Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Crow Wicked Prayer

Hey All, Can someone tell me why both the Novel and the Film are on the same page even though they have much different plots?Shouldn't they be split into separate pages?Paulwharton (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Task force)

I propose a Texas Chainsaw Massacre task force, because I believe the film franchise is significant enough to warrent it, seeing as it's one of the most significant horror films of all time. If the task force is made, we can really improve Wikipedia's information on it. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Revive Collaboration of the month

I propose we revive and update the collaboration of the month because we need to see more GA and FA horror film articles. --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Film articles are certainly less of a priority than the woeful Horror article! Does this project do anything?!Yobmod (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Update info.

Some of the information on this project is really out of date, going back as far as 2006 in some cases, and I think this needs to be updated, because it's an important Project within Wikipedia. --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What stuff is out of date? Speaking of updating, I think we should go ahead and move the membership list to its own subpage - it's getting pretty long.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, stuff like the GA section, the ones before 2008 should be removed in my opinion, and the same goes for FA section. Also, the above mentioned Collaberation of the Month should definitely be revived, so we can get more GA & FAs to WP: Horror.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

2008? I think we should go back 1 year, and everything before that we cut. So, whatever falls before July 2007 should go. Then each month we bump more. I always looked at the list as a badge of honor for those that got an article to FA status - and it would be fine, given the size of this article, to let them stay on for a year and them remove them.

I agree, we should try and revive that CotM taskforce.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support a COTM too; or, at least, as much as I'm capable. The problem is lack of resources depending on the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure most mainstream horror films have plenty of resources available, so those wouldn't really be a problem. In any case, we should be focusing on those instead of less well-known films, for the time being.--EclipseSSD (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't have a fair number of horror film resources at hand right now, and I'm not much of an internet researcher. But, that's just me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not base our decision to kick-start the CotM taskforce on whether or not we can find sources. That should be a determining factor in the article we choose. I can help out with finding sources (use my university ID to search the journals and other like articles), and if I can't find something I know an editor that is really good at finding printed information that has been published on the web. Also, a lot of films are covered in horror film related books, so if anyone is looking for something to truly read we can go that route. I know that I own both Crystal Lake Memories and The Legend of Camp Blood: Making Friday the 13th; plus, I plan on buying a few more books on horror films in the next couple months. THe stuff is there, we just have to look hard enough and in the right places.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the way the FILM project is set up, it's very neat and orderly. I was thinking maybe we should clean up the page to mirror that more. What do you all think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as long as we don't forget to bring back CotM. --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A gift for this project

I made you a navbox temmplate, see {{Horror navbox}}. I have implemented it on almost all horror navboxes. Sorry for being so tardy in informing you. - LA (T) 09:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring out what this is... I don't see anything. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Horror navbox then select the Template namespace to see what it looks like in use. - LA (T) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Horror participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA (T) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Horror participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on merger of Origins of vampire beliefs back into vampire requested

OK folks, the subarticle Origins of vampire beliefs was split out over size concerns when vampire was at FAC. Dreamguy has proposed remerging it back here which I have concerns about but is feasibly possible (just) under size constraints. Three of us have an opinion currently but more would be helpful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance?

I think Template:HorrorWikiProject should have an importance section, to rate how important each individual horror article is. If anybody agrees, and could put that on the template, it should help this project a little bit, and could also help revive Horror Collaboration of the Month. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

mass horror film prod

user:Barton Foley has prodded a whole bunch of horror films with the reason "notability"... just a single word. Seems like a WP:POINT considering what's said on his talk page with tagging books with notability prior to his shift to films. 70.55.200.51 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Horror

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal of werewolf and lycanthrope

I was looking at Lycanthrope and werewolf, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. Please join in hte discussion at Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Importance again

