Jump to content

Template talk:Dracula

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I would like to suggest some changes to this template.

I am of course away that Conde Dracula and Bram Stoker's Count Dracula do not yet have articles. I am willing to write stubs of same (as I have done for Dracula (1968) and Count Dracula (1977) and Dracula (BBC).

I see two other possible considerations--namely, should the Brides of Dracula be included among the characters? And should Dracula Sucks and/or Lust For Dracula be included (these are pornographic adaptations of the novel, not simply pornography using the idea of vampires and the name "Dracula")? Zahir13 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---I recently added a section about other films featuring Dracula (like the "sequels" previously mentioned) though I am still missing alot. I also added a "hide" feature like some other templates have, but it's hard to see (it's in the upper right corner). Lastly, does anyone know how to get the v*d*e thing on the template (view*disscuss*edit)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.79.126 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention Forgetting Sarah Marshall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freezing the mainstream (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color

[edit]

Something needs to be done about the color. We can't have jet black because it will blur out the separation lines. Unless you change those to another color, the black needs to be dimmed some, to all the accent lines to appear.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Newman

[edit]

I don't see how Kim Newman's pastiches, while interesting, are worthy of being part of the main Dracula template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoosterBronze (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact many solid reasons why they should be there. Perhaps you might want to start with considering their general popularity, favourable reviews and literary awards. The first Anno Dracula, for instance, won both The Children of the Night Award, The Fiction Award of the Lord Ruthven Assembly and The International Horror Critics' Guild Award. A more relevant question is: Why are books listed at the bottom, below video games? A more logical listing order might be: Characters, books, comics, stage plays, films and then video games. --Minutae (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including Newman's books in "Literary Sequals" as opposed to their own section "Alternate Histories" seems much more appropriate. But for interest of space, perhaps just a link to the Anno Dracula series page. Also, as "Anno Dracula" is not exactly a sequal (but an alternative reality version) I propose a different title for the section. Perhpas something akin to "Literary Adaptions" or "Pastiches," as this would also allow notable works like Saberhagen's "Dracula Tapes" BoosterBronze (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked the 'Literary Pastiche" section. Also included Salem's Lot, as Stephen King is very vocal that this notable novel is a blatant reworking of "Dracula."BoosterBronze (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newman's books are not pastiches, as they don't attempt to mimic Stoker's or anyone else's literary style. They are fairly straight sequels, in that they take place after the point in time where Stoker's novel ends, involves most of the same characters in a continuation of the same story, and employs the traditional sequel trick, informing us that the villain didn't die after all. The fact that these books are also alternate universe stories neither makes them pastiches or non-sequels. --Minutae (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not sequals in the sense that they hinge on the idea that the entire second half of Dracula didn't happen and he not only survived, but conquered England. I'm all for a better title for the section on literary works adapted from some aspect of "Dracula" but 'sequals' doesn't fit the Anno Draculas. BoosterBronze (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a somewhat limited idea of what a sequel is, but perhaps you mainly know the term from modern blockbuster movies that tend to be fairly linear. By the way, it is spelled "sequel" not "sequal". --Minutae (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "Historian" since it was such a major best-seller about Dracula, and another pseudo-sequal. We need to come up with both a fitting title for the literary section, as well as some kind of standard for notability of what shoud be included. BoosterBronze (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Given the sheer ammount of Dracula material out there, some standard of notability needs to be in place for this template, otherwise it becomes an unmanagelbe and not helpful regurgitation of the "Dracula in Pop Culture" article. I deleted a number of films from the list, for extreme obscurity and not really being a Dracula cenetered movie (LXG and Waxworks). I think even more can and should be removed for ease of navigation. BoosterBronze (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the near endless ammont of Drcula novels in publication, the following books seem notable enough to include in the main template. Many good books (among them Saberhagen's "Dracula Tape," Freda Warrington's "Dracula the Undead") don't seem significant enough, and should probably just be mentioned on the "In Popular Culture" page.

