Template talk:Dracula

message: I would like to suggest some changes to this template.
* First, I would like to see the characters of Arthur Holmwood, Dr. John Seward and Quincey Morris included among the characters.  These articles already exist and the characters (i.e. the suitors of Lucy Westenra) are central to the novel.
* Second, I would suggest that several more adaptations of Dracula be included.  Specifically:
** Dracula (1968)
** Conde Dracula (directed by Jess Franco)
** Bram Stoker's Count Dracula (with Jack Palance)
** Count Dracula (1977)
** Dracula (BBC) (2006)
* Third, I would recommend removing Love at First Bite and House of Dracula from the template because it is not an adaptation of the original novel in any way but would be better described as a "sequel" (like Taste the Blood of Dracula or Dracula's Daughter).
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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Color 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Kim Newman

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notability

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Bram Stoker's" 

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Transylvania 6-5000''

message: "Dracula/The Rose" has no place here, and I wonder how  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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate 

message: 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)
replies: text: Too minor, I think. Little more than a cameo. oknazevad (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I think you are probably right. Dunarc (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chase - Doctor Who story 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another Van Helsing Video Game? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Doctor Who audios 

message: What do editors think about collapsing the 'Film' section per the  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)
thread_title: Films

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Neither  or  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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Split