Talk:Vampire/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Moving right along

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet rules, people with less than 100 edits when they came here must be considered to be sockpuppets and their opinions right now will be ignored. That's the only way to ensure that the blocked user(s) aren;t just trying to game the system. We had User:Existentializer under various guises caught in the act, User:Gabrielsimon who was revert warring here also was recently caught with two sockpuppets (one of which was editing Vampire fiction so would have been acive here if it were unlocked), and we also have a sudden appearance of brand new users here being very aggressive and making false claims about events that happened in the past that they were not here for and wound;t know about unless they were sockpuppets. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this point. That means User:Devilbat (who, by the way, has a series of anon IP accounts going through and supporting him, some of which have clear edit histories showing that they are Existentializer, making Devilbat a clear example of the sock that was banned) and anyone else with fewer than 100 edits should just sit this one out, because their input is unhelpful at this point.

Now, we were making great progress... we had a number agree about what to do... and that was everyone except User:Evmore (who really isn't that much about 100 edits anyway except for his edit warring) and people who do not have the prerequisite editing history here to be involved at this point. So I suggest that we just go ahead with what was agreed to above and finally move on. If we wait for the sockpuppets and Evmore to agree, we will never have this page unlocked. DreamGuy 05:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you can go fuck yourself. Declaring "I didn't get my way so I'm going to redefine things until I do" isn't consensus. You should try working with people for a change. Pukachu 15:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A) Go read about Wikipedia:Civility. B) I'm not redefining things, just noting there are some newbies (like yourself) with no edits histories acting suspciiously like a person who was just recently banned for abusive actions and sockpuppeting and following the Wikipedia:Sockpuppeting policy of what to do when that happens. C) I do work with people, but mainly ones who try to actually work together (and there have been a number on this article, and they agree on the steps needed to fix this article and get rid of sockpuppets) instead of just forcing their version down everyone's throats by whatever means possible, whether it be personal attacks, sockpuppeting, lying and so forth. D) You barely have 30 edits and only created your account after this article was protected, how is it that you think you have enough experience here to know what's going on in a prolonged conflict like this? Come on, give us a break... You are either completely new with no knowledge at all of what's going on or a sockpuppet of someone who was around. Either way it's pretty amazing for you to be swearing at others and demanding you have your own way. DreamGuy 21:31, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have misread (or willfully misinterpreted) Wikipedia:Sock puppet. In particular: "the 100-edit guideline [...] suggests that any account with more than 100 edits is presumed not to be a sock puppet." Not "any account with fewer than 100 edits is presumed to be a sock puppet". This is a discussion page, not a binding vote, and new users and even (gasp!) anons should be encouraged to contribute here. -Sean Curtin 02:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are misreading it. It does not say to only use that rule for VfDs, it says to use it "when questions arise" -- and considering the strong amount of proven sockpuppeting being done here recently by a user blocked for a year but with multiple socks under his belt (which the admins are now linking up with both evilBat and Pikuchu here) nto to mention Gabrielsimon's jump in with Khulhy on Vampire fiction (and him having two other socks and known for revert warring here) it is all but necessary to apply the rule right now. This place is swarming with multiple socks constantly, and as soon as one is blocked the person is right back. You need to go reread the policy and use some common sense here. What you are suggesting means we'd just give up the future of this article to someone who is supposed to be blocked for a full year under any and all aliases. DreamGuy 03:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Can we get specific about what the plan is? I don't have a lot of time right now to study the section in question, but if anyone has a good plan for how to streamline/edit it, please share. BarkingDoc