As I've stated before, WikiProject Horror banner should have an importance assessment added to it, so it is easier to distinguish between the more notable horror topics, and the less notable. I would add it myself, but I don't know how to do it. --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason it doesn't have it is because "importance" is subjective. Who is to say why Psycho and Alfred Hitchcock deserve the same level of importance. Psycho should be high, but Hitchcock created it and did so much more than a single film could do, so shouldn't he be higher? The "Importance" rating is really a meaningless rating that doesn't really help any reader understand anything about the article. "Quality" does, because that is based on more objective material (though, even that is tainted by subjectiveness in determining if it's meets the criteria).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay without the importance assessment. Frankly, it only causes trouble. If it was more likely to spur users into action in bringing the more "important" articles to a higher quality, I'd say go for it. The truth is, I haven't seen that happen. People work on their pet projects, regardless of how importance others see it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FA status of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

I've said this on the film's talk page, but nothing so far. Now I know this article had several failed FA nominations, having nominated it myself, which maybe, wasn't a good idea. But this is an article I'd really like to see reach FA status, but I cannot do this on my own. I've recently been editing a few times on this article and others, and it'd be a great achievement if this article did, eventually, reach FA status. If anybody's interested in helping me out, I'd appreciate it. I'll see if I can find some more sources for this film. Any thoughts/comments? Cheers, --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Accepted Sources to Cite for Reviews?

Hello. I was trying to improve/expand a horror movie article I came across today, and hit a speedbump when looking for reviews. There are reviews, but I'm not certain if they're considered acceptable/reliable enough to add to the article, as they seem to all be from movie websites that aren't well-known and their movie critics are probably not well-known either. ([1], [2] and [3] to name a few). Is it okay to use these/cite these in a review section, or is it considered the standard to only cite reviews from "notable" critics? raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the film you're talking about? The problem with those "reviews" is that they are from self run websites, which means no editorial oversight, (unfortunately) no professional writers (by professional I mean they write for more than just that website), etc. Most online critics (those that are reputable) tend to write their review and it's picked up by various news organizations for publishing. Movies.com critic Dave White tends to get his stuff published in MSNBC.com (if not other locations as well). If this is an older movie, it will be hard to find a lot of reviews, unless you have access to either a public library or a university account. If it's a new film, then I say go to Rotten Tomatoes.com, as they have a list of critics. As a matter of fact, I would go there anyway so you can see what kinds of critics are generally acceptable (always look at the Cream of the Crop first, those are the most well known critics).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is Aquanoids, which is a film released in 2003 but it's a "B movie" and doesn't have any reviews at the usual sites such as Rotten Tomatoes. I guess I'll just ditch the idea of a Reviews section for the article, as I understand and agree with the objections you noted about the reviews I could manage to find. Thanks for the guidelines as to what's considered good sources for movie reviews, and how to find them, though, I appreciate the help! raven1977 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

The problem lies in that it appears to be an obscure film (which generally don't get a lot of coverage), and if you cannot find much on it, then it could be because there isn't even a cult following for the film. Use what you can find if it is that hard to find reviews. The article will probably never get FA, and might have an extremely difficult time with GA, but use what you got. Obscure films, even cult films, don't tend to get a lot of media coverage beyond special sites that are devoted to such things. That isn't to say you should use those sources for all film articles (as they really don't cut it), but my philosophy is, "when you cannot find the best, settle for what's available at the time." In this case, you're merely pulling opinion, and if you can at least pull some real analysis (and not just 'John like Aquanoids.') then it won't be so bad.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that all makes sense. Thanks again for the input! raven1977 (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

I proposed a Wikiproject Halloween here, and would like to solicit support from participants of this Wikiproject. Whether it becomes a project in its own right or a task force, I think Wikiproject Horror would certainly share parentage.--otherlleft (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As in the holiday or the film series? The film series doens't need a whole project, nor a task force. It would be better suited with a topic coordination effort (see the project proposal guidelines for info on a "topic coordination").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The holiday!--otherlleft (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (Turkish Wikipedia)

Is anybody able to translate Turkish? The article on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 on that site [4] seems to be pretty thorough, and it'd be good if somebody could translate it for us, so that we could apply their information onto here. --EclipseSSD (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

World War Z review

I'm not member but is there anyway I can get a member of this project to assess World War Z? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also interested in nominating this for a GA class but would like an opinion if there is still work to be done? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Vampire literature

Can someone settle this?

