What do we define as the jurisdiction of this project? Does that mean any Halloween related articles? Or any horror/scary articles? Does it mean something like this? Cheers, RockManQ(talk)01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should start in a very focused manner, with articles that are more Halloween than anything else, such as Halloween and trick-or-treat. I just added assessment to the banner, but not importance, since that is more subjective and I didn't want to assume it was appropriate.--otherlleft (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to tweak the demonstration userbox banner to prevent the project page from being included in the category, but I'm out of my depth.--otherlleft (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Halloween to GA and beyond
Halloween was a good article over two years ago but has since been delisted. I would like to set a goal of not only returning it to that status, but getting it featured for Halloween of 2009. What will this take? Let's keep the discussion in one thread for the moment so the historians will be able to more easily track the progress of this momentous task! :-P--otherlleft (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I did a very brief look over and this is was I found:
The lead section is completely unsourced
It's also too short for such a big topic (see WP:LEAD)
Some level three headers are very short (such as Haunted attractions)
Around the world section is lacking citations
Also, there is many duplicate section titles (I see History four or five times)
Granted, this was just a basic lookover, but I'd certainly be willing to help, when possible. I look forward to working on this and good luck! RockManQ(talk)17:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. My replies:
My interest in Halloween here started with a haunted attraction, so I'm willing to start on that section myself.
I think the around the world section is the worst part of the article! It's way too long as well as being unsourced. I don't think it would be fair to just strip it down because the material has some worth, which is why I suggested splitting it. Any thoughts on how to address?
We could just copy the Around the world here, make improvements to it, see if anyone objects to it on Halloween's talk page, then post it into the article. Only since it's so big though. RockManQ(talk)18:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: a lot of people feel invested in this article. Previous edit wars were about the perils Halloween presents to modern-day Christians; whether the Celtic festival of Samhain was a new year festival; and whether the Pope moved All Saints Day to November 1 to co-opt the celebration of Samhain. Another thing to watch out for is relying on error-ridden popular histories of Halloween as sources, and the Web is littered with those. Look for scholarly works that use primary sources, most of which can be found in books, not on the Web. — Walloon (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Points well taken. RockManQ's posting on the talk page should help with the former, and looking in gasp real books is certainly a possibility!--otherlleft (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for inclusion
The addition of articles facing deletion raises again the question (spectre?) of criteria for inclusion. An article pertaining to A Nightmare Before Christmas is arguably appropriate for this WikiProject since Halloween is a clear and prevalent theme, but what about articles relating to Dracula and other vampires? This is a grayer area for this project to consider. When I drafted the original page I deliberately left the scope vague because I didn't want to assume that my own views are remotely similar to the consensus of a group, so I won't go any further without reading input from other members.--otherlleft (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article just before it was delisted and the structure seems much better than it is today, though it is beset by the problems mentioned above regarding unreferenced statements in particular. (I also note it was delisted very soon after I made my original edits which I hope was just coincidence;). The segmentation into sub-articles about the various countries gives the whole thing a scrappy "Did you know?" feel - like a meandering trivia section. We might be better to go back to the GA version just after the classification and start from there. We could then agree what material should be added back in and how; and come up with some criteria for inclusion and reference standards. Sarah777 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tracked down this diff. It appears the article was simply tagged a GA on Halloween 2005 without any review process! So as well as adding material to the GA version we'd have to remove much as well. Sarah777 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome legwork - I started to hunt down that version myself a week or two ago but didn't have the time. Makes me wonder if that information should be included in the delisted GA template!--otherlleft (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. The challenge is a bit greater than I originally thought; I figured we'd have a "real" GA to build on. Now it seems we'll have to create one rather than just re-create one. Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked members of WP:AWARDS if they could try making a Barnstar for good Halloween work, and one editor was quick to create the image that you see to the left. Please let me know if it suits the purposes of this project!--otherlleft (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The writing style for the articles in Category:Haunted Attractions could use some work. One of the biggest problems that I see is that the attractions frequently become a list of annual themes, which can quickly become a long list of mostly notable information, when probably only particular notable themes should be highlighted. I don't have an initial proposal, but I think that developing a standard format by consensus would be very helpful. Any input would be appreciated.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . .11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
