Talk:Vampires in popular culture

message: Sorry, I made a dumb comment based on not having read the most recent change sufficiently carefully, so have deleted it.  Apologies. Accounting4Taste 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nosferatu

message: I have been making some extensive changes in the body of the article, clarifying the chronology and themes. The old version was 99% plagiarised from some film book, by the way...Colin4C 09:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've been adding a few of the weirder vampire movies.   One thing: the lede suggests that Dracula is in more movies than any other character, and later on in the article he's second to Sherlock Holmes.  Which is it, and who said so?  I can't offer a reference or citation either way. Accounting4Taste 21:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are bits I retained from the old version of the page, which I can't verify either way...though I guess we might look at the Sherlock Holmes wikipedia page for further elucidation. As for adding weird vampire movies, good idea! And just to say to any doubters that The Vampire's Ghost (1945), which I added really does exist...It was a very low budget film by poverty row studios Republic Pictures, starring John Abbott (actor) in the title role. Colin4C 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article 

message: It seems that those who proposed a change of name for this article have done nothing to change the head words to correlate to the new title or contributed anything further to this article. I am mystified why an inconclusive discussion by editors who hardly contribute to this article resulted in a name change which is both vague and inaccurate. What is 'Vampires in visual media' meant to mean? There are many books and encyclopedia entries on Vampire film or Vampire cinema. That has a clear and precise meaning. I propose changing it to 'Vampire Cinema' and putting the comic books etc in the Vampire literature article and the other stuff into a 'vampires in popular culture article' or getting rid of it entirely if it is, as a lot of it seems, just useless trivia. Colin4C (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of this article 

message: I oppose merging this article with Vampire movies. Vampire movies are a seperate subject with many books written about them. There is no reason whatsoever that an article on Vampire movies should be lumbered with the 'assorted vampire trivia' which this present article contains. Wikipedia articles should be encyclopediac - not dumping grounds for stupid trivia. Colin4C (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger 

message: The image :Image:Vampire lovers cap.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.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Vampirella1.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Vampire lovers cap.jpg