blunt with you. There is a concensus here, DreamGuy. You can't claim that the concensus here goes against policy because, frankly, it doesn't. Stop edit warring. Just because you like to heavily edit pages to delete large amounts of material and you like to claim that policy is always on your side doesn't make it so. Sometimes policy is, but sometimes it isn't. WP:TRIVIA refers to items that are actually trivial. Not to any information that you personally decide is trivial despite sources and regular editors for this article agreeing that it is not trivial. Being stubborn about your changes when others oppose you is not a virtue, in fact it can become a serious problem if it persists. If you keep behaving the same way on Werewolf fiction I may start placing vandal warning templates on your talk page. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See this edit. DreamGuy is still trying to sneak in his changes, under the cover of adding lots of other changes at the same time. DreamGuy, stop it please! You are not fooling anyone and this is getting disruptive, as are your constant untrue accusations in your edit summaries! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. The edit wars need to stop. DreamGuy is actually formatting the article correctly in this edit. Section headers should be written as "Twentieth century" and not "Twentieth Century". As for the more trivial episodes he removed, I would tend to agree. Single instances of werewolves in a television program that otherwise has nothing to do with werewolves is extremely trivial. Wikipedia is not a fan site. There are a fair amount of redlinks in the article. Maybe rather than edit war, it would be better to create articles for those redlinks that you want kept. IrishGuy talk 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy has abrogated several good edits, such as those by DocWatson etc. He is constantly reverting to a negative edit he made about two weeks ago, which was contested by every other editor here, as though that edit was more sacred than any other edit ever made by any other editor here. He has also constantly personally abused two of the long standing editors here in the most flagrant violation of WP:Civil. As for redlinks, as Whately has indicated, these are not synonymous with non notable. See WP:REDLINK. As three other editors here have pointed out, some at least of the stories Dreamguy has deleted are acknowledged classics of werewolf fiction. That is what this page is about, not a venue for some editor's personal power trip, personal abuse and flummery. Colin4C 10:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please do read WP:REDLINK. It specifically states: Red links should not be created for topics that will never have articles. As none of you seem to have any interest in actually creating those articles, the redlinks need not exist. Adding redlinks in the hope that someone else might create the article is a waste. Rethink your accusations here. I don't know DreamGuy nor was I "recruited" by him. I am an admin that is here to stop the edit warring. I will recommend you read WP:CIV. IrishGuy talk 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't know you were an admin. I just assumed that Dreamguy was up to his usual tricks again. I have been editing this page in perfect amity with the other editors here for months and do actually have a serious interest in and some knowledge of werewolf fiction. The only trouble came when Dreamguy started making sweeping edits: which all the other editors here disagreed with. He made these sweeping edits without informing anybody on this Talk Page and seemed to treat all the other editors with complete contempt. Colin4C 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Usual tricks? How many times do I have to ask you to read WP:CIV? As noted below and in what you just said...I think it is fair to say that you have treated him with contempt as well. Rudeness has been abounds on this talk page by most involved in the edit warring. Everyone should just take a breather and then try to discuss it rationally without the personal attacks in incivility. IrishGuy talk 18:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In reference to this (since blanked by you): Are you going to calm down and take a civil tone anytime soon? Frankly, you probably shouldn't be quoting that part. A quick glance on this talk page shows that Mermaid from the Baltic Sea threatened to start placing vandal warning templates on your {DreamGuy's) talk page. You have stated thoughtless blanket deletion, It is YOU who are the problem editor, and accused DreamGuy of engaging in a personal power trip, personal abuse and flummery. Thus far, all of you engaged in edit warring are acting poorly so you can stop pointing fingers now.
I did note that once more you blatantly reverted to the version with improper style. Should this edit warring continue without discussion I will simply protect the page and it will remain that way until discussion is complete here. IrishGuy talk 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, DreamGuy has snuck in the external links changes that concensus has repeatedly opposed on the werewolf fiction talk page, under the cover of making many other edits at the same time. See this edit. Making constructive changes at the same time does not give DreamGuy free license to continue his edit war! I appreciate his good changes, but he should give way on those particular changes where the other editors of the article have repeatedly opposed him and agree that policy does not support his side! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And DreamGuy just reverted it (see this edit with a misleading edit summary that claims the talk page concensus was on his side). DreamGuy, when an admin shows up, it is time to stop using tricks like that! An admin can see right through that stuff. I am not re-reverting it for now, simply because I hope the edit war will calm down, but I'm pretty sure someone else will, considering the previous discussions that've shown DreamGuy's link deletions are not supported by policy. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werewolf Fiction

Should mention of H. R. Wakefield's "Death of a Poacher" (described, as a 'classic of the genre' in The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural's entry on Werewolves (page 455).) be deleted from this article? Colin4C 11:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered H. Russell Wakefield does actually have a page on the wikipedia....:
Wakefield's atmospheric and darkly brooding work in the field has been frequently compared to M.R. James. Many critics consider him one of the great masters of the supernatural horror tale. August Derleth called him "the last major representative of a ghost story tradition that began with Sheridan Le Fanu and reached its peak with Montague Rhodes James." John Betjeman noted "M.R. James is the greatest master of the ghost story. Henry James, Sheridan Le Fanu and H. Russell Wakefield are equal seconds."

Colin4C 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television single episodes removal

See this for the material that DreamGuy keeps removing. I'm asking to see what others here think. In my opinion, much of this material is notable. In particular, when an individual television episode is notable enough to have an entire Wikipedia article devoted to just it, then I think that it is probably notable enough to be briefly mentioned in an article on werewolf fiction. What do you all think? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter

I've restored the stuff about Harry Potter. Though IMHO the Potter books are not the world's greatest literature I think the Potter phenomenon is quite important (judging by the mass readership of the books and the films and the fact that the books seem to have made reading fashionable again for children). Also I defend the section on juvenile fiction as I know that kids read the wikipedia. Who are we to say that juvenile fiction is unimportant just cos we mature readers are supposedly 'older and wiser' (note inverted commas...). Colin4C 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

If anybody could find some more pictures for this article it would be great...Colin4C 20:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)