Talk:Vampire/Archive 8

message: Hi everyone! For the next couple of days, I'm gonna be editing the article. Since it's gonna be a huge job as I feel the current layout is wrong, I probably won't be adding citations until the end. So if you see something uncited, don't slap a tag on it or delete it, as it's probably gonna be cited later. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My renovations: 

message: Hi, this is just a personal checklist that I can go through to make sure I've covered everything in my rewrite. Ask if you want something done - it can be added to my list, so that I can do it for you so your edits aren't lost in the rewriting. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention of illness porphyria and allusions to vampirism (?) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I popped in Varney the Vampire as it is a landmark early work in the evolution of modern vampire literature. Also importnat in the evolution of vamp attributes. more later, cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, how would that article ever make it through FAC now? I'll try not to delete the Varney references - I was gonna add him myself too. Still chugging along, I'm a quarter of the way through Folk beliefs... I think.... :) Spawn Man 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please could we keep an eye out for hostile revisions to the etymology section. I was responsible for removing references to a fictitious document 'prolander script' from the archive at VampireRave which had tried to cite wikipedia as a source - by the time I had got here, someone had already identified and removed it; just a little too late - the 'script' is still popping up all over the place as both VampireRave and wikipedia were quickly mirrored. The suspect is back at VampireRave arguing hard that the 'Likhyi / Лихый' part of Upir' Likhyi means sexually insatiable - which it plain doesn't. I am sure that, before long, an edit will appear here to support his argument there. Unless this argument has proper references and sources, please could it be swiftly controlled. Thank you :) Artemka 10:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using a vampire OC in my fanfictions (as a way of tying Castlevania elements into the story.)  For this project, I'd like information on the abilities, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities of vampires.  I think a lot of this information may already be in the article (healing in moonlight?  Who knew?  Certainly not me.); however, I would like it to be a bit better organized so that I don't have to pore through the whole article for it.  Thanks in advance.  --Luigifan (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand your request. If you want information on the subject of vampires, you might want to read the article. If you want all the information, you will indeed have to read all the article. I can do nothing further to help you unless you want something specific. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 05:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Checklist: 

message: There was no citation for this case. Although the reincarnation does exist and I think I have heard about reincarnation as a demon, the Kali and Durga teamup is inherently misleading...Kali and Durga are both the same goddess, Kali is an enraged form of Durga. I commented it out, but if someone wants to add to it with references I don't have a problem. Arnabdas 20:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may have noticed above, the article is undergoing a major revamp (Pardon the pun). I haven't gotten to that stage yet, since I've been under the weather lately, but I will soon. It should be referenced by the time I'm done - a lot of stuff is unreferenced; the article really is in bad shape. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the problem and I'll try to fix it when I'm better. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kali and Durga Hindu Reference 

message: The three-way division among vampires in fiction, vampires in folklore/legend/mythology, and the vampire bat is a good idea, and IFAI have noticed, the boundaries among them are pretty accurately drawn. And BTW my level of interest is not high enuf that i am likely to contribute significantly to the improvements i seek. Nevertheless, IMO
# There should be a relatively short article (but far more than a Dab) whose topic is roughly Scope of the word vampire (which i will treat as a working title, in the hope that it will quickly cease to  be a contender as new suggestions emerge). It should limit itself to the least level of detail that permits clarifying how aspects of folklore, fiction, and the existence of the corresponding bat adaptation (co-extensive neither with a species nor a genus, tho currently with a subfamily) have had effects relevant to another of the topics. (In particular, i think it may be valuable to note that by the nature of folklore, it is tough to distinguish between oral pseudo-natural-history and oral fiction, let alone tall tales that are intended to fool the audience, especially a young one (think snipe hunt and Easter Bunny.
# In any case, i think the title Vampire should have a broader scope than the folklore/legend/mythology topic. Better the Dab should be moved to it, than have it stay as it is now, but perhaps Vampire should be the title of the otherwise hard-to-title article i have proposed in my preceding 'graph.
--Jerzy•t 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal take would be possibly combining fiction and the folklore pages, but this page is being mainly worked over by Spawn Man so I'll wait for his input. I dont think it needs a disambig page as a vampire bat is always described as such, and not merely 'vampire' - a link at the top of the page is fine for me. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say definitely keep them seperate, as there is a large body of notable research and sources for all three topics to sustain their own articles. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, mine was only an initial impression - and article length will be something to consider I think. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: WTF? I have no idea what that guy just said - Could someone please explain everything to me in plain English? Cheers, Spawn Man 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, okay... Vampire bat should definitely not be shortened to just Vampire. As for the other point, the only other article we could create to incorporate both modern fiction and older folklore would be Cultural depictions of vampires, but I'd personally like to rename Vampire fiction to Vampires in modern fiction so that it sets apart the folklore and the "fiction" aspects. Then we could make a general overview of the modern fiction article on the Vampire article and link to the Vampires in modern fiction. I think it's not needed to split off the folklore stuff into a seperate article. However, I was curious about splitting off the material on Vampirism into a different article, as Vampirism and Vampires are completely different and deserve their own articles. Plus that would clear up Vampire's opening a bit by getting rid of the stuff on Vampirism... Thoughts? I can get it going if everyone agrees... Spawn Man 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sounds good to me. A Cultural depictions of vampires seems a bit idiosyncratic as..well they all are that anyway...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there is still an article when you search for "vampire", right? Judgesurreal777 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly - if we split everything off (Modern fiction, folklore, vampirism, vampire bats etc) all that will be left will be the opening of vampire. I'll implement those changes now, minus the moving stuff to cultural depictions of etc.... But it may take a while to create vampirism - Cas do you have any refs for vampirism in the animal kingdom, either in fungi, vine, parasites, animals etc? I've got dibs on writing it though... :) Cheers, Spawn Man 01:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not off hand. I'll have a look later. Is it drawing a really long string/bow/proverbial whatever to call a mosquito vampiric though? If so, then what isn't? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm not a biologist lol... I certainly don't go around drinking blood, so you can add me to the list of "What isn't?"... ;) Welll.... There was that time in Reno - but I was really drunk though... ;) JK lol. Hey Cas, check out this link Vampire pumpkins and watermelons - It's hilarious! Can you imagine a watermelon rolling around the kitchen, the dog barking at it? I can imagine my fiance standing on the stool with a broom. Ah, some folklore things are funny... :) Anyway, I've got my cousin's birthday to go to so I'm gonna head off soon. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man that's totally insane...ROFL. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vampire-topic suite 

message: I'm gonna place removed text here until someone finds a source or can rewrite it (Probably me...). -- Spawn Man 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter might even be better as a wiktionary stub really as it is little more than a definition....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: Given my field I was wondering about any detailed psychological/psychoanalytic essay on vampires and there is a reference to this book:
*Jones, E. (1931). On the Nightmare.  London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
It is at UNSW library so I can pick it up sometime. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way over my head Cas; see if you can fit it in when the article and its sections are done... :) Spawn Man 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  idea 