In the opening lead on Vampire literature, it once said "Probably the most influential recent writer in the genre is Anne Rice whose Vampire Chronicles set the trend for multi-volume vampire epics and was the ultimate inspiration for the new and very popular sub-genre of vampiric paranormal romance".

I checked the sole reference for that sentence (A UsaToday article) and only mention of Rice is "Not since Anne Rice's best-selling series about Lestat have so many readers thirsted for novels about blood drinkers who are sexy as well as scary".

I removed the sentence as, in addition to being possibly OR and POV, the source doesn't even begin to back up the claim. I was later accused of trying to perpetrate POV in doing so.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You were right to remove it. If the source doesn't actually say that, then it is original research to go from "not since Rice have readers thirsted for novels.." to "The most influential writer..."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Future-Class

Hi there! I'm a developer of {{WPBannerMeta}}, the meta-template that your project banner is based on. Following changes there we're intending to rescind default support for "Future-Class", which your project uses in the form of Category:Future-Class horror articles. There is an alternative system in place which makes it easy for the project to continue using this special class if you wish to do so, but I'm curious as to whether you think it is actually helpful to your project to have articles tagged in this way. Should I go ahead and implement the workaround to maintain the "Future-Class" through this transition, or would you prefer it to be removed? Happy‑melon 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to implement the work around, then that should be fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My default position will be to not continue support for this class; I'll implement the workaround only if there is a consensus here that this classification is actually useful to this project. Happy‑melon 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that it is, though you might not find a lot of voice on this page. The Horror Wikiproject isn't as active with discussion as some of the other WikiProjects.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as a compromise step I have created a note on the banner (triggered by passing |future=yes) and reassesed all the Future-Class articles as Start/Stub/C-Class plus this new parameter. you can easily add a tracking category to the banner if you want to keep an eye on these articles (add |NOTE_1_CAT=WikiProject Horror future films or something to the banner). While I'm at it, however, I've noticed in this process the very obvious point that every one of the articles within your scope is also taged by WPFilm, which is larger and more active than what is by your own admission a quiet project here. Would it make sense to merge the two banners, replacing {{HorrorWikiProject}} by, say, {{Film|horror=yes}}?? Just a thought; check out {{WPSpace}} for some similar alliances already in place. Happy‑melon 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Occult Detectives Task Force/Work Group

Please view the official proposal here, then please add to the discussion and/or sign your support for this task force's creation. Thank you. Hornoir (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of WikiProject Saw to Saw task force

I have proposed a move of WikiProject Saw to a Saw task force under WikiProject Horror. You can discuss this proposal here. Thanks. hornoir (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Suggestions

This WikiProject seems horribly out-of-date and I don't believe it has a coordinator currently. As such, I propose we:

1. Choose a new WikiProject image, since NosferatuShadow.jpg (our current image) is set for deletion as it is still under copyright in Germany and thus not a fair-use image.
2. Update the {{HorrorWikiProject}} template to reflect B-Class Quality Assessment criteria, as many Project banners now do.
3. Revive the Collaboration of the Month (CotM), since it never hurts to get horror articles up to Good or Featured status.
4. Attempt to be a little less "film-centric", since the purpose of the Project is to cover horror in film and literature.
5. Garner some Task Forces under our care to help with bigger projects. I've been attempting to get WikiProject Saw to become a task force here. Task forces are wonderful, as they can have a more limited scope while inheriting the "policies" of the primary WikiProject.
6. Have a proper election to get a new coordinator of the Project.

