Talk:Werewolf fiction

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

message: There is absolutely no reason to merge this article with the main Werewolf article. They are both quite substantially large, and by separating them out the people who wanted to list all the minute mostly nonnotable videogames and so forth now have more free reign to add what they like here. This merge notice was put here by an editor undergoing RfC for his abusive edits, including undoing changes I make on articles. I mentioned this as an example of the way things are done here to disprove his point elsewhere and he comes over and tries to undo all the work here. Unless there are objections I will remove the merge tag as clearly inappropriate within a day or so. DreamGuy 06:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
just becasue i have and RFC  going ( and btw, LEARN TO SPELL) doenst mean that this article shouldnt be added to the  end of the werewolfarticle, as the Vampire article will have Vampire Fiction added to the end thereof.  please stop trying to weasel  and mention my RFC everywhere to try to influcene opinion.
Gabrielsimon 06:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag

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

message: I'm surprised there isn't a section talking about songs featuring or about werewolves - I can probably come up with almost a dozen off the top of my head.
I'm going to make that section now, please help out if you can. The Son Of Nothing 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and by "dozen", I of course meant "four". The Son Of Nothing 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: I've put this section in chronological order. Hopefully this will help separate modern pop hack-work from the older classics of the genre. Colin4C 12:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why older books should be considered classics and newer books hacks. Shouldn't each book be included or excluded on the basis of its notability? There have been some genre-changing, exceptionally famous werewolf novels in recent years. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of "recent years" claims is that people do not yet have the sort of historical overview to be able to tell what really is genre-changing and important. Something famous today can be forgotten about tomorrow. Older books have already withstood the test of time so have more clear notability. DreamGuy 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe in future people can supply dates when they enter a book into this section? Also I'm not sure of the value of much contemporary multi-volume hack-work in this field. A lot of it appears to me to be mass-marketed trash of the same value as a daily newspaper: i.e. a great waste of valuable trees. Colin4C 12:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list page could let stuff be split off and keep this page on the subject matter.  Goldfritha 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh! This article was itself split off from werewolf about a year ago for the exact same reason. :) BTW, we should be very careful when considering excluding contemporary multi-volume books from a list like this to avoid being POV. One person's trash is another person's treasure. Bryan 20:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werewolf Lit 

