Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror/Archive 6

Horror film article again

Hello again, as discussed a year ago (!) here, I was interested in tackling the Horror film article into something somewhat presentable. I've slowly been dabbling with the history section and plan on building others. It's a real wreck of an article that so many pages link to, so I'll be very excited to clean it up into something proper. If anyone has any suggestions or other places to take the article to in the future, now would be a great time on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Horror film history

There is discussion on the article Horror film for splitting the section into it's own article. If anyone would like to weigh in on the articles talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

100 Horror video game Good Articles

We have just reached 100 horror and horror-related video game articles. Great work everyone involved! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Faust (Avatar Press)#Requested move 3 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Faust (Avatar Press)#Requested move 3 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Diana Walter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diana Walter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Walter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—Mahāgaja · talk 12:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Imprisoned with the Pharaohs#Requested move 17 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imprisoned with the Pharaohs#Requested move 17 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Suitable free-use image for "shock/horror/surprise"?

I have written a short article on the Dun dun duuun! sound formerly widely used in suspense radio plays and similar works to mark a point of shock. I am now looking for a suitable image for the DYK. I did a little poking about on commons but found nothing terribly useful. Perhaps someone here will have a good suggestion from an old movie or similar? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I do not have ideas for the image. We also need a copy of the actual sound too, right? Do you have ideas of where to get an existing copy, or do we need to create a new version somehow? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The sound is found in several links in the article, albiet in the form of Youtube videos. The version in Suspense may be free by this point, if someone wants to pull it out. I see that DYK does allow sound snips, so perhaps that is the way to go? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: 1942 and sound may not be free. We could ask at the Commons Copyright Pump. The YouTube link for Suspense is not working. Yes, this an article about sound, so I think having the sound for DYK is best.

I think we could ask someone to make a new version of the sound, but if possible, it would be nice to identify a free and open historically significant version. Is Suspense your best lead? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, is there a "sound request" talk page somewhere? That does sound like the best option. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Dread Central

Hi, there is a discussion at WP:RSN about the reliability of Dread Central, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Potential Lovecraftian additions to the source list

Reliable publications

• Crypt of Cthulhu Website Online content Internet Archive
• Lovecraft Studies Website Online content Internet Archive
• Lovecraft Annual Website JSTOR ISSN 19356102
• Lovecraftian Proceedings Website
• The Lovecraft eZine Website

All of these publications are focused on Lovecraftian scholarship. Lovecraft Studies was the premier journal in the field from the 1980s to the early 2000s. Its successor, the Lovecraft Annual, has held the same position since 2007. Both journals share an editor, S. T. Joshi. Meanwhile, the Crypt of Cthulhu is a scholarly fanzine that is edited by Robert M. Price It has served a similar role to the now-defunct Lovecraft Studies. Meanwhile, Lovecraftian Proceedings is a repository for the papers presented at the NecronomiCon Providence. All of these periodicals have been cited by several other scholarly publications that discuss H. P. Lovecraft and his circle. On a somewhat less scholarly front, The Lovecraft eZine is an online magazine that discusses and publishes various bits of Lovecrafitana. Edited by Mike Davis, it has done so since 2011.

Prominent blogs

• S. T. Joshi's blog Website
• Tentaclii Website
• Deep Cuts in a Lovecraftian Vein Website

S. T. Joshi has operated a blog for twelve years. Some of his commentary might be usable, particularly the published content that he stores there. Meanwhile, David Haden—the operator of Jurn—has operated his own scholarly blog for many years. This blog is perhaps the most prominent of the Lovecraftian blogs. In addition to its usual content, it also contains a sizeable list of openly accessible Lovecraftian scholarship, a gigantic link directory and some assorted writings. One of the guest essays has been republished elsewhere. Bobby Derie's blog, Deep Cuts in a Lovecraftian Vein, focuses on Lovecraftian works and people that have been understudied due to factors relating to race and gender. All of these blogs are operated by published scholars.

General website

• The H. P. Lovecraft Archive Website

This is the default website for all things related to H. P. Lovecraft. It contains the Joshi-edited versions of his texts, a listing of scholarship that includes digital copies of old scholarship and many other useful things. It is operated by Donovan K. Loucks who is a published scholar.

@ReaderofthePack, Andrzejbanas, GamerPro64, Paleface Jack, Auric, Darkknight2149, SeanTheYeti452, and StarTrekker: All of you participated in the previous discussion on the list's formation. Do you have any opinions or further suggestions? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, anything with Joshi should be seen as a RS almost by default given that he's seen as such an authority on HPL. Hmm... going by section, the Reliable publications and the default website sections look good, no arguments there. With the prominent blogs, Joshi is definitely good as far as I am concerned. The Deep Cuts website may get questioned but per Google Scholar it seems to be used as a RS here and there. I'm worried about that getting questioned if it came to it. Same goes for Tentaclii. I'd say that they could be in an EL section for sure and at least mentioned somewhere, but as a RS I'm kind of worried about them getting questioned to some degree. Ultimately I think that they look good enough, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Local 58