And while I am certain there are quite a few other things that NEED to be done, those immediately spring to mind. Knowing in advance I will regret this, I'd be willing to undertake the role of intermediate coordinator until a proper election can be held. hornoir (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All signed up WikiProject Participants have now been notified of this suggestion via a post on their talk page. hornoir (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My first thought (for #1), is to get an image from Night of the Living Dead. The entire movie is in public domain, thus any image we pull should (theoretically) be free. My suggestion on being "less film-centric" would be to make the CoM focus more (but not 100%, because that wouldn't be fair) on non-film articles. If the CoM takes in enough active editors, then it would be good to band together and work on those non-film articles through that. WikiProject Saw should never have been a WikiProject to begin with. They lack the number of editors and, more importantly, the number of individual articles that a Project is supposed to have. I agree that they should be downgraded to a "task force" (which, in reality isn't a downgrade but merely a renaming, as I'm sure the work they are doing is more in-line with a task force anyway). As a matter of fact, we should probably go through all the WikiProjects that are horror related and see if they actually meet the definition of a "project", or if they should be a task force, or a coordination (as all three are different). As for getting a proper election for coordinators...if you aren't familiar with how to do it, I would suggest contacting Girolamo Savonarola, as they helped to organize the election process for the Film Project coordinators.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "film-centric" issue, I recognize that most of the participants are probably horror film fans rather than horror literature fans. Due to this, my thought process was trying to make CotM 2/3rds films and 1/3rd literature based… thus every third CotM would be literary. There are several WikiProjects out there that should probably be task forces of this Project as well as several task forces that should be here but are elsewhere. This is certainly an issue we need to work on. As for the coordinator election process, thanks for the heads up. By the way, if anyone would rather be the interim coordinator until an election can be done, please speak up. I'd rather not do it, but figured that someone would have to step forward. hornoir (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All of this sounds good. Items #3 and #4 are particularly interesting to me. You can count on me to help in any way needed. Rray (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rray. Please continue to watch this page to see how the discussion progresses (as well, hopefully, as continuing to chime in yourself). hornoir (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How's File:Little-vampire.png for a free image?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That one works.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While File:Little-vampire.png is perfectly fine, based on  BIGNOLE 's suggestion of a Night of the Living Dead image, we could use: File:Night_of_the_living_dead_film_gif.gif, though the animated aspect of it might be a tad too distracting. I prefer the Little-vampire.png myself, but thought I'd mention the alternative. hornoir (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, if you want to view a NotLD alternative, then File:Zombies NightoftheLivingDead.jpg is probably a better image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I had with almost all the NotLD images was the thumbnails' content, which is what people would be viewing, weren't easily discernible. Here's the full list of NotLD images: click here. hornoir (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why we just plug-n-chug images into the box and see which ones look good. This includes the Drac image that Ghostface found, and any other free image we can muster.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I will also remark, though, that I like CyberGhostface's suggestion because it is neither film nor literature biased. hornoir (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I created the horror collaboration. We tried it on John Carpenter. Little interest was shown and it was just dead thereafter. I suspect that a wikiproject without a rather large brood of listed participants is not viable for major things like collaborations. It's sort of like when you invite lots of people to an event. Only some percentage actually show up so you need to figure that into your preparations. Of course, now we're facing the fact that even with our short list, given the length of time the project's been inactive, I believe many of those listed as participants may be long gone. In any event, I'd be glad to help out with reanimation if you want to take the reins to try. You can see I am a bit pessimistic but at the same time I would be happy if it worked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for beginning the CotM. I think it was a great idea. I'm hoping with a dedicated coordinator, more folks might readily watch the Project page if it is regularly maintained and updated. Regardless, I'm sure any help you can provide an elected coordinator will be more than appreciated. hornoir (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To Fughetta, I think one thing we need to do is mass message all participants and request that the come to the project and assert their active/inactive status. Let them know that if they do not wish to be an active participant (which has no bearing on whether they can edit horror-related articles) than we will remove their name. Afterward, I would suggest instituting a monthly newsletter, like the film project does. Those are often good reminders to participants on what is going on in the project, new articles in the CoM, etc etc. It has the potential to keep the active members active, because it reminds them that they are part of the project.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with  BIGNOLE  about this, though instead of deleting their names I'd suggest shifting them to a list of inactive participants (unless they are permanently blocked or deleted users, in which case I'd just delete them from the list). If anyone is good at python programming, please speak up... we could use a bot to do this stuff. I probably should merge my old username placement with my current one (long story, but it involves a change of e-mail addresses and a forgetting of the password). hornoir (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry...I didn't mean "delete" in the "delete" sense. I think we should take a look at the Film Project's newsletter and see how they have constructed it. I keep going back to them, because they are probably one of the more active projects out of all the projects that ours is related to (except maybe the Buffyverse Project, but that's a different kind of activity *cough*obsess-much*cough*).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Design and programming I'm good at, so I'm sure I can at least help construct a well-designed/organized newsletter; but I'll certainly check out your suggestion. And don't mock the Buffyverse Project… we'd be damn lucky to have that level of obsessive membership. (one of those damning smiley face things should probably appear here.) hornoir (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I view their obsession as more of a problematic thing, because the majority (though, I know a few that aren't this way), kind of follow the "damn the rules" logic and write and create pages based on what they like instead of what's encyclopedic. Yes, we need activity, but we don't need trigger-happy editors creating a page for every Tom, Dick, and Sally-horror element out there. It actually creates more problems, because then you have to go back and clean all those pages up. Activity good, uncontrolled bias with articles...eh..not so much.