message: The new intro, starting with folklore, seems awkward, vague and slightly off-topic. We've got a whole nother article dealing with folklore, why introduce it in a confusing manner here? I vote for a re-write of the intro, excluding folklore, and tightening up the writing so it doesn't sound as if it doesn't know what it is going on about. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are folklore stories, and they are properly treated as part of fiction.  And neither Bisclavret nor Gothic fiction is folklore.  Goldfritha 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about Bisclavret or Gothic fiction. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Werewolf fiction is rooted in folklore. Should the mere mention of this fact be concealed from the readers of this article? As for rewriting - this article would benifit from major changes IMHO. I think more prominence should be given to the older legends, Little Red Riding Hood, Gothic fiction etc and less on Buffy and Harry Potter and pop-culture froth. Colin4C 18:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting that the origins be concealed (indeed, anyone with half a brain knows that werewolves have roots in folklore and mythology and there's nothing wrong with mentioning that) I'm just saying that folklore is much more than just a variety of fiction, and confusing folklore with fiction (especially in the wholesale and confusing way it is done in the current intro) is not the sort of writing that is up to encyclopedia standards, especially when there is another article on the topic. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is merely one sentence in the intro mentioning the derivation of werewolf fiction from folklore and the salient characteristics of such folklore. That is all. I agree that this article is fairly hopeless: but not for that reason. For instance I amended the bit in the intro that suggested that the werewolf is synonymous with 'The Wolfman': au contraire in Captain Marryat's early 'White Wolf of the Hartz Mountains' (1839) the Werewolf is female (and a manifestation of an evil spirit). Also Marryat's werewolf is the folkloric werewolf in fictional form. The intro would make more sense if it was chronological and genealogical: i.e. explaining and illustrating the historical roots of contemporary werewolf fiction. It didn't all begin with Lon Chaney! And mentioning folklore how would you class Grimm's Fairy Tales (thinking of Red Riding Hood here....)? Are they folklore or literature? From what I've read the  Brothers Grimm improved on the old-wives tales they heard and put the old tales in a fairly sophisticated literary framework...Later Angela Carter used this folklore in her werewolf story 'The Company of Wolves'. Just to re-iterate that without a sense of the folkloric and/or fairy tale origins werewolf fiction makes little sense. An encyclopedia should explain such things.... Colin4C 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back at the article I see that there is no distinction made between an intro/definition and the body of the article. Compare Vampire fiction which has a two line intro, with the rest of the material put into an historical section. Maybe we should use that as the model for this article? The only trouble with providing a definition, however, is with the title of this article, viz 'Werewolves in fiction'. It would be so much easier if it was called 'Werewolf fiction', then you could say 'Werewolf fiction is....whatever'. However when we try the present title 'Werewolves in fiction...' you cannot use an 'is' cos it is a plural and using an 'are' mires us in conceptually confusing quandary as to whether we are talking about the Werewolves in Werewolf fiction or Werewolf fiction itself and/or both. Werewolves in fiction is the definition itself rather than that which needs to be defined....oh dear....and I expect it's a full moon soon as well... Colin4C 13:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the confusing and vague references to folklore aren't the only problem. The intro isn't a proper intro at all, and it's tendency to switch back and forth between describing themes and describing history, usually without showing any direct link between the two when it switches, is just bad. Unless it can link a particular theme (such as silver bullets) to a particular piece (or pieces) of fiction, it would be better to block off the theme sections of the intro and the history sections of the intro separately. Perhaps even have one short paragraph on the broadest themes (outlining the general bounds of the werewolf in fiction and defining the werewolf in fiction) then an actual section that describes the history of werewolf fiction, then an actual section that describes the themes of werewolf fiction in more detail. The intro is too long for a mere intro and wanders all over the place. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we changed (somehow....I'm no wikipedia whizz when it comes to technical things like this...) the title of the article to 'Werewolf Fiction' and take it from there? The more I think about the present title the more inadequate it seems. For instance who would think of using the term 'Criminals in Fiction' rather than 'Crime Fiction'? What do you think? Colin4C 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing it to "Werewolf fiction" seems like a good idea. I'm certainly in favor of uniformity in titles, and we could do worse than follow the lead of Vampire fiction. The only possible problem I could see coming up is when things are included in the lists that have only a quick scene with a werewolf (such as Big Fish). Such things could easily be included in an article called "Werewolves in fiction" but would seem to have less of a place in an article called "Werewolf fiction." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case we could retain this article under its original name as a sort of werewolf listing and transfer relevent info here to a new Werewolf fiction article? Colin4C 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting splitting off the "lists" portion of the article under the title "Werewolves in fiction" and putting all the rest of the material into an article called "Werewolf fiction"? We'd have to be sure there was a consensus so that the two articles didn't immediately sprout merge tags. Does anyone else want to chime in with a vote? Or should we put a split tag on the article as it is now, and have more discussion for everybody here on the talk page under a new subheading called "Split"? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm, yes, on second thoughts, best to avoid all that 'Merge' shenanigans. Therefore I'll wave my magic wand and.....Colin4C 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Folklore intro!?

message: I reverted this this modification:
:The earliest printed fiction was often derived from folk tales and medieval theology, with the werewolf often being due to a demonic pact, part of Satan's army of darkness, inimical to the human race and having a craving for human flesh.
'Earliest printed fiction' seems somewhat meaningless and inaccurate. It does not clarify any putative vagueness, but rather adds to it. 'The werewolf often being due to a demonic pact' is not good English. I guess the meaning might be 'Transformation into a werewolf is often due to a demonic pact', though I'm not sure that this would fit into the context of the rest of the intro...Colin4C 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that I didn't improve the problem as much as I had hoped. However, "some stories" is still the king of vague. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The phrase "some stories", is followed by an example of the kind of story adverted to. I.e. "The White Wolf of the Hartz Mountains" by Marryat. Colin4C 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edits 

message: I'm trying to put all the books mentioned in the book list in date order. Does anybody know the dates when these books were published?:
:Lord of Wind and Fire Trilogy by Elaine Corvidae 
:Shadow on the moon and Shadow of the Wolf by Carol Flynn 
:The Crimson City series by Liz Maverick, Marjorie Liu, Patti O'Shea, and Carolyn Jewel. 
Colin4C 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books in Date Order 