The plan as I see it is (going from your suggestion above, as well as comments by a number of other editors that were recent but now archived that fiction should be on the fiction article) a more streamlined (no bullets, just encyclopedic writing) overview of vampiric traits focusing on the ones in folklore (which in some cases will be the fiction ones too, as much of the fiction is obviously based upon the folklore), preferably with a name that's more encyclopedic, that goes in and mentions only the non controversial ones. Quotes from fiction will either be deleted or moved to the Vampire fiction article. Traits that are only fiction will also be deleted or moved. Some of the foklore and history section gets edited down more to get rid of the redundancy and unsourced content that was added from the merging with the History of Vampire lore article. As far as length of the Vampiric traits section and content, it should be closer (not exactly the same, but closer) to what the article was like in the beginning of July [1] instead of what happened when that whole new section cropped up and took over the largest space of the article. DreamGuy 09:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Quotes from fiction will either be deleted or moved to the Vampire fiction article." And I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. At best then we should just turn this into a links-page and you can have your own little Vampire (folklore) article and a Vampire (fiction) article separate. Or you're just an asshole. I'm not sure which. You act like you're trying to "compromise" and then make accusations at people, whine about "well we should exclude X and Y and Z because they disagree with me" and claim to be operating in good faith? I don't think so. Pukachu 15:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You do not have enough posts to come anywhere near being allowed into the coversation at this point, following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet rules, and your abusive actions, rampant uncivility and sitortions make it extremely likely that you are a sockpuppet of the editor who has been blocked from Wikipedia for a year for highly abusive edits and running off to use new accounts when old ones get banned. Go read the policy. You (and Devilbat and anyone else who just created an account to start old attacks) are not allowed to post here at this time. If you are a legit user, go make useful edits elsewhere, learn more about how this place works and how to work with others. But your input here is completely wasted, as it just proves why the sockpuppet rule needs to be enforced. And the plan with this article has been agree upon by several experienced editors, and it is just doing what has been done to several other similar articles. Your suggestion is not in line at all with how things are done here. DreamGuy 21:31, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Allowed into the conversation"? I repeat myself because it seems to be the only way to get through a problem user like you: Go fuck yourself. YOU have no authority to say who can or can't post, who can have legitimate opinions or not. Go Fuck Yourself. Pukachu 22:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh and as far as "not in line at all with how things are done", that's pure horse shit and you know it. Disambiguation pages are a dime a dozen, and since you are so hell-bent on insisting that folklore and fiction are completely separate, we might as well turn Vampire into a disambig page and let you have your own little playground to fuck up.Pukachu 23:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Pukachu, you're severely out of line. You need to state your opinions respectfully and let others do the same. I don't know whether you're a sockpuppet or a newbie or just maybe an experienced user having a bad day, but these are personal attacks and they won't be tolerated. --Pablo D. Flores 01:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have already left a message on Pukachu's page for the same, asking that he clean up his language. However I will point out for the record that DreamGuy is insisting that the opinions of multiple others (including even Evmore) NOT be allowed, which is patently unfair. Devilbat

That's right. But then, I'm not a mediator. I've been refraining from entering the discussion for days now, only because the page protection at least prevents this exchange of insults to spill into the article space. I'm just a common user that has grown sick and tired of this kind of unproductive name-calling.

Oh, and in case it sounded that way, the "won't be tolerated" thing is not a threat; it's a fact. I'm sure someone will take care of this soon, but it's a pity that adults (I assume we're all adults talking) can't discuss matters with a measure of civility, and that an article needs to be protected from the editors supposedly trying to make it better. --Pablo D. Flores 01:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia sockpuppet policy is very clear on this. And when you throw out the highly suspected (see the Admin pages investigating this) socks the only person arguing to keep tihngs so that an extremely long section of fiction is on this article is the editor who wrote it, who blind reverted any and all changes, including corrections for proper uppercase/lowercase, removing photos that are copyright violations, etc. The rest of us are agreed on how to proceed. Socks of the banned user are ignored, the one contrary editor has to give in to consensus, and then we go on editing this article. It's simple, common sense, and not at all "patently unfair". This encyclopedia can;t be held hostage by sockpuppets and kids who won't let anyone make any changes at all to things they contribute. DreamGuy 03:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"This encyclopedia can;t be held hostage by sockpuppets and kids who won't let anyone make any changes at all to things they contribute." This can be said about you too. You may not be using sockpuppets. But the rest of it is perfect match. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:19, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Your vandalism of user pages won't be tolerated DreamGuy.

