Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror

HorrorWikiProject Template Updated

Phase one of project "bring the Horror WikiProject up-to-date" is done… that being the massive updating of our WikiProject's template {{HorrorWikiProject}}. I field tested the new template a bit and it SHOULD be fine and dandy. While it adds new fields to our old one, it shouldn't have problems interacting with previously filled-in information. If there are ANY problems that you notice, please contact me directly and immediately. Or, if you know how to fix a problem you've found without breaking the template, please feel free to do so; this is, after all, a collaboration.

The template does have redlinks at the moment, since I put altering it before altering the project page. These will be resolved in time, so fret not.

Oh, and the Saw task force has a denotation on there too. Couldn't leave them out in the cold.

Feedback is welcome. hornoir (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For those that aren't seeing anything differently on the template, you might need to purge the page from your system. Try clicking here. hornoir (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's looking great! Should WikiProject Video Games be added the bottom of related Projects? We have several horror related games like Castlevania and Silent Hill with GA and FA status. I'm just curious if they should be included or not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. We include Film and Novel because there are horror movies and books.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur, throw WikiProject Video Games on there. They shouldn't be mentioned as a main parent project, but there certainly is a connection present. hornoir (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More and more updates have been made. Now that the template is working to — at least — some solid degree, I've started working on the other pages in the project. I'd like to have at least a core skeleton done in the next week or two. hornoir (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Disgusting

Just to set my mind at rest, is Bloody Disgusting considered a reliable source? Bradley0110 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would consider Bloody Disgusting a reliable source, but if you want to be sure you should ask at the reliable sources notice board. hornoir (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't if they are basing their info on scooper reports (e.g., "We heard from a guy that works at Studio X..."). That isn't reliable. We generally don't even report Variety when they have a scooper report. Now, if they consulted someone, by name, who is authorized to give such information then yeah they are. Also, if they are just reposting someone else's report, then go to the original source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing much in the manner of scooper reporting at Bloody Disgusting, but I could be wrong. If there is, then  BIGNOLE  is correct that it is not reliable. hornoir (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just an interview, which I assumed was always reliable. However, there are some people who expect an organisation like BD to have national coverage or Pulitzer-prize-winning correspondents or something before anything from there can be considered reliable. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interviews are not always considered reliable, especially if quoted from an unreliable source. With the use of strictly-internet-based sources, they can write anything with little- to no-repercussions. I could write a webpage wherein I state that George Romero told me that he "liked to do naughty things with hamsters that involved duct-tape and his bum", but that doesn't make the quote true. Reliability matters in all regards. As I said, though, I think you can consider Bloody Disgusting as reliable (at least for interviews). hornoir (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bride of Frank' importance

The article Bride of Frankenstein is going under review for a FA and I noticed it's importance is labeled Mid in the horror scale. Shouldn't it be higher? It's a very critically acclaimed horror film [1] [2] and is even considered a Core article for WP:Films. Shouldn't it be high? Or perhaps even Top? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd definitely say "High"...I'd think Frankenstein (being first and all) would be "Top". Frankly, I despise the "importance" scale. There is no real objectivity to it. Who really pays attention to it, other than to look at it and argue (no offense, you're just kind of proving my point :D) that some article should be higher or lower.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have a good point. :) Should we be using it at all then? I was mainly addressing it as we can create some sort of standard. I'd say we either eliminate the importance or create ground rules on how to tally things as top, high, mid and low and so on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, I'd like to see it go. We really only use the quality one, as it allows us to know the level of work that we need to do to get an article in shape. Importance doesn't really lend any actual usefulness, and I'm not even sure why it was adding to all of the project banners in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd say toss it out then. It'll just lead to people arguing instead of actually doing work that benefits the articles in WP:Horror. If anyone doesn't have anything else to say in it's favor, I guess it should be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be too "bossy" sounding, but we're not getting rid of the importance scale. Is it stupid and silly? Yup, but the v 1.0 Editorial Team do use our ratings for helping to determine what should be reprinted (in any of the various formats they cover). I tried my best to outline what the scale means in the Assessment section.