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

message: After DreamGuy's changes were opposed by this talk page, he is now trying to force the issue with a template. I removed the template, because it smacks of beating a dead horse. DreamGuy reverted. I will now remove it one more time, and ask that DreamGuy follow the rules and not try to keep pressing an issue where neither policy nor other editors are on his side. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem here is that two editors with a long history of doing nothing but objecting to everything I do because I am doing it and who cannot give a reason for these links that meet WP:EL cannot just pretend that they can control the article. The links are under dispute, so the tag stays until such time as the dispute is resolved. You haven't even tried to do so. This is sheer bullying. DreamGuy 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is your responsibility to show why policy is on your side whenever other editors agree it isn't on your side. We haven't gone anywhere near 3RR, or any other policy violation. Provide some real reasons to support your position, or gracefully back out. Calling names, starting weird conspiracy accusations and becoming upset doesn't help your case. Prove it using Wikipedia rules or stop beating a dead horse. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to this, how can you say the dispute wasn't resolved when everyone who responded to you on this very talk page disagreed with you, over a 20-day period? Hmmmm? People had more than enough time to comment if had they agreed with you. Stop declaring victory all by yourself and adding disruptive templates. Your template is going away again. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of a couple of people wanting to violate policy, that doesn't mean you can get away with it. You never tried to justify those links, you just put them back. Since you don't want the template, I got rid of the problem links. It's one or the other until you can give a real encyclopedic reason why they should stay. But of course you can't, as you've lost this same argument across a wide variety of talk pages and only now claim that you have consensus because you tracked down Colin4c, another editor with a long history of blind reverting any and all changes to articles he marks as his own and making personal attacks on me and so forth. All you have to do to justify the links is give a reason for them that meets with policy, You are unwilling or unable to do so, so the links must go or be tagged. That's how it works here. Sorry you refuse to accept that. DreamGuy 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you accuse people of violating policy you really should provide an example, as I've told you many times already on other talk pages. Claiming that the removed external links violate every policy in the book doesn't mean that they do. You really ought to provide a quote or an example showing exactly what you mean when other editors who've read the policy have no idea why your arguments should apply. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam template

message: See this for the material that DreamGuy keeps removing. I'm asking to see what others here think. In my opinion, much of this material is notable. In particular, when an individual television episode is notable enough to have an entire Wikipedia article devoted to just it, then I think that it is probably notable enough to be briefly mentioned in an article on werewolf fiction. What do you all think? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously think that series that only have werewolves in one episode should be removed from the list.  The list should show notable usage of werewolves, not just "Let's make an episode with a werewolf in it!" examples.  Honestly, the list should not be three times longer then the text, it's painful to look at.  If the werewolf has a lasting affect on the series, then keep it.  Otherwise, it's not worth it.     -Tainted Conformity (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Television single episodes removal

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

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

message: The image :Image:Sarah Patterson in The Company of Wolves.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Sarah Patterson in The Company of Wolves.jpg

message: Not that it matters too much on this topic, but In Golden Sun, There is only one town that 
has werwolves and
nowhere else are there werewolf-like animals though I think some of the other races resemble vampires. 
Correct me if i'm wrong.
                     Rckhound!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckhound1 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Garoh

message: If only because it involved a werecat, not a werewolf.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.115.168 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it be alright to delete the mention of Thriller. 