message: I'm musing on headings out loud here. Currently we have:
    * 1 Etymology
    * 2 Folk beliefs
          o 2.1 Description
          o 2.2 Ancient beliefs
          o 2.3 Slavic
                + 2.3.1 Typology
          o 2.4 Romanian
          o 2.5 Roma
          o 2.6 Greek
          o 2.7 New England
          o 2.8 Modern beliefs
    * 3 Eighteenth century controversy
    * 4 Natural propagations for beliefs
          o 4.1 Pathology and vampirism
          o 4.2 Natural decompositional cycles
          o 4.3 Vampire bats
    * 5 In popular fiction
    * 6 Notes
    * 7 References
    * 8 See also
          o 8.1 Related legendary creatures
          o 8.2 See also
    * 9 External links
I'm just thinking about repetition between 2.1 (Description) and other geographical/ethnic belief bits and how we can minimise. Is description a summary of all beliefs or merely the most commonly accepted ones, in which case should we rename it common attributes or something? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sort of comprises of both description and common attributes - Why don't we name it "Description and common attributes"? I've seen longer headings than that - what do you think? Also, as I mentioned above, we need to create a subarticle for either vampirism or natural vampires, where we could stick the stuff about vampire bats and natural vampirism/parasites in well... nature... :) I'm not sure the 18th century controversy will be entirely kept; it's unsourced and it's really different from the rest of the headings - the other texts relate to the actual vampires, but the Eighteenth century controversy relates to the history of them. The only other thing to do would be to subarticle the natural propagations sections and give a brief description; some of it's already covered in the description section, so it won't be too long. That should cut down the size if we do all of that stuff. Ideas? Spawn Man 08:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is tricky I agree - the description is sortof about the genesis of the current popular concept really....gotta run. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: New England is not in Europe, that section needs to be moved (to the "World beliefs" section?) or European renamed (though I like that separation).  I'm still confused as to why the "See also" section has a repetitive "See also" subheader, too...  Why not just have the basic see also links, then the related creatures subsection? -Bbik★ 08:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I've already moved the New England thing before you mentioned it, but I'll check out the see also bit. I'll probably change it when I get down to that level... Cheers, Spawn Man 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading layout 

message: I'm looking in books and can't find anything like these attributes:
Bavarian vampires slept with their left eyes open and thumbs crossed. Moravian vampires only attacked victims naked and the vampires of Albanian folklore wore high heeled shoes. Soon after settlement in the Americas, vampire mythology followed; Mexican vampires have a bare skull instead of a head, Brazilian vampires had furry feet and vampires from the Rocky Mountains only sucked blood with its nose from the victim's ears. and others such as those from Russian lore have purple faces. - an am wondering if they were secreted into the article as a, erm, joke....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, yep that'd be a pretty funny joke... if they weren't added by me. But seeing as they were, I'm pretty offended Cas that you'd accuse me of inserting untrue material... ;) Seriously though, I was gonna let you put in your sources first and then I was gonna add mine - don't worry, it's all true. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (big sigh of relief) - phew. cool. ON dialup so will not open precedin section but looks great. well thunk out. Go for thy life. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific bits 

message: And then there's these, which may be merged anyway...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to comment. Spawn Man 04:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I don't either. nevermind, we can link all three under a heading as I've done.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Spawn Man 10:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can of worms (or is it east asian vampires...) 

message: I try to eliminate these in most cases as I feel that if they cannot be worked into the body of the text the link is generally too tenuous to be worth keeping. However there are odd cases where they seem to be helpful. Many already exist in the article.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I was gonna see which links could be deleted at the end of our rewrite - most of the stuff there such as vrykolakas and the like is already linked to several times in the article. Spawn Man 04:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done a few obvious ones - I'm also checking which others are worthy of a summary and link in the body of the text, here or elsewhere. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but I think the links should still be there so that they can be esily used.  I don't want to have to pore through the whole article for one little link when I could have just have used a see also section.  --Luigifan (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Control-F is very useful in these cases :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I was actually musing whether or not to just include a see also section anyway of the notable mentions; it wouldn't do any harm and apparently there's demand. ;) Stuff like dracula, vampires in film, etc etc. Spawn Man Review Me! 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also sections 

message: Sorry about the rewrite but it suddenly became clear on the structure of how it developed - I have the Barber book which is a terrific read and has loads of refs on all teh attributes etc. which I'll stick in when I can. also have the Ernest Jones psychoanalyitc book which is great too. Both of these are great in terms of giving the whole concept of vampires and belief in them and overall structure and raison d'etre. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sod - it doesn't include Romania.... :(cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro rewrite 

message: Reading the Barber book and looking again at the article, I am seeing quite a bit of repetition and tryingto figure out how to rationalise it. The book reports a fairly cohesive description of a folklore vampire many of whose attributes are europe-wide. Maybe restructuring the Description and common attributes a bit into (1) common/widely held attributes of folklore vampire and (2) common/widely held attributes of fictional vampire - and move more esoteric bits to their appropriate geographical sections...goingto be tricky though. The Barber book also has really good commentary on the origins of all the attributes too. Not sure where they go, all at the end seems a bit far down...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, I kinda like the way it's set out at the mement. Maybe we can cut down or shift some of the repeitive stuff, but overall, I don't think we need to rename. Spawn Man 00:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganising (again) 

message: Is it possible for vampires to get any diseases like HIV from drinking blood?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.220.67 (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm..if by 'vampire' you mean people living a vampiric lifestyle then the answer would be a definite yes. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None come to mind, either in fiction or folklore offhand. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I heard one story in Reno 'bout this UNDEAD vampire catching HIV and then dying.... ;) Seriously, vampires are undead and immortal. Plus they only drink monkey blood. I mean no monkey's gonna give you HIV riight? Erm, what was that? I'm sorry, correction; yes you can get HIV from monkey blood. Darn.... I have no idea what I just said, but the answer is no; 1) HIV didn't exist in folkloric times and 2) As I said, vampires are undead... Spawn Man 04:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't undead supposed to be, well, immune to poisons and the like?  Yeah, I think Spawn Man is right.  --Luigifan (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diseases? 

message: Read through your edits Cas and you've done some nice work. Tell me when you're done (If not already) with the "Slavic" etc sections and I'll through and polish/copy edit them so that they're all shiney. Kepp me up to date on what you're up to on the page so I don't edit a piece which you haven't added your stuff to yet - There's no point in rewriting an old para if it's going to have new stuff added to it and be changed all over again. :) I gave three of my books back, but I managed to get most of what I wanted out of them, so I'll just go along and add cites soon. After we've done rewriting, I'd like us (or just me) to go through the original references and reformat them to coincide with the new cite book references we've added. Judging by your edits, I'm guessing you're not all the way through the article, so keep me posted. Cheers, Spawn Man 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As before some attributes are proving hard to find refs for. A question, do we have a ref for folkloric Transylvanain vamps as gaunt etc. or just fictional ones - the barber book seems to think all folkloric ones were bloated and coloured...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That was the plan, for you to go in first with the refs (Well my plan anyway...). :) Yes, I have sources, and I'm pretty sure my book had the one about the gaunt thingy. Say when you're done; I'm rearing to get into all the new info you've added. Note:- We still need sources for those last few sections in "Ancient beliefs"; I only did the well written paragraphs, the badly written ones need sources and then I'll rewrite them. ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 04:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niice! 