I think I actually am the one that assessed it at Mid, but in reflection you are correct that it should be High. As such, I changed it.

These assessments do serve a purpose to the project as well, since we can – once the Editorial Team bot realizes we actually have an active importance set — view items by importance and rating: thus if there is a High importance item that is rated as Start, we know a bit of work should be done there.

I hope I made myself understandable in this reasoning, but if not please ask for further clarity. hornoir (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just had the Editorial Team's bot run a new check, so that I might show you what a mean. Go to here (this will refresh the Assessments page for you) and you can see the Quality/Importance Assessment scale that the Editorial Team uses to select from. My understanding is, Top Importance items with a Quality of at least B are guaranteed entry into any "print" version the team makes. After that, FA, FL and GA are strongly considered, regardless of Importance. And, after that, some strange mixture of Quality vs. Importance is used for determination. I suspect WikiProject Horror has maintained a rather poor representation in the various "print" versions due to our lack of respecting the 1.0 Editorial Team's "needs" and I'd personally really like that to change. hornoir (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Needed-Class and/or Future-Class for template?

For a sense of consensus, should I add a {{Needed-Class}} to the project banner ({{HorrorWikiProject}})? What it allows, essentially, is to create placeholder pages for requested articles by going to where the article would be located and adding (on the talk page) {{HorrorWikiProject|class=needed}}, which adds the page to a special Needed-Class category. Would people use this?

Likewise, should we have a {{Future-Class}}? I personally don't like Future-Class, since it essentially says this article can't be rated until the item is released… but it does exist for a reason.

Please let me know your thoughts, folks. hornoir (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

B-Class Checklist for template?

An additional item for the project template is the B-Class checklist which has become standard. I can include it and set it to force for checks prior to B-Class setting; the problem with this is that all B-Class articles at current would be downgraded to C-Class since they have no checklist filled out. Thoughts on doing this? hornoir (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the B-Class checklist now and made an announcement (with request) here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Notice Board#B-Class criteria. Thanks for any/all help you can provide. hornoir (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

The Horror Collaboration of the Month (HCOTM) has been renovated and is ready for nominations. Please do so. Please.

The main reason I started my whole "WikiProject Horror needs a revamp" tirade was so that HCOTM could return. Please do not disappoint me, folks.

I think the next task up is getting the Newsletter running or am I missing something?

Let me or Bignole know if something is amiss somewhere and we'll do our best to fix it. hornoir (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Crazy old lady sub-genre?

There's a term used to describe this sub-genre, as exemplified by What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and the like. Not sure how wide-spread it is in the literature and I can't find it looking through articles or Googling. Anyone have a clue what I'm talking about? Otto4711 (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, I remembered it. Psycho-biddy. Otto4711 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK to tag some video game articles with the horror project template?

