Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror: Difference between revisions

Please use this page to discuss improvements and corrections for the WikiProject Horror main page itself. For topics regarding the Project as a whole, please use the Notice Board instead.

Horror Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

• Crypt of Cthulhu Website Online content Internet Archive
• Lovecraft Studies Website Online content Internet Archive
• Lovecraft Annual Website JSTOR ISSN 19356102
• Lovecraftian Proceedings Website
• The Lovecraft eZine Website

All of these publications are focused on Lovecraftian scholarship. Lovecraft Studies was the premier journal in the field from the 1980s to the early 2000s. Its successor, the Lovecraft Annual, has held the same position since 2007. Both journals share an editor, S. T. Joshi. Meanwhile, the Crypt of Cthulhu is a scholarly fanzine that is edited by Robert M. Price It has served a similar role to the now-defunct Lovecraft Studies. Meanwhile, Lovecraftian Proceedings is a repository for the papers presented at the NecronomiCon Providence. All of these periodicals have been cited by several other scholarly publications that discuss H. P. Lovecraft and his circle. On a somewhat less scholarly front, The Lovecraft eZine is an online magazine that discusses and publishes various bits of Lovecrafitana. Edited by Mike Davis, it has done so since 2011.

• S. T. Joshi's blog Website
• Tentaclii Website
• Deep Cuts in a Lovecraftian Vein Website

S. T. Joshi has operated a blog for twelve years. Some of his commentary might be usable, particularly the published content that he stores there. Meanwhile, David Haden—the operator of Jurn—has operated his own scholarly blog for many years. This blog is perhaps the most prominent of the Lovecraftian blogs. In addition to its usual content, it also contains a sizeable list of openly accessible Lovecraftian scholarship, a gigantic link directory and some assorted writings. One of the guest essays has been republished elsewhere. Bobby Derie's blog, Deep Cuts in a Lovecraftian Vein, focuses on Lovecraftian works and people that have been understudied due to factors relating to race and gender. All of these blogs are operated by published scholars.

• The H. P. Lovecraft Archive Website

This is the default website for all things related to H. P. Lovecraft. It contains the Joshi-edited versions of his texts, a listing of scholarship that includes digital copies of old scholarship and many other useful things. It is operated by Donovan K. Loucks who is a published scholar.

@ReaderofthePack, Andrzejbanas, GamerPro64, Paleface Jack, Auric, Darkknight2149, SeanTheYeti452, and StarTrekker: All of you participated in the previous discussion on the list's formation. Do you have any opinions or further suggestions? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, anything with Joshi should be seen as a RS almost by default given that he's seen as such an authority on HPL. Hmm... going by section, the Reliable publications and the default website sections look good, no arguments there. With the prominent blogs, Joshi is definitely good as far as I am concerned. The Deep Cuts website may get questioned but per Google Scholar it seems to be used as a RS here and there. I'm worried about that getting questioned if it came to it. Same goes for Tentaclii. I'd say that they could be in an EL section for sure and at least mentioned somewhere, but as a RS I'm kind of worried about them getting questioned to some degree. Ultimately I think that they look good enough, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the horror YouTube series Local 58 is at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local 58, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright to use Downright Creepy, Screen Zealots, Horror Obssessive, Modern Horrors, AIPT Comics, Cinepunx, Flickering Myth, Horror Critic, Horror Fuel, Nightmarish Conjurings, Gruesome Magazine, Horror Cult Films or Morbidly Beautiful as RS? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to say probably no on Downright Creepy. I can't seem to find anything about their editorial oversight and the impression I'm getting is that they accept user content. The site itself seems to have some html issues as clicking on the sidebar icon (the horizontal slashes) doesn't bring up any navigation. HTML issues doesn't always mean a site is unreliable, but it's also not a great sign. Now arguments towards it being usable would be the film festival and this article on their network founding, as well as the fact they do interviews with notable people. (Interviews with notable persons are harder to get when you're a nobody or unreliable outlet.) It's more the lack of any info on the site's editorial process or staff that makes me leery, honestly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  According to this Tim KC Canton is the site's editor-in-chief. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe/probably on Screen Zealots. They have some info about their staff, but not a lot of info. The pedigree of the person running the site is good, which is what is making me lean more favorably towards them. They don't seem to be written about though, which works against them. They don't do interviews it seems, so I can't use that in their favor. I'd say that stuff written by the site's founder likely would be reliable, but other people would be up in the air unless we could find out more about the editorial oversight. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Horror Obsessive looks pretty good. It has editorial oversight and doesn't appear to sell article space (ie, pay to play articles). Site is also well laid out, a good sign. One of their people was used in this article as a commentator, which is also generally a good sign. They've also done interviews with people involved with notable films, also a very good sign. I'd say that it's usable, but would get more feedback first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've always generally seen Modern Horrors as reliable. It's not something I saw as a strong source, so I tended to avoid using it for the most part, but scrutinizing it I do notice that it accepts user submitted content and there's no clear editorial oversight marked. The About Us page also lacks any info about the site or its people. At the same time, their site does do interviews concerning notable films. This is a maybe, I suppose. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• AIPT is iffy. There's no info on editorial oversight and really no info about the site as a whole anywhere on the site that I can find. I'd heard of them, but for some reason I assumed it was part of AICN, which is still more or less seen as a RS on Wikipedia. It is used as a source in this book put out by Rowman/Lexington Books, which is a good sign. I would just need more to really feel comfortable calling this a RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The about page is here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinepunx has the same issues: no editorial info, no info about the site on the site itself. It does have interviews with notable people on notable films, which is a good sign. Used as a source in this book put out by an academic/scholarly publisher, which is good. So also iffy and needs more proof. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, to clarify, if a website has editorial oversight, could it be used as an RS? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  According to this Liam O'Donnell is the co-creator and editor of Cinepunx. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Vampire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]