In a related note, I came in here and have not "supported" anything, merely made a suggestion at a compromise. But you are patently obvious about insisting that you get your way, and are falsely claiming consensus and using made-up rules to do so, which is bad faith on your part. Please stop acting this way. Devilbat

The alleged vandalism you refer to is the tag declaring that you are being investigated for strong evidence of sockpuppeting. That was placed there by myself and 'several other editors. It is not vandalism, simply the policy that has to be followed in cases like this. The fact that a number of admins agree that the tag should stay and that the charges are compelling means that you have nothing to complain about here, and you intentional conflicts and forcing yourself onto a page for which suspected sockpuppet accounts are not allowed show bad faith on your part. DreamGuy 00:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new section

Pukachu has a proposal for a new section that ought to be added to this page. As he can't, because it's protected, I suggested he add it here. Rob Church 15:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Section content

I would like to see the following added to the New World section;

The Chupacabra in modern Latin American folklore is reported to be a small creature which attacks and drains the blood of small livestock with its fangs, leaving two puncture holes in the neck. Various reports of the creature have ranged as far north as California and as far south as Chile. Unlike most vampire legends the Chupacabra reportedly has no interest in human blood.

I am leaving this page now as it is not worth staying. Pukachu 17:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought we already had a bit in there about that. I don't think the mention needs to be that long (probably more of a See also thing) but it probably should be mentioned somewhere. DreamGuy 00:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of unprotecting the page. Does anyone have an objection? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I will find a place for your contribution if you don't return.

If the page becomes unprotected, all I can do is beg the editors here to behave with maturity and actually work toward a compromise. I hate to be so bold as to suggest it, but it seems like it would be best if I personally (or someone else who hasn't been involved in the edit war and the talk page war) was allowed to edit the Folklore and Fiction section first, and try to find the right balance which will represent a fair compromise. BarkingDoc 19:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure it's wise to unprotect this page right now. User:Devilbat, User:EliasAlucard and User:Pukachu have been extremely combatitve lately (Elias and Pukuchu both being blocked for violating policy in the last 24 hours). It doesn't appear that some people are willing to follow the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet policy and reject the edits of individuals with less than 100 posts, which I believe is absolutely essential at this point, especially with many of the most vocal of these newbie others being investigated for sockpuppeting with strong evidence of links to the banned user who was disrupting this page earlier. DreamGuy 00:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

DG I'm going to ask you one last time to stop being abusive. The only "investigation" going on is that YOU keep making unfounded accusations at people who disagree with you in even the smallest detail. Now leave me be. Devilbat

Your claims are inaccurate. You and Pukuchu are current being investigated by several admins as being sockpuppets of the recently banned sockpuppeting users that were making blind reverts to this article recently. Even if there were no active investigation, you are already excluded from discussion of this article anyway, based upon the Wikipedia:Sockpuppets policy that went into effect after several sockpuppets were identified and booted from here. All your presense here does is continue a pointless feud that is already settled.DreamGuy 02:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Porphyria

Just a quick suggestion. The part where it says that the Porphyria hypothesis is "based on ignorance" - that's rather... derogatory. Might "dubious" be a more NPOV wording? DS 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. BarkingDoc

Yet more of same thing

Well I have obviously missed a lot so I can't recap on everything but two things:

• Sockpuppets? Can't administrators see users IP addresses? Now days, with DSL and Cable, you would think most people would have a static IP address. Anons show their IPs, so registered users must show it somewhere. It should be real simple to identify sockpuppets and ban them.
• For the article, just to add my two bits, I don't think the articles should be separate, it needs to include both fiction and folklore. It should only be done seperate if this discussion can't be resolved. User:DreamGuy right now is the only user who thinks the fiction should be stripped out. As mentioned before, fiction is like modern folklore. You may argue that no one believes in the modern vampire but of course there are people who do and it is more likely based on fiction, canines and all. Look at "modern mythology," Christianity, or our belief in a modern God. Not to be rude to everyone, and for lack of better words, it is all today based on a work of fiction, the Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. True not all beliefs are written down but they are still tales of fiction, whether you believe them to be true or not. Greek Mythology, and the belief in the Greek gods, is the same way. Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey are fiction books found in the literature section, that doesn't mean they are not included in a greek Mythology section, or actions of the gods in those books are not referenced. True, the mythology in those books, are based on earlier beliefs but those too are spawned off of unwritten tales of fiction.