Hi, I'm not far off slinking back to my WP retirement but I wanted to ask for when I inevitably slink back for some gnome edits: would it be problematic to add horror project templates to articles like BioShock, Dead Space (video game), Werewolves of London (video game) etc. etc.? I know there are several games already tagged, but when I see things like BioShock without them I wonder if it's because the project isn't interested or whether nobody's got around to it yet. Best of luck in your efforts to kick start the project again. Someoneanother 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Any video game should be tagged with our template if they are horror-related. Thanks for asking, Someone another. hornoir (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth checking out Category:Horror video games. Not sure how accurately they have been categorized, but I randomly chose three. They all seemed to have horror themes but were not tagged with the project template. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. We'll look into that after the project gets off its feet again. Unless someone wants to undertake it now. Volunteers? hornoir (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at the list this afternoon and see what can be done. Wiki seems to be lagging for me lately, so hopefully it will be quicker later on this afternoon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still around so I'll have a crack. That category is strongly correlated with the survival horror game category, which was deleted for being duplicative, and there are a great deal of horror games on WP which aren't listed in the category. Off the top of my head it's missing Ghosts n' Goblins and its sequels, Haunting Ground and the afformentioned Werewolves of London. There are also horror games which have no WP article, like Frightmare, there must be hundreds out there, they've been around from the atari 2600 era. Someoneanother 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so all of the articles listed in that category are tagged. I didn't get a chance to go through the categories that were listed there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I remembered the greatest horror-children's novels...ever...and tagged all of the articles at Category:Goosebumps.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work, categorising and tagging these articles will notify horror fans of the project as well as give them a pool of games they may have never come across. There's scads more which aren't in the horror game category, doubtless most of them aren't tagged for the project either. Someoneanother 06:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not clean-cut so here's a heads-up: I've added Call of Duty: World at War to the project and the horror video game category, since it contains a noted sub-game (not what I'd call a mini-game) involving repelling nazi zombies from a barricaded bunker. It's the old Night of the Living Dead schtick. The main game itself is not horror though. If anyone feels strongly that either the category or horror project tag is inappropriate, then please remove it/them. IMO both are valid since the zombies game is part and parcel of the subject of the article and can't be separated. Someoneanother 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I might remove that. I haven't played the game but if it's just a sub-game, it sounds very minor. You might as well include Super Mario World as it includes Haunted House levels in the game. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite compare them that way, I'm struggling to think of any direct comparison since this is a game within a game as opposed to an aspect of a game, I wouldn't randomly tag games with horror just because they happen to have a vampire in them for instance. It's borderline so if it isn't accepted across the board it's a fair cop, removed it from the category too. Thanks for your input. Someoneanother 23:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter delivery

Hello, it is great to see this WikiProject being recalled to life! I enjoyed the thoroughness of the newsletter that I received on my user talk page. I was wondering, though, what was the reason to deliver the entire newsletter to one's user talk page and not link to it? It seems like having newsletters linked elsewhere (like this WP:FILM newsletter) would allow for changes to be made to content by anyone if necessary. More dynamic than static. Not a huge deal, but just wondering the justification. Also, hope you don't mind, but I created the WT:HORROR redirect to here. All I have to do is type "wiki WT:HORROR" in the address bar to drop in. :) Anyway, keep up the great work! I'm more on the film side of Wikipedia, but if there is any collaboration needed on horror film articles, I'd be happy to help. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the exact reason (I'll let Hornoir answer that), but if I was going to come up with a rationale argument for the whole thing being presented, instead of just a link, it would be for additional advertising. To explain, if someone came to your talk page, who was new to Wikipedia, to ask for your assistance on something they might not notice a plain link to this thing called the "WikiProject Horror Newsletter". But, if they came to your talk page and saw this rather vibrant banner announcing something to do with horror (and unbeknown to you they are a big fan of horror), they might be more inclined to check out what it is and thus we could potentially gain a new active member of the project. Well, that's how I would justify it. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the WT link, Erik. The delivery method is determined by which delivery bot you use; I chose the one with the shortest wait queue that I knew was active. Instead of creating an inline link to the page (like a template uses), this delivery bot subst the page into talk spaces. I didn't know this when I placed the request, but it's not a big deal by my mind. I'm not going to go through the process of removing my subscription to one bot and queuing for another if that's the only problem with the bot. Thanks for noting it, though. hornoir (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Some assistance

Friday the 13th (2009 film) has been tagged as an article that is written as a promotional piece about the film. I personally disagree with this assessment, but would like some additional input on the talk page regarding the information that is being questioned as well as the sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

There is currently a peer review request for the franchise article on Friday the 13th. The request was done through the standard PR format, instead of the Horror Review one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I made an addition review request for the WikiProject. So yes, there are now two reviews; different ways of tackling the topic. Enjoy. hornoir (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD on "Three Fingers"