message: OK, I've left a note on User:Alastair Haines talk page on some of the middle eastern/mesopotamian stuff so we can bolster that bit too.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprucing up 

message: I'm trying to reduce reduplication which is a problem - I guess general/widespread beleifs into description and reserve area-specfic for the geographical bits. There's alot of reduplication in ways of killing vampires to wade through. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing reduplicated text 

message: This couple of interesting customs from Serbia could be placed somewhere in the Slavic section (there is, for instance, a paragraph with only one sentence):
By one of the customs intended to protect a village from vampires and diseases, twin brothers yoked twin oxen to a plow, and made a furrow with it around the village.
When, during night, a rustle or a clunk was heard, suspected to be made by a vampire sneaking around someone's house, it was shouted, "Come tomorrow, and I will give you some salt," or "Go, pal, get some fish, and come back."
Source (in Serbian):
VladoTalk 15:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, thanks for that. will add a bit later. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Feel free to add more :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job guys, the article is vastly improving!! By the way, I think we should archive the talk page at some point, its getting pretty long! Judgesurreal777 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea - I just trimmed a little of the oldest stuff. Just need to scan over older discussion to see what we need to keep on current talk page for improving the article as we're working it up for FAC. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We should remove up to the "My renovations" section, as that's where our discussion begins; everything before that isn't really relevant and refers mostly to the article before we redid everything. Spawn Man 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection from vampires in Serbia 

message: I'm glad you liked it! You fitted it nicely into the section. Here's all from that source that applies to vampires, that is not already mentioned in the section, and you can see whether and how it can be included.
Measures to prevent a dead person turning into a vampire:
(Page 58)
After the deceased was taken out of the house, a nail was driven into the floor beneath the bier, and an egg was broken.
In the evening after the funeral, two or three elderly women would come to the grave, and stick five hawthorn pegs or old knives into the grave: one at the position of the chest of the deceased, and the other four at the positions of his arms and legs.
Tomorrow, after the funeral, elderly women would go to the grave, surround it with a red woolen thread, ignite the thread, and wait until it was burnt up.
Preventing a vampire's attack:
(Page 94)
During the period between Christmas and Epiphany, called unbaptized days, all demonic creatures, including vampires, were considered exceptionally powerful. People were careful not to attract their notice: they didn't laugh, weep, sing, or come out of their houses at night, and children were kept quiet.
(Page 180)
When a person who was outdoors at night heared someone calling, and suspected it could be a vampire, he or she would not answer or turn around, but shout, "May a wolf get in your way, may white mares urinate on you!"
That's all from that book (Customs, beliefs, and proverbs of Serbs). If I find more on vampires in some other source, I'll share it with you. Cheers! VladoTalk 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thankyou. I recognised the author of the book who is cited elsewhere. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should spruce up the article some more - however, I should note that if this text above is a direct quote from the book, isn't it a copyright vio? We should at least remove it after we've finished with it if need be. Spawn Man 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Serbian vampires 

message: I am really having trouble with this as I go back and forth finding refs and pruning. Alot of the info is repeated and poorly structured (sorry spawny not your fault there is just so much stuff that's hard to slot!). Past etymology. I find this is what we have:
*Folk beliefs - sort of intro - bit ancient, bit Eastern Europe, some gen attributes listed
*Description and common attributes - contains mostly folkloric, mostly european but sprinkling of other cultures too, then some theory then some attributes of fictional.
*Ancient beliefs - cohesive but repeats a bit from folk beliefs
*European beliefs - one line stubby bit repeating info from elsewhere. Any more here and is repeating from description
*Slavic/Romanian/Roma/Greek - more local beliefs but again it is arbitrary what is here and what is in general description section above. Alot of stuff is repeated and I've been culling it.
Sections after this are better-defined.
My impression now after reading books is that there is a fairly cohesive folkloric vampire of Central and Eastern Europe, with interesting minor local variant attributes/tales/ etc. in the separate areas of Greece/slavic countries romania etc.
Thus I really think we need:
*Ancient Origins - combine Ancient Beliefs and part of Folk beleifs
*Folkloric vampires - all eastern europe overview and stuff, with small sections on individual european countries (Greece/Slavic/Romania/Roma) with specific stuff right underneath. that way the stuff about the greek vampires is next to/inside folkloric section 
Then other countries then development of fictional vampire.
Sorry about spanner I just feel this way is more structured and alot less repetitive. We can always ask firs or Circeus to have a look too.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's okay Cas - Just take a dagger to my heart and stab me repeatedly why don't you? ;) Seriously, let's just finish expanding the article first before we start shifting stuff around - we still haven't even got anywhere near enough stuff for the world beliefs sections and you haven't touched the natural propogations sections yet. Expand those, then we can sit back and decide what needs to go where. I've added my sources to the fact requests you put in (Honestly, did you really doubt me?) ;). That's my view anyway; I agree some stuff is repetitive, since I was doing about 3 or four sections at once whilst working from many books, but it's no good deciding now when half the article is in tatters... Take a chill pill and expand the rest and leave the hard stuff until later. :) Spawn Man 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was just tired yesterday and getting frustrated. Good news is some folks have pointed us in the right direction for sourcing filipino and chinese stuff :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to apologise Cas! A good self-whipping should suffice. It works with pirates, so Wikipedians should be a charm. ;) Spawn Man 04:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition and proposal 

message: Okay, I've gone through the whole article and standardized all the references I could find (Hopefully!), although some of the foreign language ones I had to assume what the publisher'sname was etc. So for future reference, try and use cite book, cite web or cite journal when adding sources and try and keep spaces to a minimum in the references (Instead of adding a space after '=' in the ref name citation). It looks a bit tidier and will be easier to format now. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References: 

message: OK, we also have the german Nachzehrer, and Mexican Tlahuelpuchi to incorporate into article. tired now. must sleep. zzzzzzzz cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I've left a note on WP Africa and made a new stubby section and a couple of stubs - have some baseline stuff from a vampire encyclopedia but'd be good to get some more local sources. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmopolitan vamp alert! 

message: Dammit, would be really good to nominate this at FAC on halloween but I don't think it'll be ready in time...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - maybe next year... ;) Spawn Man 06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halloween 

message: For those who don't know, yoni in Sanskrit often means "vagina", it's a pretty general word refering to female reproductive organs, so includes the womb. Although the word isn't in English dictionaries, it is very widely known. The FA process may look a tad bleakly on undisciplined references to the female anatomy. ;) Alastair Haines 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone had to say it