message: Please justify inclusion of tags on Talk page please. If you don't they will be removed.  Colin4C (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Alright, unless someone objects, I'm going to inact WP:Bold and prune the lists of media werewolves have appeared in.  Specifically, if they only appear in one episode/installment/volume/whatever, then they're not that important to the series itself, and aren't a viable example (personal opinion, feel free to disagree).  As to games, if they're just random mobs, they aren't noteworthy.  If they have a major influence on the story, then they should stay.  At max, five examples for videogames should be good.
As to the rest (books/film/music)... I'm going to need help with those.  We do NOT need that many examples of stuff werewolves have appeared in.  Roughly ten examples of books, maybe five examples of music/music videos.  There is no reason to have this much cruft.  I'm a lycan fan, but this is just nuts.  This is going to take a bit, and likely be stretched out over several edits, so if anyone wants to say anything, feel free to speak up.  :D  --Tainted Conformity (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning the Lists

message: I am certain that there was a comedy series involving a family of werewolves somewhere in the 1998-2008 timeframe.  I can't remember anything really beyond the family supposedly eating a whole cow, and a scene where some old people in the back of the car made cracks about "avoiding the moors" and "sticking to the road", which are unfortunately references to the movie American Werewolf in London.  If I figure out what this series is, I will post it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.66.218 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Shows 

message: The last few paragraphs of the Twentieth Century section actually deal more Twenty-First Century examples, however there is no Twenty-First Century section - I believe one should be added. 70.104.1.204 (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty-First Century 

message: A lot of people out there believe that there are werewolves, or lycanthropes, out in the world. Is this true? Most people (and this may shock you) say yes. Since the beginning of time it seems that there have been werewolf legends around. I myself can not say whether lycanthropes are real, or not, but there is ,surprisingly, lots of evidence that suggests that they are.
   Recently, I have discovered that the unfamous author Maddelynne Smithson is coming out with a new book called "The Guide to Werewolves (for teens and tweens becoming one)". In it she explains how werewolves got here and the myths and truths about them. Maddelynne has also written "Area 51 for a Russian Girl" and "Windell". Though these books are not yet published, and are only available to a small amount of people, such as her friends, family, some school students, or anyone who can get access to a copy through one of the sources.
   In her new book she talks about all the changes you go through as you become a werewolf, and how to properly handle them. Such as when you begin growing fur (for girls) lots of shaving,waxing,and tweezing and also a few bobby pins and hairbows should take care of it. Growing fur (for a boy)when it comes to legs,chest, and underarms you don't have to do much, but do shave when there is excessive fur growth, and if yo don't want constantly cut your hair use styling gel and give yourself boys' styled long hair or ( as Maddelynne calls it) give yourself a stallion tail, which is a pony tail for men. Every occasional chapter though you go to two different lives one a girl becoming a werewolf and the other a boy, and their new lives,how they are adjusting to life , and their personnal expierinces which usually leads to the subject of the next guideline chapter.
   The release date is currently unknown ,but should be out from late 2012- mid 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.255.19 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guide to Werewolves ( for teens and tweens becoming one) 

message: Starting next month, I am going to start removing the info on anything not actually about werewolves. Featuring werewolves in a movie or book (Harry Potter,) or just a using them as a random mob in video games (Castlevania) doesn't qualify them for inclusion in this article. If there are any objections to this, please let me know before I start mass deleting stuff. The man with shades (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much trivia.

message: "However, in most legends influenced by medieval theology the werewolf was a satanic beast with a craving for human flesh."
This is a surprising statement considering that, in the only medieval literature discussed, the werewolf is the hero. If you check, you'll find that werewolves did not turn into satanic beasts with a craving for human flesh until the Renaissance period. Before that, werewolves were rather morally ambivalent - they could be good or they could be bad just like anyone else.
Further, it's debatable whether medieval theology can be blamed wholesale since the Orthodox denominations, who also had a presence in the Middle Ages, was (and still is according to the monograph, written by Harry Senn, "Werewolves and Vampires in Romania") also pretty ambivalent about werewolves.
WolfVanZandt (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval werewolf literature 

message: It's the last day of the Month.  No indication it's based on any Calendar other then the Solar one Europe normally used back then.  Even it it was a Lunar Calendar, the Full Moon is the middle of The Month in those.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.34.210 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Wagner the Wehr-Wolf (1847) does NOT turn on the Full Moom 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Werewolf in fiction and media which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is only a short reference to the film very loosely based upon the book series.  Any reason not to add a short section on the three book series?  It is all about werewolves. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Howling?