--Evmore 02:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

First, the sockpuppeting user has already demonstrated accessing this site through a large variety of IP addresses, typically unsecured ports on computers with low security that he tapped into. This has already been well documented in previous cases. There is a list of about 12 different anon IP address account who have elsewhere jumped in to support the suspected sockpuppets in fights. It'd be nice if this particular one were easy to trace, but it's not as simple as all that. He was already recently been blocked on the basis of using IP addresses that were not the same but in nearby blocks. The admins are on it and doing what they can.

Second, " User:DreamGuy right now is the only user who thinks the fiction should be stripped out." Again, this is absolutely false. I am not saying all fiction has to be stripped out, I am saying that only a summary should stay here and then link to the completely separate pre-existing article on the topic. Also, lots of editors have already agreed to move the fiction to the fiction article, so the claims that I am the only one is an obvious attempt to pretend your way is the agreed upon way. Strip out the accounts that do not meet the rules we must follow thanks to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet policy that became in effect when several sockpupepts were already spotted and proved, so far the only people disagreeing with moving the fiction to the appropriate article are yourself and two editors who recently inserted themselves into this article to continue personal conflicts they started on other pages and won't let go. Both of these other people have recently been blocked for abusing Wikipedia policies (typically violating 3RR to force their way into an article with repeated blind reverts without discussion of rather unobjectionable content because they didn;t want any changes at all to their way of doing things, and they are hoping to pull the same stunts here if this page gets unlocked). We have a clear concensus here to move the ficiton to the fiction page. In fact it's a blindingly oobvious solution. That's why the article is there. I am astounded that this is even under dispute. DreamGuy 04:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a clear consensus, as much as I would like there to be. I think there is a GENERAL consensus that the fiction and folklore section should remain, but there seems to be disagreement on how much of the fictional material to include. I think that, even with abuse going on, it can't be fair to claim that there is consensus on an article in the midst of a nasty entrenched content war. BarkingDoc 07:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe I am missing something when you say, "lots of editors have already agreed to move the fiction to the fiction article" DreamGuy. But this is what I have seen:

• First, before you came along DreamGuy, a lot of users worked on the "Strengths & Weaknessess" section including Kchishol1970, Pablo D. Flores, Pakaran, Existentializer, Gabrielsimon, Craigkbryant, WehrWolf, Rune.welsh and even anons like 12.110.55.130, 130.203.223.35, 4.162.210.126, 24.22.48.163, and 155.84.57.253. NO ONE had a problem with the section being where it was. I disagreed with some editors, especially Existentializer and Gabrielsimon, about what should be included, but we were always able to work it out in discussion. YOU alone first moved it to the very bottom of the section and then moved it completely out of the article all without any discussion at all. You alone and no body else started these edit wars.
• Second, plenty of people have already said they think it should be left in the article other than me, including Existentializer, Ni-ju-Ichi, Gabrielsimon, anon 143.225.138.34, Devilbat, Pukachu, EliasAlucard and BarkingDoc.
• Now I don't know how you are identifying sockpuppets or how to identify them myself, but as I see it no one is agreeing with you except for maybe one person somewhere that I missed. I'm sorry but I think it is more than clear. --Evmore 09:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean five proven sockpuppet accounts, another editor undergoing Arbitration for harassing me and other editors for blind reverting articles, and someone else who was recently blocked for following me around to simply revert my changes all agree with you? Gosh, so what? We're trying to get consensus here from people who really work on this page, not sockpuppets and edit warriors recruited from other articles who are no longer allowed here. User:BarkingDoc is the only one on your list who has shown a genuine interest in working on this page (instead of showing up to attack me from previous conflicts), and he agreed that fiction should be removed to the fiction page. You also conspicuously failed to mention User:WehrWolf (who was the person who originally moved fiction to the fiction page) and User:Decius who wanted the section edited down severely and/or moved to the fiction page. With the sockpuppets removed from consideration, even if you include User:Gabrielsimon and User:EliasAlucard (neither of whom, like yourself, has shown any intenetion to try to compromise), with myself and WehrWolf and Decius and BarkingDoc we still have the consensus.