message: Perhaps I have not been clear and it has caused confusion.
Jean Marigny is French, a retired professor of English literature. That is why, although a French author with several French titles to his name, his book Vampires is not an English translation of some French original. He is a professor of English, he wrote the book in English, no translator was ever required!
However, Marigny is not a professor of Hebrew, nor of textual criticism (which means "history of editions") of the Bible.
Were biblical experts consulted to fact-check his book? No! Why should they be? He wasn't writing about the Bible, he was writing about Vampires, especially as known in English literature and film, and he researched the background, relying on the best sources he could find. One of them (check his bibliography), must have said "Lilith removed from lost originals of OT."
Marigny simply trusted his source and made a throw-away comment. I doubt he's even giving his own opinion (I doubt he cares). Ultimately, it doesn't matter to the subject of vampires whether Lilith as Adam's wife is medieval or mid 2nd millenium BC. However, in the matter of textual criticism of the Bible this matters a great deal indeed. Is Marigny a reliable source regarding vampires? You bet! Is he a reliable source regarding the Bible? No way! Try citing him at Biblical criticism and see what the editors there think of that idea! Because someone has written a book, does he become an authority on every subject?
Why do editors at this page wish to make a claim that Lilith was removed from copies of Genesis we no longer have? How is that relevant to educating readers about vampires? What matters is Lilith is absolutely, definitely, certainly in medieval Jewish texts and a seriously big deal and very vampish in them.
Reliable sources make mistakes, even in their own subject areas. Books are less closely scrutinised than academic journals. Wiki policy does not say published authors and their works are uniformly reliable on every topic.
Please stop and think about this guys. I think someone here has been making heroic efforts to give the article lots of quality medieval sources that enhance the article heaps. I think some others (with firm, fair, good intentions, but wrongly) have kept hitting that valiant contributor over the head, to defend what they think is a cited, reliable source. But it isn't!
I think some apologies and a barnstar might help restore friendships and co-operation.
I start by apologizing for my lack of clarity and my failure to watch discussion on the page closely. Alastair Haines 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! That sounds excellent to me. Maybe make a Lilith or Jewish folk subsection for the time being. Write up as much as you feel is useful. The team can decide whether to put it in medieval, expand or trim it. Some reference to the Adam's wife bit gives context connecting the reader's own knowledge with the history, but the main thing is what she was believed to be like and what magic was used as protection etc. Alastair Haines 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look - I'm not going to argue. The community has decided already! Xuchilbara, this is your final warning about edit warring. You are blatantly refusing to accept community consensus which was produced at the end of the RFC. I do not want to have to take this to a higher level. You have not disproven the source given. As was decided, you may add to the text but may not remove the text unless you can prove it, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong. You have not done so and that is why your edits will be reverted. You cannot come in and make unilateral decisions on matters which several people decided on. That is not fair, that is not civil, that is not collaborative and that is most certainly not Wikipedia. I'm growing increasingly tired of everyone's charades - RFC decided so enough. That is all I'm going to say. I want to get on with real editing rather than having to defend community decisions. If you want to do me & the article a favour, leave it alone and let us get on with what we do best - making FAs. This is our first collaborative effort together and I'd like it to be a pleasant one. Enough. Spawn Man 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The community has not decided your way, and if it did it would be in violation of Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. You were wrong, and your response above is not helpful in the slightest. If you want collaborative efforts to be pleasant, I suggest you follow Wikipedia policies and respect the opinions of others. DreamGuy 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (embarrassed shuffling of feet) -having read over this again I think leaving it Xuchilbara's way is a good call. Thanks Alastair for the Marigny bit above. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, what ever. I provide sourced material and even that ain't good enough. You know what, I've had enough with this article. You take over Cas with Xuchilbara - I'm sure she'd be very happy. I mean she obviously knows more than me and you've now given her her first star and all. Jolly good. Spawn Man 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) - Spawny it's not about your sources or her sources it's about figuring out what is best to say in terms of truth and verifiability. Think about why I don't get fussed at your opposes at FAC - it's about making the article better (i.e. I don't take it personally). Though as a D&D enthusiast I read alot about devils etc. I am no way an expert on any of these areas, gimme psychiatry, banksias, and other areas yes, but this is where we need help from folks who've spent alot longer looking at the material than the past few weeks. Look, it's all good. Plenty to do and great having everyone involved. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscommunication

message: This article is becoming so big with the wide variety of vampiric beliefs from around the world, perhaps if it grows any bigger those sections should become their own article, and a synthesized version will remain? Judgesurreal777 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making subarticle

message: Hmmm...I've never heard of this before and the most informative material appears to be here -  where the author Richard Noll suggests clinical vampirism be renamed as such but does not appear to have gained general acceptance (and certainly isn't in DSM IV) - tempting to remove as non-notable. thoughts folks? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of [[Renfield syndrome]] 

message: The 40-day development period of South Slavic vampires is interesting.  Is this related to the traditional 40-day "quickening" of human female embryos described by Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas?  (though male embryos took another 40 days) 70.15.116.59 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I do recall reading something in one of these books I have...now where is it....(I'll try to add something later). cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 day development period 

message: I've added a couple of sections to the article which could do with a bit of a polish. I've significantly expanded the Ancient Egyptian section, but I've still got more to come as well as references, so it might be wise to wait on that one. However, I've added the 18th century Vampire controversy to the Medieval and later european beleifs lead as was originally planned. I haven't edited it and I don't know what everyone thinks is relevant, and I couldn't be bothered rummaging through right now and picking out what is. So if you want to go through, pick out a quick mention (No more than a paragraph or two) and reference it, that's be excellent. It's there now, so whatever you can do with it is great. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can ref that section. There are a couple of other things I just added - some british isles vampiric faeires - important as I think I remember reading Le Fanu and others may have incorporated some celtic stuff into fictional vamps - section would have been stubby so slotted portuguese bruxsa in it too. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections: 

message: I've noticed that some of the references people are putting in have excess spaces in them. For example, one picked at random:  Notice all the extra space between the '=' etc? I managed to go through and cut out at least 40 kilobytes of extra spaces we had in just the etymology section alone. Now this may not seem like a lot, but with over 90 references and counting, this could account for at least a few hundred kilobytes, if not more. Considering we're bound to receive critisism for the large size of the article (Nearly 100K already!), I cannot stress enough that you check your citations for extra spaces wherever you can. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing format: 

message: One thing the article lacks is some folkloric images - here is a french page with some nifty stuff mais je ne parle pas français any good....
*gallery 
*nice one
::(sod it - this is mid 20th century :( ) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1864....yesss) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some folkloric vamp images 

message: Okay, here's what I see so far: The opening looks okay, but I'd like to rewrite it a tad to get a more general feeling to it. Etymology is good. Folk beliefs all the way down to Mesopotamia is great (Although the opening may need to be altered alter to edit out some of the repetitiveness). Ancient Egypt isn't the best - I still need to add yet another version to the myth and it needs sourcing. Ancient Greece could do with some expanding, but it's okay. India needs some expanding and rewriting and sourcing. The opening of Medieval Europe needs major work as the 18tth Century thing needs to be cut down quite a bit and sourced. Slavic, Romanian, Roma, Greek and Western Europe all need major work - merging short paras, sourcing, getting rid of that pesky unreliable source and overall rewriting. This goes too for World Beliefs, as it's starting to look like a list of vampire beings, rather than actual prose. Infact, Modern beliefs too. In fact, Natural propogations too! Grrr, so much work still. However, I'm pleased to say that I've worked on the In Pop fiction sections, and have rewritten, sourced and expanded everything there, so I feel it's more or less done. All that needs doing is finding a citation for the last paragraph in In film. The citations look good, as too the see also, so apart from the middle part, the rest is looking great. Cheers, Spawn Man 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just popped by to look at progress. Love it! Logical structure and more than 100 refs! Woohoo! Images are looking great too. That's the superficial impression. I'll try to stop by again and interact with the text in more detail, but this article is packed with reliable info, presented in an accessible way. v professional imo. well done all. Alastair Haines 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being so negative! ;) Cheers for the feedback AH. :) Spawn Man 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all that - some characteristics are double up between general folk/slavic/romanian and greek. I need to check originla refs a bit and work on them. Spanwy do you like the links to the images? Also have my psychological stuff to insert soon. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Which links? Spawn Man 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About 10 cm above this! cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Trust me, let's finish expanding - you should always add images afterwards so that you can see where one can go. As it is, there isn't enough text to add some many pictures to. But yes, the images look great, but I'm not sure when the were published, so you'd need to research it more. However, there's one in the Vampyr article which was a film in the early 1930s - I think it's been 75 years, so it may be free now. Do some research, but definitely lay off until we've fixed the middle section. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do like our tag-team efforts though. We seem to be working quite well. The "citation needed" tags everywhere makes me nervous though. Spawn Man 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cite tags aren't a problem - they'll all be gone at FAC. Also, its just over 75 years since Dracula (1931)....gotta run. will finish cleaning up protection a bit later. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, there's precious little coming up on google apart from blogs and wikipedia pages or derived ones. I can't read slavic languages so there may be something else but my vote would be for transferring it to the vampire literature page (I'd comment it out but the page is so big..). cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My mind is now at ease... :) Tell me where you're up to on the page (I'm assuming you're going downwards?) so that I can begin rewriting. I added a couple of refs too. The article's really starting to take shape - very exciting. ;) Spawn Man 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, well I was going downwards but found bits and peices all over. Main eyesore now is the modern vampire bit. Also, still not sure about notability of Renfield syndrome cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I can take the Modern beliefs section, but I'm leaving all of the natural propogation section up to you, bar the rewriting I'm planning to do. Well, I might start rewriting then after I've done some work on the Egyptian and Modern beliefs sections - hopefully when I'm done you'll have finished adding your stuff to the main article and I can begin. My biggest worry is the 18th Century Vamp controversy now lingering in the opening of Medieval beliefs - I'll see what I can do with it; Do I have your permission to cut it down significantly? Cheers, Spawn Man 01:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trim away - I think it is in the right place as there isa natural flow from the William of Newburgh thorugh to folkloric tales and the 18th century stuff really shows us that - there are subarticles so summarising and bluelinking is fine. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Not sure about notability of japanese section either from a folklore POV, fiction definitely but that would go on vamp film page. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nah, I'll pass. I like it the way it is (Etymology almost always goes first if I remember correctly). Too confusing, I really do think we're on to a winner - don't know why you want to fix something that ain't broke. The focus should be on expansion - only after that can we merge and edit out duplicate text. And only after that can we truly figure out which sections go where, if at all. You're jumping to step three before completing the first two. Grr, I like systematic approaches! Spawn Man 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress: 