Anyway, if you all want. I'll try and reorganize this Project's home page to be a little neater and user friendly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was joking about the obsessive thing, thus the comment regarding a smiley face. I think we should let this discussion continue for a couple of days to see what sort of consensus people have and any preferences/other suggestions others can make before a redesign of the main page is done. But if you want to start thinking about some new design elements, that's fine; I know I've already been contemplating the matter myself. hornoir (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how Nosferatu, a film that was published in 1922, is considered copyright in the US (where Wikipedia is incorporated). The US approval of the Gatt/Uruguay is specific that anything before 1923 remains in the public domain. The Photoplayer 15:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights don't automatically end before 1923, but that is neither here nor there. The issue with the Nosferatu image is that it isn't an American movie, it is a German movie and as such it is still copyrighted in Germany. Just because we are not Germany doesn't mean we can ignore their copyrights. Right now, it isn't even clear if that is the case. The editor who proposed it for deletion has not backed up the claim that there is a copyright in existence in Germany.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is exactly what was covered during the Uruguay rounds with GATT. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property is pretty clear that a US company (in this case, Wikipedia) is allowed to use anything that was published in recognized countries (including, in this case, Germany) anything that was published before December 31, 1922 in the usage of public domain.

Again, I must reiterate that it does not matter if the film is copyright in Germany. The usage is by an American company on an American server in the US. Legally, there is nothing from the copyright owners in Germany to stop Wikipedia from using it. The Photoplayer 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to point me in the direction where it actually says that copyrights are void if they are before 1923, as the only thing that I come across is the fair-use policy on copyright material (which isn't the same thing as public domain). Either way, this is an argument you need to take up here, as we are not trying to argue against its use, but are merely stating that it is up for deletion so we'll need to replace it if it actually is deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I missed this discussion, as i am not always on these days. I am a more of an 'that is wrong' change. Than a 'come on everyday messaging newbies'. However, i can point out what we need here, i have looked around read and so on, a formula to organise ourselves. I say to create a list for active users that will be able to help 'occasionally', 'All the time' and 'rarely'. Once we get the users that can help us, we can create task forces. These can be 'Creating new articles', 'updating old articles/maintaining' and 'Clean up'. These task forces will help each other. You can see a new article under the first task force will then go to the second task force which will then be cleaned by the the third. This way there will be at least readable articles than stubs. After this we can add a task force of a 'Featured Task' which will improve the article to feature class. Thus being organised, extremely well represented and a good morale booster for more users to become active in this project.