Sockpuppets proven

For those of you claiming that my accusations of sockpuppetry here were false, you might be interested to know that a Wikipedia software developer checked User:Pukachu and User:Devilbat and confirmed that they were, in fact, sockpuppets of User:Existentializer, who was blocked for a year from editing here, was the main person invlved in earlier revert wars, and had previously been on under anon accounts and another sockpuppet (User:Ni-ju-Ichi). See [User talk:David Gerard#Sock Puppet Request.] for proof. So, if he is up to his regular tricks, he may already have another sockpuppet or two created to show up here and try again. I repeat, we must follow the rules for Wikipedia:Sockpuppets policy so that this banned user does not interefere with the consensus building process here.DreamGuy 01:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

So now that consensus is undeniable...

With Gabriel and the five sockpuppets gone, EliasAlucard hopefully not returning (the little problem of his violating the 3RR on three articles in a couple of hours got him banned good and suggested he not follow me around trying to undo my edits), and consensus clearly showing what needs to be done (other than solitary user User:Evmore who wrote the section in question and has been highly protective of it), I submit that we just move on. Barring that, I would suggest a temporary page be created where we can work on the article there to come to consensus... but then if we are going to do all that work we may as well just unlock the page and do it live, because it ammounts to the same thing. DreamGuy 01:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• User:BarkingDoc said "We all agree the section should be in the article, and we all agree it needs to be edited, so the discussion now needs only be about specifically what should be edited out and what should be kept." YOU ignored him and did what YOU alone wanted. He did not say it should be stripped out.
• User:WehrWolf edited and updated the section on 29 July and did not move it. YOU alone moved it right after his edits to another section without any discussion.
• Like I said, I don't know who is sockpuppets and whos isn't, you are the only ones calling names. And you have not proven anything. --Evmore 01:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, is it not possible for either one of you to let this go, and perhaps work on the article instead of trying to win the slap fight? At the very least, I ask everyone to please stop claiming me as an ally against someone else. There is no consensus on this article.

DreamGuy, are you open to the fiction and folklore section being streamlined but not removed? I do believe, as I have always said, that there should be a general overview of the fictional characteristics of vampires--- using only prominent noteworthy sources, and formatted for the greatest possible ease of use by someone unfamilliar with the subject.

Evmore, are you open to the majority of material discussing vampire fiction being on the "vampire fiction" page, with only a basic overview of generally recognized characteristics here?

Are there other sections which are significantly disagreed upon?