message: Another trimming exercise - rename the folk beliefs ---> origins and it can be placed as a para before etymology which is made a subheading of it. All that is after In most cases, vampires are... can be cut as it is repeated elsewhere (eg description). Then make description a 2 dash heading and those past it 3 dash headings. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'll pass. I like it the way it is (Etymology almost always goes first if I remember correctly). Too confusing, I really do think we're on to a winner - don't know why you want to fix something that ain't broke. The focus should be on expansion - only after that can we merge and edit out duplicate text. And only after that can we truly figure out which sections go where, if at all. You're jumping to step three before completing the first two. Grr, I like systematic approaches! Spawn Man 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You may hate this put...

message: Someone pointed out to me, by a Sumerian recon friend, that the thing featured on the plaque over looking is in fact Pazuzu & not Lamashtu.
I can get citations if needed.Xuchilbara 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh bother, I was quite fond of the image. Oh well, remove it if you're confidnet it ain't one of our bloodsuckung critter analogues. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The amulet in my reference is markedly different from the one you presented, so I had doubts from the beginning. Spawn Man 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lamashtu plaque 9163.jpg

message: Should New England beliefs and American/Carribean beliefs be merged? (Isn't New England in America?) Just a thought... Spawn Man 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I supppose - culturally I figured they're pretty distinct but we have alot of stubby sections so merge away. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, and now the nice piccy fits...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I am very concerned with the opening of the medieval beliefs section. It is evident that Xuchilbara has added the content there (About Jewish european traditions and Lilith again!?), which is rather repetitive and specific for a section which is supposed to be a general overview (Bar the 18th Century stuff). This wouldn't have happened had only you & I been working on the article Cas, but alas, that is not to be. Therefore, what do you suggest we do with the mentioned text? It's waay too specific to be in the opening and it's later than the earlier Lilith stuff (Although it seems repetitive). We could add a new European/Jew section, but since there's not really a country called "European Jewland", how would we phrase it (Jews were scattered everywhere over that period and they didn't really have a collective name). It really does seem out of place and I really wish people hadn't added it. Thanks, Spawn Man 03:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with X. that the material is in the right place - it sits squarely in medieval times and is related to medieval interpretation of earlier works, in much the same way we'd discuss medieval christian doctrine or whatever in its relevant period rather tahn relating it to biblical era. I agree it is tricky with the large number of subjects in the article overall to give detailed stories. I'll have another look and be happy when Kali is in too. There are so many sections that sub dividing further would be problematic. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it didn't belong there, I was saying it was too specific for an opening piece and that it needed its own section. I never said it didn't belong - but there you go not listening to me and agreeing with certain other people. I give up. Spawn Man 07:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hence the question - Why is it there then? Spawn Man 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - it is the first bit in the medieval section as the other item about William of Newburgh flows directly into folkloric discussion better. If you reverse then it doesn't. I put it like that.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So we're just going to leave it there? The opening's nearly as long as the content combined and it is waay too specific to be in the opening to the section. Grr, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself right? Spawn Man 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sound of penny dropping)...I get what you want to do - you see the medieval thing as an intro. I thought of it more as a temporal section discussing medieval views which then segue into modern (well 18th-eaarly 20th cent.) relict folkloric bits and pieces...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that doesn't fit with the rest of the article's lay out does it? The ancient beliefs opening leading into the individual sections, the common attributes section leading into the specific sections, the in pop culture section leading into the film and literature sections. It doesn't fit, and it's plain to see... Spawn Man 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening to Medieval times: 

message: Grrr, who removed the semi-protect from the article? As soon as this was done a bunch of ip vandalism has come in and it's hard to find the actual edits so I can work from them - Can someone please re-semi-protect at least until FAC? It's very hard to search through all the vandalism. Spawn Man 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah! those pesky protection drop-boxes....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect: 

message: Should the film and television sections be merged? Should comics be considered covered in the literature section or get their own separate section? Should there be a section on vampire-themed games such as the Castlevania series and White Wolf's vampire RPGs? Should anime and manga get their own section or be grouped with western vampire literature? -- Gordon Ecker 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no & no. Did you happen to read the hidden notice in the fiction section? It says less notable entries should be excluded and instead added to the vampire fiction subpages. Some of the entries you added have already been covered, while others are just notnotable enough to warrant an inclusion on this main article. I'm going to revert your addition, but please, feel free to add the section to the vampire fiction subpages (Linked to at the beginning of the section and article) - all those articles need major work and I think your initiative could really make them shine. Me or my collaborator aren't working on them, so feel free to spruce them up as featured article's are only as good as their subpages; but again, this article's fiction section is for notable mentions only. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ye Gods! What about Buffffyyyyy?????cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, Buffy already has a mention in the paragraph above which everyone's overlooked. I've merged your para into the buffy mention to give it a more whole feel. I'm not sure if the last part of the para needs citing, so I put a tag on it anyway... But I think we can all agree that manga and video games aren't notable enough to put in the main article's body. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Got plenty of vamp film books so will sort that later. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that settles the issue of TV. Does anyone have an opinion on how to handle comics, games or non-western media? -- Gordon Ecker 00:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As mentioned, only notable stuff is to go here - okay let's imagine the word vampire or Dracula? What's the first genres that spring to mind? Probably movies, maybe literature. Definitely not comics or computer games or manga. Sure there's maybe a couple of good mentions in those genres, but it's just going to look silly having a two sentence paragraph about manga or comic book mentions. It'll only bring down the article. So that's what I figure should be done with the issue of comics, games & non-western media. Hope that explains it. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gordon I should add that the article is so huge we had to prioritize quite fiercely. We could fill a whole second article on more material!! I would have loved to stick some White Wolf material etc. in, let alone manga...Dark Shadows TV series....more books etc. On the plus side we can make a jolly good article just on written stuff, and another just on visual media :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless Meyer's series is a really major landmark in the evolution of the genre, it belongs in the separate article Vampire literature.  In fact, looking into it, I see that it is mentioned there, but the link is to Twilight, not Twilight (novel), so that when you go to the page on the novel and follow "What links here" from the sidebar, "Vampire literature" doesn't show up on the list (although Werewolf fiction does).  I'll just fix that now...  Pi zero (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular fiction 