Of course this will take time and i have not got this time on my hands at this current time. However, soon i will be leaving education into the place of work, aka having more time to come active in these new task forces. With these task forces i can order and organise the task forces into subs within the force. (eg. in creating new articles - a sub could be '80's horror films' etc). This way more organisation, more detail and more activity. Thus, creating the vision created by Hornoir to be able to be clinched. :) METALFREAK04 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd hate to bring this up again, but would Image:MistyGraves.jpg be good for the new image of this project? I see it in a lot of horror templates. Would it be usable? I'm for the WikiProject:Saw becoming a sub category of WP:Horror. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To Metalfreak, I think that it wouldn't be best to have a lot of task forces. Too many can spread us thin. Not that those you suggested would be too much, I just think we need to first list all of the areas that we need task forces for (whether that is for creating/expanding/cleaning or for specific series, e.g. Saw or Halloween). Then, I think we should try and condense that list into TFs that are more encompassing so that we don't have 10 editors trying to work in ten different task forces at the same time. To Andrze, I also like the MistyGraves image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Task forces proper, like WikiProjects, are supposed to go through the voting process found at the WikiProject Council — which means I wouldn't feel right about just creating them without going through the proper channels. Also, WikiProject Horror/Horror film task force seems, well, counter-productive against arguments that this shouldn't remain a separate WikiProject, as that could just as easily be WikiProject Films/Horror task force. What makes this WikiProject unique is that it doesn't segregate between Films and Literature, so task forces can be just as versatile.

But we could easily make a section to list articles in the manner METALFREAK04 suggestions and have participants simply "play up" to their strengths. I think the level of organization you describe can be accomplished (and should) without division into task forces. I do think, though, that we might need a dedicated Ratings Squad. hornoir (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gang! Count me in on this project. I will be active in this topic from its origins and further history. Electric Japan (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can help with films. I will actively start working with you guys to improve the project. Bharathprime (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We could use and would appreciate help on the following userfied articles: User:A Nobody/List of traps in the Saw film series, User:A Nobody/Soul Edge (weapon), User:A Nobody/Underworld characters, User:A Nobody/Weapons of Gears of War, and User:Banazir/The Colt (Supernatural). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I wrong, A Nobody, in remembering that all these articles were deleted from Wikipedia after discussion? To be honest, I see them all as failing notability in regards to having separate articles, since all the pertinent information can easily be provided in parent articles. Sorry. hornoir (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad closes, though, and in any event, there in the userspace so we can bring these notable topics back into the mainspace after some further improvements. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to sort of bring this WikiProject back to life. I'm currently busy with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and such, and may be able to do more after I have finished with that. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Arb break

Too... much... to... read... Could we add subheadings as these discussions continue? If someone wants to create, for example, a section for task forces? By the way, as a member of a task force (and not affiliated with that particular TF's parent project), I think task forces are the way to go - and you can never have too many, so long as they fit our mission. Task forces help us to increase activity, not hamper it. We help task forces, they help us. Not sure if there is an official process to make this happen (I think the proposal areas are just suggested, not required, before creating task forces or projects); in our case, I'd just suggest we make the invitation to relevant TFs.