In my opinion, any time whatsoever spent discussing past conflicts is a waste of time, energy, and intellect. There doesn't need to be agreement on what has happened in the past. There only needs to be agreement on what we should do now. The only way to achieve that is by STARTING FROM THE BEGINNING and discussing the actual article issue. I remain hopeful that the editors involved will be mature enough to do so. Take a well deserved deep breath and let us please move forward. BarkingDoc 07:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying all fiction has to be removed, but there is a fiction section already so that's where the summary of that should be, not in the main article. Other parts of this article already discuss vampiric traits, so the strengths and weaknesses section (which someone tossed a "in fiction and folklore" on even though there's no real folklore in it) is not necessary, not to mention that it's full of errors, focuses only on the fiction end, and is way too long. I am not against using the salvageable parts elsewhere in the article, but a long section like that split up into bullets is completely pointless. Just go in and discuss the actual fokloric traits (and since most fiction is based upon that, the notable fiction parts will get covered in the process anyway) in encyclopedia article format and everything will be fine. "Vampires in literature, art, and pop culture" (although that should probably just be edited down to Vampire fiction) is the only section we need on fiction when there's already a whole other huge article where additional information can go. The current section could be expanded a little bit (certainly not more then twice its current length) but that's all the further the fictional aspects should be highlighted. DreamGuy 08:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the Vampire article shouldn't mean Vampire (folklore) that it should be equal parts of both fiction and folklore. I think the Vampire "Strengths and Weaknesses" should be left in but cut down drastically with only notable fiction. This is not too much to ask of an encyclopedia entry as similar sections are found in other Vampire encyclopedia entries. Encarta Encyclopedia in its one paragraph entry talks about sucking of blood, fiction weaknesses to talismans & herbs, and folklore weaknesses to staking & cremation. Since Wikipedia is more comprehensive, it should have a similar but comprehensive section. The Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature Vampire entry includes both folklore and fiction equally, addressing shape shifting, staking, canines, and more. The Vampire Encyclopedia by Matthew Bunson has an entire page dedicated to "Destroying a Vampire" and another page on "Powers of the Vampire." The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead by J. Gordon Melton has a section for each specific vulnerability and limitation including their origin in folklore or fiction. I'm not saying the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be so thorough but it should definitely include a comprehensive, well referenced section on the topic title page. --Evmore 11:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You keep using fiction and folklore interchangeably as if they meant the same thing and making arguments that are not relevant. The Encarta entry on talismans and herbs is most likely about folklore, not fiction. And, gosh, an encyclopedia specifically about Literature talks about fiction? That's what literature means! So Bunson has an entire page on Powers of the Vampire in a 300 page book. So you want that section to take up 1/300 of the total size in our article? Or what are you arguing here, that your choice of which page out of the 300 pages is most important overrules other people's choices here? And, yes, Melton (who may as well have called his book The Vampire Fiction Book because it's awful on anything else) has all sorts of things, but we can't have an article that's as long as these books. What we do here is make a good overview and then if we want to expand a subtopic (like Vampire fiction or Vampire subculture) we have another article for that. The article can have a comprehensive well referenced section on the topic page without any of the stuff you are demanding be in it... in fact it had one before you ever showed up. And your edits made it less well referenced, actually.

The concept that this article should be half folklore and half fiction is absolutely ridiculous. Fiction has its own article, and that's where that part should be expanded. Lots of other articles here follow the exact same strategy.DreamGuy 12:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well I am sorry you think it is ridiculous. It's just that if the article is titled "Vampire" then it is reasonable that it include both, especially since the modern vampire is what most people think of, if that is only because of novels and films then I am sorry but I can't help that. If you want to rename it "Vampire (folklore)" then that may be an option. "Vampire (fiction)" is necessary but that is way more detailed then a general overview of strengths and weakness. But just for the topic page "Vampire," it should include an overview of both like any other encyclopedia. --Evmore 12:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It will and does have an overview of both... but the fiction overview is small in comparison to the rest because, wait for it, there's already another article about that. Having half this article be fiction and then having another article about fiction is basically just making a fork file, and those are prohibited here... DreamGuy 12:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think that if we can agree the section needs to be "drastically cut" then there shouldn't be a problem. I don't mind it being bulletted if there end up being enough items to warrant it. I think the section on fiction should be moved to directly before the section on attributes, and the attributes section should be a concise list of points without expanded details. (i.e. One bullet would read "vampires cannot enter a residence unless invited." Period.)

It might be worthwhile to suggest establishing a page (edited for accuracy) titled "Vampire Strengths And Weaknesses" which would include the expanded text with references. I'm not sure about that, though. In my experience, people are very interested in these atributes and the way they have been considered historically.

Ultimately, I think the attributes section needs to be in the main article BECAUSE there is so much overlap between fiction, folklore, and myth, and putting all information into another or two or three other articles might lead to a user having a hard times knowing where to look. Also, it concurrs with the way other articles on mythic creatures are formatted. BarkingDoc 19:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The way what other articles on mythic creatures are formatted? Any that are substantially long have fiction split off either into a disambig page or to a separate article. And all of them I've seen have attributes inside of other sections as appropriate and not taking up a huge separate section.

And I intensely dislike bullets, as they are usually just excuses for people to create lists (like, say List of vampire strengths and weaknesses) instead of thoughtful sections discussing a topic with sources and explanations. DreamGuy 05:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Good luck on the new edit. Hope it goes well. BarkingDoc 08:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)