message: Thus we have
* Adeliza de Borgomanero
-interesting - any book ref??
* Energy vampire
- what to do with this?
* Maschalismos
- never heard of this....nicely fits though but how notable or widespread is the term?
* Jure Grando
-interesting - any book ref??
OK - input please. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay 1) I'll incorporate her into the text - I've got a good idea where she can go. 2) See if you can work this into the Asian vampire section, but if not, leave as a see also. 3) No, not worth keeping and isn't truly related - Bin it. 4) Hmm, not sure where to put this one, but I'm sure you can find a place. :) The article's looking much better after your recent edits. I'm still not sure the wording's right with the Lord Byron/ Polidori story in the fiction section in regard to the writing competition (I've mentioned it before). Maybe you could swing by there and rewrite it or I could. I'm gonna rework the article's lead a bit because I don't feel it's right. Anyway, cheers, Spawn Man 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main headache with Energy Vampire is the issue of OR essentially. We can say they drain qi, and energy vampires drain energy but there would have to be a ref classifying jangshi or comparing them with energy vampires....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought qi vampires and energy vampires were synonymous? Judging by the energy vampire's texts anyway... Leave it as a see also or something then. I don't care, you decide - we seem to be getting caught up in these small issues which are annoying when the whole middle part of the article is rubbish. I'm going to go through the article and rewrite everything, so make sure I'm not editing if you plan to make any large changes (So there's no Edit Conflicts), and I'll do as much as I can. I'm going to work on everything that needs rewriting, regardless of whether it needs citing or is disputed. at least that way you can have a stable base to add to, instead of the mismatch of random thoughts which is there at the moment. It's nearly time for dinner and time with the partner though, so I'm not sure how much time I'll get done tonight. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing, they sound the same but I have yet to see a source which says that and I am wary of OR. I'll haev a look in some books later. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I rewrote the lead, removing the specific bits pertaining to the Polidori book (IE, the stuff about Lord Byron). I've also rewritten the Medieval beliefs opening section about the 18th Century controversy - it just needs someone to go through and add/cite the sections, rewriting any bad bits as they go. I've still got the Egyptian section to rewrite and the other middle bits. Thoguhts on my edits Cas? Spawn Man 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK so far, I'll have to skim it later.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Done the Egyptian section - although it would be nice to have some supplimentary references to back up the first section. That'll do for tonight, but I'll be tomorrow for the rest of the European sections and the natural propagation sections. I'm not gonna touch the Ancient Indian beliefs, as I'm not even sure if it revelant to the article. And maybe not even the Egyptian section, but at least that's now well-written (even if it needs a couple more sources). Cheers and g'nite. :) Spawn Man 07:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the indian stuff's ok, its as relevant as chunks of other transcultural stuff.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last 4 see also bits  -do we incorporate into text or leave out? 

message: Thought I'd put this section here for my notes on what I've done for today.
*0 Lead - Mostly done, may need some expansion
*1 Etymology - Done apart from one hidden note in the text which needs investigation
*2 Folk beliefs - Done
**2.1 Description and common attributes - Done
***2.1.1 Creation beliefs - Done
***2.1.2 Identifying vampires - Done
***2.1.3 Protection - Done
**2.2 Ancient beliefs - Done
***2.2.1 Mesopotamia - Done
***2.2.2 Ancient Egypt - Pretty much done, but it needs a few more sources
***2.2.3 Ancient Greece - Pretty much done
***2.2.4 India - Needs rewriting and citing; I'm not keen to do it, but I'll see if I can do anything in any case
**2.3 Medieval and later European folklore - Pretty much done; opening just needs sourcing and a bit of rewriting
***2.3.1 Slavic - Needs sourcing and rewriting
***2.3.2 Romanian - Needs sourcing and rewriting
***2.3.3 Roma - Needs sourcing and rewriting
***2.3.4 Greek - Needs sourcing and rewriting
***2.3.5 Western Europe - Needs sourcing, major expanding and rewriting
***2.3.6 Jewish traditions - Pretty much done
**2.4 World beliefs - No content
***2.4.1 Africa - Needs sourcing, major expanding and rewriting
***2.4.2 The Americas - Needs sourcing, major expanding and rewriting
***2.4.3 Asia - Needs sourcing, copy editing and rewriting
**2.5 Modern beliefs - Needs sourcing, expansion and rewriting
*3 Natural propagations for beliefs - No content
**3.1 Pathology - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
***3.1.1 Decomposition - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
***3.1.2 Premature burial - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
***3.1.3 Contagion - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
***3.1.4 Porphyria - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
***3.1.5 Rabies - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
**3.2 Psychodynamic understanding - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
**3.3 Psychopathology - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
**3.4 Vampire bats - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
*4 In popular fiction - Done
**4.1 Literature - Done
**4.2 Film and television - Done
*5 Footnotes - N/A
*6 References - Some of the references are hard to format due to their language, so going through them and checking I've done everything right would be great
*7 External links - Need a few more, but okay for now
I'll update everything as I go along, but feel free to pick up my slack if you have time. ;) I'm gonna try and rewrite the World/European beliefs today, and if I have time, maybe some other stuff. Cheers, Spawn Man 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to rework the Romanian section, but it's very poorly written and it needs an entire revamp - this article is beginning to @^%# me off, so I'm gonna take a break and regroup for a full frontal. ;) See you later. :) Spawn Man 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I removed the repetition from the "Folk Beliefs" and "Ancient Beliefs" sections, so that they are now not alike. So now we're basically done all the way down to Ancient Greece - See the notes on the above table of contents provided to see which areas need more work. So any way, some progress. :) Spawn Man (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked in my books for all the entities described in the Asian, African, European (Non-Eastern European), Ancient Indian and American sections, but could find no text on them, so you'll be on your own with these sections. Are you sure they're all worth keeping Cas? Spawn Man (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Danny to run his parser to pick up any disambig links. Those sections are mostly referenced. I'll have a look through later and seewhat I think we can remove. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? What the heck's a "parser"? And on the contrary, the middle section has quite a few places where there are no references at all. The western Europe section looks very pathetic due to its small size as well, but I can't see anywhere that it can be merged into. Hmmm, the ancient Indian section might be a bit OR (This had been pointed out previously by another user), especially in regard to the Kali myth. The section says Kali is a famous deity, but in my mythology book, I can't find one mention and it has most other religion's well known gods, so I'm beginning to think we should scrap that bit altogether (I think the discussion was above somewhere...). Any luck so far on the noatability of Reinfield's? Anyway, see you later. Spawn Man (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random updates: 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no Oxford English Dictionary in 1734, and it didn't come about until over a hundred years later.
--71.60.131.108 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, the first editor didn't come out until the late 1800s I believe.  However, the statement I think you're referring to "the Oxford English Dictionary records the folkloric use in English from 1734 and the zoological not until 1774" is talking about the the dictionary says, not that it was created that early.  For instance, the OED often talks about the greek or latin history of a word, but they obviously weren't around then either. Shell babelfish 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford English Dictionary 