As far as the logo, I liked that vampire silhouette image that was suggested early in the discussion - is that still an option? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been rethinking my stand on having too many task forces. The proposal page is pretty necessary, as it can determine if something needs a task force or not (that's they they actually vote instead of just "who wants to join". As far as the image is concerned, we haven't officially decided on anything yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I love Task Forces and didn't mean to imply otherwise, but there are limits to what those task forces should be. If a task force encompasses too small a scope, than it is rather unnecessary. There should most certainly be departments, which are volunteer groups designed to enforce Project rules (such as Clean-up Crews and Ratings Squads). As for task forces, I'd personally love to see ones for the Halloween films, Nightmare on Elm Street films, Texas Chainsaw Massacre films, Friday the 13th films (you know, all the big franchises) as well as ones for larger horror authors and their works (Lovecraft, King, etc.). hornoir (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying; sort of diluting the experience with excessive task forces. I recommend we find ones that already exist, regardless of activity, and invite them to fall under our banner. As a "parent project" we don't do much other than offer them free advertising on our project and response to questions on our project discussion page. In return, they just stick a banner saying they're a task force of WP Horror. As far as the creation of several, more limited task forces on specific films, for example, I wouldn't overdo it. What we could consider instead is a massive drive to ask participants to re-join the project and, in doing so, comment specifically on their area of interest. That way, members can find potential collaborators within the project. Of course, a drive to get participants to re-join is necessary anyway; clearly the four million (rough estimate) names on our participants list is a joke, just based on the number of responses here - and a big list of nonparticipants isn't helpful. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator

So, who was the last official coordinator of this project or wasn't there ever one? I, myself, cannot become a coordinator because I don't have enough time to spend here on wikipedia but I will help pull a coordinator out of this discussion. So the question stands: Would anyone want to hold the responsibility as coordinator for this project? --TFunk (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we've ever had one. I believe that Hornoir is (and should) going to act as an interim coordinator until we get everything situated. After that, I assume we will have nominations and voting to find our official coordinators.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I foolishly volunteered to act an interim coordinator until an election; but ANY other interested individuals should speak up, I'd be most happy to be an assistant coordinator or merely a Project member.

Technically, whoever proposed and/or created this Project was the first coordinator, but I don't think there was ever an elected official in the position. And I don't think we've ever had anyone act as Assistant Coordinator before and a couple of those can really help.

 BIGNOLE 's agreed to be my interim assistant if I'm stuck in the interim coordinator job… any other interested parties should contact me, I guess. Yes, I radiate excitement regarding the mountain of work this will be. hornoir (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Announcement/resolution

If there are no dissenting opinions expressed by the 15th of January, one week from my initial proposal, we'll be springing into action on it.  BIGNOLE  has been working on a new structure for the Project and I'll be helping him with that. You can expect this Project to look shiny and new in a wee bit. Since no one else expressed an interest, I guess I'll be the interim coordinator until an election proper can be held — but I'd like to get the Project back to the point where people are regularly involved before that is the case (I'm assuming three months tops). My hope is that the elected coordinator won't have such a daunting task, as much will already be firmly in-place before s/he takes office.

Thanks for all the support you've shown. We'll do one more MASSIVE Participant talk namespace announcement session when we are in relatively good place, thus allowing people to start actively using and contributing to the newly restructured Project. hornoir (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that most projects have one lead coordinator and two assistants, so I'll act as one of those assistants until the official elections. --TFunk (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Point out some examples... It seems to me that the purpose of a WikiProject is to work collaboratively, not assign rank. I haven't seen too many formal structures for projects here. The most active group I work with, for example, is the Poetry Project, which has no members with titles, and we do just fine. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Being a project coordinator isn't a "rank". You hold no more power than the next person. As is pretty well summarized here: "The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct." -- So, I say we do need "titles", because it isn't just some editor with a flashy name attached to them, but someone that actually oversees specific aspects of the project that often get lost among the crowd when you have a lot of inactivity (or massive activity...pick your poison: either there isn't anyone to do it, or there are so many people that they forget what needs to be done).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done and done

No dissenting opinions, so we're going forward. Expect things to be shifting/changing here over the next month or so as we struggle to get things up-to-par. Bignole and myself are taking point on the redesign and, after that, I'll be seeking out a couple of Interim Assistants to help with specific tasks. Once that is all done and we have a viable, active participant list, we'll hold a proper election for a coordinator and assistants.

A mass talk page mailing will be sent out when the redesign is "done", so watch for it. Thanks again, hornoir (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I will most definitely help out whenever you need the assistance. --TFunk (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)