Category talk:Vampires: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ciaraleone (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
But you can't do OR - e.g. I recall Penanggalan being called a vampire in some folklore books, removing it not a good idea. |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Since this article includes vampires that aren't undead creatures, I'm putting the undead vampires in with "corporeal undead", removing this category as a subcategory of undead, and adding "fictional vampires" to the "fictional undead" category. Sound good?--[[User:Fourthgeek|Fourthgeek]] 22:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC) |
Since this article includes vampires that aren't undead creatures, I'm putting the undead vampires in with "corporeal undead", removing this category as a subcategory of undead, and adding "fictional vampires" to the "fictional undead" category. Sound good?--[[User:Fourthgeek|Fourthgeek]] 22:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC) |
||
* I think there is an inaccurate system being used here of classifying ''any'' [[haemophagic]] entity into the Vampire category, as long as that entity is fictional, even if other traits vary wildly. With this system, I'd reckon, even mosquitoes or leeches would be classified as vampires, were they not real animals. For real animals, we use the term "haemophagic", rather than "vampiric", and I see no reason to treat fictional entities any differently. The term "vampiric" should return to being used explicitly for a narrow cluster of folkloric entities from the Balkans, which ''exhibit'' the trait of being haemophagic, but also exhibit several other traits, which are not shared by other creatures classified as vampires right now (such as being undead). I suggest creating a new category of "Haemophagic fictional creatures" or similar, classifying ''only'' the balkan-tradition undead vampires in the Vampire category, making the Vampire category a subcategory of "Haemophagic fictional creatures" and classifying all the non-undead, non-balkanese vampires into "Haemophagic fictional creatures". This appears to be the only way of sorting out this mess. For now, I'm going to sort out the actual articles in this category. -- [[User:Ciaraleone|Ciaraleone]] ([[User talk:Ciaraleone|talk]]) 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
* I think there is an inaccurate system being used here of classifying ''any'' [[haemophagic]] entity into the Vampire category, as long as that entity is fictional, even if other traits vary wildly. With this system, I'd reckon, even mosquitoes or leeches would be classified as vampires, were they not real animals. For real animals, we use the term "haemophagic", rather than "vampiric", and I see no reason to treat fictional entities any differently. The term "vampiric" should return to being used explicitly for a narrow cluster of folkloric entities from the Balkans, which ''exhibit'' the trait of being haemophagic, but also exhibit several other traits, which are not shared by other creatures classified as vampires right now (such as being undead). I suggest creating a new category of "Haemophagic fictional creatures" or similar, classifying ''only'' the balkan-tradition undead vampires in the Vampire category, making the Vampire category a subcategory of "Haemophagic fictional creatures" and classifying all the non-undead, non-balkanese vampires into "Haemophagic fictional creatures". This appears to be the only way of sorting out this mess. For now, I'm going to sort out the actual articles in this category. -- [[User:Ciaraleone|Ciaraleone]] ([[User talk:Ciaraleone|talk]]) 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
::*But you can't do OR - e.g. I recall [[Penanggalan]] being called a vampire in some folklore books, removing it not a good idea. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:35, 24 December 2013
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png){kind=small}
Since this article includes vampires that aren't undead creatures, I'm putting the undead vampires in with "corporeal undead", removing this category as a subcategory of undead, and adding "fictional vampires" to the "fictional undead" category. Sound good?--Fourthgeek 22:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is an inaccurate system being used here of classifying any haemophagic entity into the Vampire category, as long as that entity is fictional, even if other traits vary wildly. With this system, I'd reckon, even mosquitoes or leeches would be classified as vampires, were they not real animals. For real animals, we use the term "haemophagic", rather than "vampiric", and I see no reason to treat fictional entities any differently. The term "vampiric" should return to being used explicitly for a narrow cluster of folkloric entities from the Balkans, which exhibit the trait of being haemophagic, but also exhibit several other traits, which are not shared by other creatures classified as vampires right now (such as being undead). I suggest creating a new category of "Haemophagic fictional creatures" or similar, classifying only the balkan-tradition undead vampires in the Vampire category, making the Vampire category a subcategory of "Haemophagic fictional creatures" and classifying all the non-undead, non-balkanese vampires into "Haemophagic fictional creatures". This appears to be the only way of sorting out this mess. For now, I'm going to sort out the actual articles in this category. -- Ciaraleone (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- But you can't do OR - e.g. I recall Penanggalan being called a vampire in some folklore books, removing it not a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)