'Salems Lot- Huge best-seller, notable author, two film adaptaions. Anno Dracula- Successful series. Bloodline- Had a sequel The Historian- International bestseller Fangland- Film in production with John Carpenter The Un-Dead- Lots and lots of press coverage due to co-author's lineage. BoosterBronze (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea to help reduce the clutter - how about we exclude any works that are adaptations of anything other than the original Stoker novel? For example, right now we have Van Helsing and the Van Helsing video game, and the Coppola film and the video game based on the Coppola film. I suggest we remove the two games, as they are both mentioned briefly in the articles for the films. After all, if we include all the tie-in games, then you could say we'd have to include the various novelisations of the films... NeilEm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Bram Stoker's"

[edit]

I noticed someone had changed the heading for this template to Bram Stoker's "Dracula", probably someone unformilior with the original novel, so I changed it back. IndridCold13 (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania 6-5000

[edit]

Why is the 1985 film Transylvania (6-5000) included in this template? The name "Dracula" is certainly mentioned in that film several times and one character is referred to as "a lady Dracula" but no character called Dracula appears in it. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate

[edit]

"Dracula/The Rose" has no place here, and I wonder how TonyTheTiger got the certain knowledge that this was Stoker-derived: the song is in Dutch, and there are no hits for "Claw boys claw dracula stoker" anywhere. If you understood the lyric, you'd know that this is at best a parody of some vague, general notions about Dracula, but I doubt that Frankenstein supplied Dracula with the recipe for wine made from bones. I've removed the template from the article as well. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I think actually you can put it in the Dracula in popular culture section. BrettWarr1 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chase - Doctor Who story

[edit]

Should the Doctor Who story The Chase be added to episodes? its 4th episode "Journey into Terror" features Dracula (albeit a version which turns out to be robot) played by Malcolm Rogers. Dunarc (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too minor, I think. Little more than a cameo. oknazevad (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think you are probably right. Dunarc (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Van Helsing Video Game?

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathtrap_(video_game)

Does this game belong in the Van Helsing list of video games? Wasn't sure...but the full Xbox One title is "The World of Van Helsing: Deathtrap" ...no problem either way just wanted to get awareness out there. Thanks! Scottymoze (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who audios

[edit]

I am wondering that if Legend of the Cybermen is included here, whether Son of the Dragon should also be. Dunarc (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Films

[edit]

What do editors think about collapsing the 'Film' section per the {{Frankenstein}} template, which prominently presents the word 'Films' and describes how to open the section. I tried to see what it would look like but can't get the coding right. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

As this template is now it's way too big, it would be best to change it to several navboxes. One for the Dracula book, one for films, one for television etc.★Trekker (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to insist on a split, then you should clean up the template presentation. When I looked at Dracula, your new template was not even there. Have you swapped in your new template on all the proper pages.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to fix where each tempalte should be, sorry I didn't accomplish it in the timeframe you would have wanted, but there are about a hundred articles here and I have other stuff which has shown up in my life too.★Trekker (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this, and think the good faith split should be reverted. The template is not too large because it is structured well and coherently. The problem with this proposed split is that all of the film, television, and the rest of the popular culture pages will not include the main universe template - which is where the meat of the topic is. That's important to an overall subject, and rather than giving readers a divided view the unsplit template provides the full topic map to all of the entries. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its not structured well or coherently and it is far too large. It's a confusing mess to read.★Trekker (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither {{Dracula}} or {{Adaptations of Dracula}} seem confusing to me (films, music, etc. are laid out quite well, and maybe with a few tweaks would look even better). The entire template included the smallish "Dracula" section laying out the majorly important entries of the Dracula universe and the larger adaptations section. What would now be missing on the template placed on film pages, for example, will be the background articles which define the topic. I don't think this was agreed to in the discussion, and probably should be returned to its former all-inclusive Wikipedia topic-map state. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Treker, I thought the split was unnecessary and the only other party who has expressed an opinion has opposed the split. Keep in mind that these templates are only used on desktop versions of wikipedia. Thus, I think my 17" screen test of whether it is too large is not so bad. There was certainly no consensus to split and it is 2:1 in favor of reverting the split. Either we should have a broader discussion somewhere or revert the template to its prior unified state.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Make that 3–1 against. I just don't see the need for a split, and Randy's reasoning about the separate template not containing links to significant elements is quite sound; notably, the adaptations template has no link to Bram Stoker whatsoever. Also, conversely, the last section of the adaptations template is material that truly belongs on the main template regardless of any split. I just think this was a good-faith but hasty move that isn't really needed. oknazevad (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Treker, it is looking like a revert is called for. Do you have any other thoughts?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Gentlemen