Hi, the horror YouTube series Local 58 is at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local 58, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Would it be alright to use Downright Creepy, Screen Zealots, Horror Obssessive, Modern Horrors, AIPT Comics, Cinepunx, Flickering Myth, Horror Critic, Horror Fuel, Nightmarish Conjurings, Gruesome Magazine, Horror Cult Films or Morbidly Beautiful as RS? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to say probably no on Downright Creepy. I can't seem to find anything about their editorial oversight and the impression I'm getting is that they accept user content. The site itself seems to have some html issues as clicking on the sidebar icon (the horizontal slashes) doesn't bring up any navigation. HTML issues doesn't always mean a site is unreliable, but it's also not a great sign. Now arguments towards it being usable would be the film festival and this article on their network founding, as well as the fact they do interviews with notable people. (Interviews with notable persons are harder to get when you're a nobody or unreliable outlet.) It's more the lack of any info on the site's editorial process or staff that makes me leery, honestly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  According to this Tim KC Canton is the site's editor-in-chief. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe/probably on Screen Zealots. They have some info about their staff, but not a lot of info. The pedigree of the person running the site is good, which is what is making me lean more favorably towards them. They don't seem to be written about though, which works against them. They don't do interviews it seems, so I can't use that in their favor. I'd say that stuff written by the site's founder likely would be reliable, but other people would be up in the air unless we could find out more about the editorial oversight. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Horror Obsessive looks pretty good. It has editorial oversight and doesn't appear to sell article space (ie, pay to play articles). Site is also well laid out, a good sign. One of their people was used in this article as a commentator, which is also generally a good sign. They've also done interviews with people involved with notable films, also a very good sign. I'd say that it's usable, but would get more feedback first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• I've always generally seen Modern Horrors as reliable. It's not something I saw as a strong source, so I tended to avoid using it for the most part, but scrutinizing it I do notice that it accepts user submitted content and there's no clear editorial oversight marked. The About Us page also lacks any info about the site or its people. At the same time, their site does do interviews concerning notable films. This is a maybe, I suppose. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• AIPT is iffy. There's no info on editorial oversight and really no info about the site as a whole anywhere on the site that I can find. I'd heard of them, but for some reason I assumed it was part of AICN, which is still more or less seen as a RS on Wikipedia. It is used as a source in this book put out by Rowman/Lexington Books, which is a good sign. I would just need more to really feel comfortable calling this a RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  The about page is here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Cinepunx has the same issues: no editorial info, no info about the site on the site itself. It does have interviews with notable people on notable films, which is a good sign. Used as a source in this book put out by an academic/scholarly publisher, which is good. So also iffy and needs more proof. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  So, to clarify, if a website has editorial oversight, could it be used as an RS? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  According to this Liam O'Donnell is the co-creator and editor of Cinepunx. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Vampire

I have nominated Vampire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Troy Howarth's So Deadly, So Perverse

Does anyone have volume one and two of Howarth's So Deadly, So Perverse? I'm trying to fix a no target error on Bruno Mattei, and I'm trying to find out which volume the movies Zombi 3, After death and Island of the Living Dead are in -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

GAR for Eerie (Avon)

Eerie (Avon) has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Twilight (Meyer novel)#Requested move 29 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Twilight (Meyer novel)#Requested move 29 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Universal Horror cats for discussion

Various Universal Classic Monster categories are up for discussion They discussion can be found here and involves Category:Universal Monsters film series, Category:Universal Monsters, Category:Universal Monsters characters, Category:Universal Classic Monsters. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The trainwreck at Afro-Surrealism

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora#The trainwreck at Afro-Surrealism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees article headings

There is discussion on the appropriate headings for on the Jason Voorhees article. If anyone would like to weigh in, your input would be welcome. here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on Witchcraft talk page

Hello everyone! There is an ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! which focuses on women who identify as a witch, their relationships to the term witchcraft and its practices (both historically and present day, see the short descriptor for a start, ""Practice of malevolent magic"), and whether the article is neutral. Historyday01 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft: Requested move

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Frankenstein's Promethean dimension

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Frankenstein's Promethean dimension —has been proposed for merging with Victor Frankenstein. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —Alalch E. 23:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC) —Alalch E. 23:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources? (transferred from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Horror/Sources)

Hello, hello,

Would anyone also consider that both the following sites can be considered reliable and quality sources:

1. Scared Stiff Reviews. See their About Us and Team
2. the other is  Moria Reviews,

Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Horror News

Hi, the website Horror News is being discussed at WP:RSN, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Town That Dreaded Sundown#Requested move 21 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Town That Dreaded Sundown#Requested move 21 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources? (transferred from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Horror/Sources)

Hello all, Would anyone consider that the following sites can be considered reliable and quality sources:

1. Scared Stiff Reviews. See their About Us and Team
2. the other is Moria Reviews

?

Thank you -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)

Not sure about Scared Stiff, nothing on their about suggests anything specific that I think would be considered passing WP:RS. Moria Reviews are often neat but also is a WP:SPS. Love their work though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The Stone Tape

The Stone Tape has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 10:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Terrifier (franchise)#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Terrifier (franchise)#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Seven FA Nom

Seven is up for a featured article nomination. Any comments or help to make it pass would be helpful. Review is here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Christmas Horror write-up in Horror film

There is currently a discussion on how try organize a sub-genre within the horror film article. It's been established as recognized by various sources, but organizing the thoughts into a cohesive sentence has proven difficult. Any input at Talk:Horror film would be appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:High Tension#Requested move 14 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:High Tension#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:MonsterVerse#Requested move 31 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MonsterVerse#Requested move 31 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)