message: Major to do's IMO are:
*Modern Beliefs - Needs sourcing and major rewriting.
*Asian Beliefs - Needs sourcing and rewriting.
*Opening to Medieval and European beliefs - Needs sourcing and minor rewriting.
*Greek beliefs - Needs to be ridded of the citation needed tags.
*Natural propagations - Needs rewriting, assessing for notability and sourcing.
As I mentioned, I'm all out of refs so have nothing more to contribute or source; I can rewrite or help out if someone adds text, but other than that, I'm flying blind here. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry re delay. I still have 5 or 6 books to sift through when I have time and am at home with them. Will look on it soon. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do: 

message: And there, sitting like a proverbial stone in me shoe is the Porphyria section. This page sums up my understanding of it. it means (I guess) getting dolphins original message, medical texts (which I have) and some rebuttals about the place and all without veering into OR...oh what fun....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's why you're the best Cas, because you're resourceful. :) Another idea is to simply move all the natural propagations sections to a subpage such as Natural causes for vampirism or something like that, and then write up a summary on the vampire article. I'd save time, cut down on article size, and we wouldn't need to dredge up tonnes of sources to reference it all! A plan perhaps? Spawn Man (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am musing on it - need a bit of time as a hairy bit. The whole porphyria thing is quite a notable urban legend so really needs a section. I'll get on't. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I mean keep all of that sort of thing, but make a summary of everything and move the in-depth stuff to the subpage... A bit like the film and television section where only the notably mentions are put on the main vampire article. Could work - say the word and I'm on it... :) Spawn Man (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. My thinking is that if we did that, the article would become unnaturally weighted toward a listy list of different vampires and abilities. I like that the origins section is diverse and substantive enough to offset the other. However, if I fail to make much headway I may change my mind....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sod it. I need to sleep. Happy Xmas everyone ;[ cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice job Cas - the section looks great now. :) Spawn Man (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Cas wanted to have a balanced article though (Thus rejecting my idea of splitting off the natural progagations section), although if you split off both the folklore and propagations sections, then this could still end up balanced. However, I think I'd feel a little deflated seeing our 3 months of hard work being put into a different article or lost in translation when it's split off... Spawn Man (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the issue. I just mean that in relation to the rest of the article, it is an overshadowing section. Alternatively, you could rework the content so that the section does notneed to include everything under it, something like "common attribute" (i.e. common attributes) and "world vampires" at first level, with "ancient beliefs", "Medieval and later European folklore", and some stuff from "attributes" reworked as "History of vampire myths" (?), an area which is rather weak in the article as is, and would make a good addition IMHO. Circeus (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Porphyria]]... 

message: Hello, all! For some reason, Christmas seemed like the appropriate day to read this page. :} I was wondering how the copy editing was going. I have been asked to look at the page from the perspective of "in universe"/"out of universe" language, but I was curious if the editors had (ahem) started copy editing yet. As I was reading, I saw (polite ahem) a few sentences that could use some polishing, and I wondered if a list of these sentences would be useful or not. If copy editing has not yet begun, obviously such a list would not be useful. However, if copy editing has already finished, perhaps it might be, as some things may have been missed. Just let me know here. Awadewit | talk 07:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it; be bold and change away - or list here if unsure. Its so friggin' long this page, some chunks have been copyedited more than others. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I've restarted editing. Left a few HTML comments, and just found an orphan note: "cremene" (refs #90-93) has no matching title under "references."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently at an academic conference. I will be available for substantial editing on January 2. I will finally be able to get around to this at that time. So sorry. Awadewit | talk 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind the missing ref: I forgot about the accent problems.Circeus (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Phew! I remembered putting that in awhile ago and was about to go hunting...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick question: all the abbreviated "Skal" refs are for V for Vampire, right? Circeus (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeedy. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have some time to edit today. I will begin copy editing and reviewing. I probably will not finish, though. Awadewit | talk 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Universe, etc. 

message: I agree about folklore, I'd be a little hesitant to hive it off just yet, but I was keener on Circeus' other idea, namely to fold in Rabies, Contagion and Premature Burial into one underneath either Pathology or Natural Sources...  (see my talk page). cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, my ideal result would be for the short bit to be included not as a "other causes" section, but a part of the "filler text" I proposed for the intro to "Natural Sources". Indeed, the pre-subsection text is a good place to "dump" material that doesn't fit nicely in subsections, and a trick I've enjoyed using in the past. Circeus (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Folding Sections

message: *Use of quotes vs. italics was haphazard, I've tried to get rid of italics except for titles, foreign words etc., but I suspect most names of creatures in modern languages should not be in italics.
*There are a handful of  and such like templates to deal with, quite obviously.
*Under "Mesopotamia": However, the Jewish Lilu and their mother Lilith were said to feast on both men and women, as well as newborns.
**Is this referring to blood or flesh? and what as gender got to do with it at this stage of the article? suc/incubus are not mentioned before "Medieval and later European folklore". Also, the Hurwitz ref to this is lacking a page number.
*There are two cyrillic refs under "Slavic" I can't do a thing to format. I've asked  if he could give it a look, but I'm not very optimistic.
*I had to completely rewrite the last sentence of "Roma" for it to make sense, so it should be double-checked.
*What is The Dearg-due, literally "Red Blood Sucker" in Gaelic, from Ireland which may have contributed to the storylines of Irish authors Sheridan Le Fanu and Bram Stoker. supposed to mean?
*Could we consider giving a modern edition for The Religious System of China? A page number would possibly be a good idea given that it's (at least the original edition) a multi-volumes work.
*I think adding an English transation for De masticatione mortuorum in tumulis would be a good idea.
*In the absence of a proper paper-based reference for Dolphin, we might have to rely on second-hand references and the mention that there was no actual publication, only presentation at the conference.
*I'm not sure what the ISBN given for Australian Folklore is for. Is this one of those annual publication where the volumes have ISBNs?
*Shouldn't there be some mention of parodies and subversion of vampires in the popular fiction bit? From Discworld and the Canadian Karmina to Dracula: Dead and Loving It and Count von Count, there's something there...
Circeus (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, those are the best example I could whip out past 2am :p Karmina is an interesting example to me because it's a comedy involving vampires that use a potion to make themselves into normal people. One of the gag involve the titular character being scared to death, then utterly fascinated by her own reflection. A trust me, the Count is not nearly as global as you might think.  Circeus (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww...I'll have to look up Karmina...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyediting comments 