[edit]

I removed that film/comic from the template because the link to Dracula is very thin. I was reverted with the explanation "One of the main characters of the film/comic is straight up a main character from the novel. While it is true that Mina appears as a main character in both media, there are some issues with using this as justification for inclusion:

  1. Mina is not the central character of Dracula - the Count is. Sure, she's important but we wouldn't include a book/film about Harker or Dr. Seward or Renfield or Van Helsing here unless the story itself connected to the Dracula story. In Extraordinary Gentleman she one of many members of that group. Is Extraordinary Gentlemen equally linked to the dozen or so stories from which the comic has nibbed characters? Note that this is not the Mina-Harker-Template but the Dracula-Template.
  2. The Mina that appears in Extraordinary Gentlemen was quite distinct from Dracula's Mina even at the start of the story. Suddenly she now is a vampire after all, has divorced Jonathan and even adopted her maiden name. According to her article, comic Mina is "a bisexual suffragist" and "in a polyamorous relationship with the gender-changing omnisexual Orlando". Anyone who knows anything about Dracula's Mina (who lashed out against the feminists of her day) would agree that this is totally different character sharing a name.

Str1977 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the first, there's a reason is said "a" main character, not "the" main character.
To the second, the reinterpretation of the character in a story is in no way disqualifying, or else we would have to remove pretty much every adaptation from the navbox. Whenever one deals with a work so repeatedly adapted, modified, reinterpreted, and otherwise cribbed from, there is no such thing as a pure take on a character, especially when the conceit of the work adapting the character is revisionism. That doesn't mean that the derivative work is not a clear and full reference to the original, nor that the selection of a character from the original as a main character in the derivative work is to be dismissed. Again, this is not purely the navbox for the Dracula novel, but about all the takes on the literary work and all its characters. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The derivative work is a reference to the character of Mina Harker - and I wouldn't object to its inclusion in a potential Template:Mina Harker. That's also what has been done with a couple of other characters from Extraordinary Gentlemen. But this is the Dracula template. Dracula, his story and vampires in general are not covered in Extraordinary Gentlemen.
By your logic, there will be hardly any work of fiction that is old enough to qualify for public domain be left without a link to that particular comic book.
The distinction between "a" and "the" main character is irrelevant. Also, the twisting of Mina by the comic is only a side issue - but not she is not merely reinterpreted here and there but turned into her opposite. Str1977 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except this isn't the template for the character Dracula, it's the template for the novel Dracula where the character of Mina originates. That's the disconnect. oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point never was that this was supposed to be the template for the Dracula character but exactly for the novel. The Extraordinary Gentleman comic/film however is irrelevant to the novel. Let me restate what I wrote above: "Dracula, his story and vampires in general are not covered in Extraordinary Gentlemen." It would be relevant to a Mina Harker template.
Then remove pretty much anything that barely takes elements from the novel and repurposes them for another story. Mina Harker is a major character created for the novel. A version of her appears as a lead character in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. There is no consensus for removal, so per WP:BRD the link stays. I'm willing to ask for a third opinion, but until then please do not edit war to remove the link. oknazevad (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the current consensus is to not include it. Per WP:BRD the onus is on you to change that consensus. I have to agree with Str1977 that the connection is too tenuous. IMO other than both characters being named Mina Harker the Mina of Stoker's book and the one of TLoEG are entirely different people. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, the link had been in the template for years until this past Sunday. So the Bold part was removing the link. Restoring the link was the Revert part of BRD. The onus is on establishing a consensus to remove, the default is to restore. oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Dracula&oldid=1259531326"