message: Wow! What a thorough article! I'm so impressed! I have given the article a bit of a copy edit as I was reading. I hope it was helpful - please revert anything that introduced errors and ambiguities. Here are some suggestions that I have to improve the article:
Length:
*The article is 10,800+ words. This is long. It is hard to read the entire article in one sitting. I would suggest cutting part of the article or making an entire "History of folkloric vampires" page and summarizing that here. I know that is a horrific suggestion, but there is quite a bit of detail in that section that I think could easily be incorporated into its own article and summarized effectively here.
**Yes, well I would have been happy to see most of the natural causes section be shipped off to a subpage (Thus solving the problem of unsourcable information too), but Cas wanted it to stay and I certainly don't want to see my work go into an article which isn't even going to be looked at really, other wise, what's the point? Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was more to complete the geography. I was also interested in that both Stoker and le Fanu came from Ireland which one book suggested they may have gained some inspiration from celtic faerie/vampire. I have been puzzled over what to do with it. We could probably cut it really.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto - they are from 2 distinct derivations,cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well that does not really come through in the section. It just seems like more of the same Lilith material rather than a distinct tradition. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to get Xchulib (Or whatever her name was) to do this since she basically wrote both sections. Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll read it again, we vcan probably trim a bit.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The whole porphyria link has received alot of media and popular attention and discussion. What fascinated me upon looking into it was how meagre the initial discussion actually was and how quickly it spread. I am a bit torn as taken as a theory per se, there is little to it and we could get away with trimming it back to a line or two, but the amount of 'awareness' it has generated over the past 20 years in proportion to its origins I think is highly significant and really needs a bit of informed discussion. Note that I am not using WP to debunk it as such but just 'try and tell the story' in detail to capture what has happened over 20 years or so.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, sort of, yes. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked me to look for "in universe" writing. This sounds like it. :) Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, removed anyway as duplicated elsewhere and we need to trim. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Good point. I highlighted its unusualness but can be lost. My POV, fancy me thinking this was odd ;) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemon, nah. Apricot - now don't get me started. Mind you, since Cas has been spending so much time around mangoes, we shouldn't be surprised. ;) Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ...what a nightmarish thought....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This really has to be spelled out in the article. Illustrated would be nice - tastefully, of course. :) Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, when a man and woman love each other a lot... ;) Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's not seduction - I think the diction is misleading. Awadewit | talk 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was kidding.... *Sigh* Spawn Man (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. Awadewit | talk 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Tire them out from repeated sexual activity...wasn't sure if it needed spelling out....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would spell it out - I thought it could mean that or exhaust their blood. Be explicit! Revel! Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate serial commas but they are good to slot refs behind, so have trawled though the article considering us serial comma-on cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll try and go through your comments and address/fix all that I can, leaving my notes beneath each point. I've got something to do, but I'll be back later. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I just rewrote the vampire bat section so that it flowed and is pretty much sourced (Apart from one fact tag). There was a sentence which said Lon Chaney Jr. was the first onscreen actor to be shown transforming into a bat, but my references say that it was Bela Lugosi. I went with my source, since it's much more plausible and the Dracula film was much earlier than Chaney's film. I'm pretty sure I can remember the scene when Lugosi changes into a bat... Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm...Skal is pretty authoritative and I can't recall the 1931 Dracula, however you're in the cockpit for this collaboration so whatever. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I don't own the article buddy. Gosh, don't walk on egg shells around me - if you think I'm wrong tell me. :) Okay, so does anyone own a copy of the original 1931 Dracula movie? (Darn and I was gonna buy it too - Horror movie buff...) ;) It would seem logical that Lugosi was the first person, but if you have a hunch, maybe we should look into it. Spawn Man (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a look again - it says the first convincing onscreen bat transformation was by Chaney jr. in Son of Dracula (43), followed by John Carradine in House of Frankenstein (44), while Lugosi's transformation in Dracula was 'discreetly off-camera', and Mark of the Vampire (35). In Horror of Dracula (58), the scriptwriter treated the bat-transformation as mythical, though the device was used later. Hope this clarifies things cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay... so what shall we put then? It's kinda POV if you say that Chaney's was the first convincing bat transformation... I think the way it is now, not saying anyone was first, is the best way to put it... Spawn Man (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vampire bats: 

message: ::Since Hindus believe in the reincarnation of the soul, they maintain that leading an unholy or immoral life (e.g. committing sin or suicide) will lead the soul to reincarnate into such evil spirits. This type of reincarnation does not arise out of birth from a womb, but is achieved directly and such evil spirits' fate is predetermined as to how they shall achieve liberation from that yoni, and re-enter the world of mortal flesh in the next incarnation.
This I have been unable to reference. Shall we ditch it or do we think it serves well as an explanation. In which case I'll post a note on the appropriate wikiproject(s) for help. All input helpful here. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditch it... Spawn Man (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Done and dusted. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff to consider removing

message: Graves were often opened three years after the death of a child, five years after the death of a young person, or seven years after the death of an adult to check for vampirism. Vampires were believed to be especially active in the winter and more specifically on the eve of two religious holidays, the Feasts of St. George and St. Andrew. Bram Stoker makes reference to this in his novel Dracula (1897) when Jonathan Harker is warned that at midnight "all the evil things in the world will have full sway". During these nights, people kept their houses lit and used apotropaics such as thorns, crosses or garlic to prevent the vampires from entering their homes.
Couldn't see anything supporting this either. No idea where it came from. Ditch it? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno - I'd like to keep it, but it you can't find a source for it, put it in the vampire subpages on literature (because of the link to Stoker) or just delete some bits. Are there any parts which you can source? Spawn Man (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zip. and I've looked. OK onto fiction page for the time being. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I know the Lesbos thing is factual, but I don't have a source, but I'm not sure of the other stuff. I think it might be legit, but if you can't find a source, it's going to be tricky... Spawn Man (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a not on WP:Greece. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Work it in. Spawn Man (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep, work that in too. They're one-liners, so won't hurt too much... On another note, remember "the sentence"? I was thinking that it might be better suited if it was put in the modern beliefs section rather than the fiction section? Thoughts? Spawn Man (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK to first. not a bad idea to 2nd...but how... cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you give me the green light, I'll do it... It's just a basic cut and paste job with some tying at both ends. :) Spawn Man (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually nah - I don't like the idea now. *Shuffles feet* Spawn Man (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More stuff to consider removing

message: Thought I'd make a section here since it's the last task on the article. Overall, the lead seems to leap around from place to place very quickly (IE, from description to early history to description to specific stuff about in fiction etc), and I'd like to flesh it out a bit.
*"They wore shrouds and were often described as bloated and of ruddy or dark countenance, markedly different from today's fanged vampire." I'm not happy with "fanged" how is being fanged markedly different from ruddy and bloated? You can be those as well as be fanged, so I'd like to replace fanged with something like suave or pale and gaunt. Thoughts? 
::agree - need to highlight an opposite.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've started working on the lead, but it's late here, so I'm off to bed. The paragraph with the chupacabra seems a bit weirdly written (Especially the "tried to explain this" part). As I mentioned, I'd like to expand all the small excerpts in the lead and try and calm it down a little bit. G'nite. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the lead is now done. I'm going to list the article at FAC right now; feel free to look the lead over too see if there are any outstanding errors or anything. I've rewritten all the paras and expanded/copyedited a bit. I think I've done a pretty good job and have made the whole thing flow a bit better. Well, we did it! We've gotten it to FAC! Passing it though, that's a whole new kettle of fish. ;) Spawn Man (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: 

message: There are more then one type of vampires there are so far 6 clans.
Davkul,Harkue,favue,takuoko,warfur, and Garthnor
each one of the clans have diffent habbits of feeding and diffent weakness  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.224.132 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One thing they forgot to add it the types