I'm here to let you know that "Three Fingers", a song by Buckethead, used on Saw II (soundtrack) is nominated for deletion. Also, "We Are One (Buckethead song) ", used on Masters of Horror is nominated. Discussions can be found here and here. Any help appreciated! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone here cares, I am representing us at these "talks" — which seem to have devolved to bickering in a rather quick fashion. The base premise — at this point — appears to be A-Class Project quality assessment versus GA-/FA-Class Wikipedia quality assessment; in other words, should WikiProjects inherit a handed down quality rating (GA- and FA-Class) or be able to have their own individual high rating (A-Class). Anyone that has an opinion on the matter is more than welcome to share it during the discussions at the above listed talk page. hornoir (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Feb Newsletter GA

I don't know if there is a way to edit anymore, but the latest issue of the Horror newsletter has missed out on the GA-status of Friday the 13th (2009) this month! Will it be included next month? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this will be listed next month as opposed to this month. While I know it happened previous to the newsletter going out, I was actually still working on the newsletter when the bot mailed it. "Oops," I say, "oops." hornoir (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus, we don't typically have pages GAN'd and then GAR'd that very same day. It usually takes at least (if not more) a week, and that would have put it in March, easy. Good job on the newsletter though. If I had known you were working on it I would have lent a hand to speed up the process.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the end of the month snuck-up on me so quickly that I forgot about the newsletter, but I remember at the last moment… counts for something, right? hornoir (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:14, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Texas Chain Saw Massacre article

This is currently a discussion regarding the inclusion of a video game image for the Texas Chain Saw Massacre article. The discussion can be seen at Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre#Game image. More opinions are necessary to determine a good consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Randall Flagg Question

Randall Flagg's article cites an article from Borders.com three times. The article, unfortunately, no longer exists. The references says "Retrieved on 2007-12-14" when it was still active. Is that enough, or will the corresponding information have to be removed if the article gets nominated for FAC?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I took care of the dead link. If a link dies, try and search for an archived version of the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the trouble.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No trouble at all. I already checked the rest of the links on the page, and they're ok.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Fun Day - horror game?

That it's a video game is clear, but is Bloody Fun Day horror? Considering it involves grim reapers converting cutesy critters into piles of guts and what influenced the game, I'd say yes but only just. It's borderline though and I'd like the project's input before adding it to the category and the project's remit. Thanks. Someoneanother 01:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be scary to be horror. I mean, it's kind of violent. lol. I personally don't see an issue, but I'm not the only voice here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it could be included. hornoir (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the input guys, I'll add them now. Someoneanother 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch still (kinda) in H2 (Halloween 2)?

I don't know who to talk to about this, but Bloody-Disgusting is reporting that although Daeg Faerch has been let go from reprising Young Michael Myers, Dimension Films has retained his likeness rights and may possibly use him in H2. Daeg said this before, but now it's being reported by a reliable source. Is this enough to warrant an inclusion in the Daeg Faerch article or will we have to wait until CNN or Fox News picks it up? PF4Eva (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, wait till Dimension says they will use it. The fact remains, BD is reporting based on what Faerch has said. What he said is entirely true....for just about every acting contract. They always retain the rights, it just means they have to pay you should they use them. If Dimension says they plan to use it, or if Zombie says they plan to use it, then I would mention it. Beyond that...not really relevant to an encyclopedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th (franchise)

The Friday the 13th franchise article is up for FAC, please come voice your opinions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Friday the 13th (franchise)/archive1. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting in an additional request for comments for this FAC. There does not seem to be a lot of attention for it, and I would rather have 20 people come and leave me a list of complaints about it then have none review the article at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article was not promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

World War Z

World War Z is currently under review to become a Good Article. Any help you can provide to improve the article would be greatly appreciated. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ninth Gate

The Ninth Gate is currently under peer review. Any help you can provide to it is greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Might help to link directly! :) Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ninth Gate/archive1. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

spot check at survival horror

Within the next few days, I'm planning on nominating survival horror for good article status. It's undergone a lot of revisions over the past few months. I'd appreciate people checking in to make sure the prose is good, and that the article is a comprehensive look at the genre. Thanks in advance. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Little-vampire.png

Don't know if anyone cares, but I put this through a vector program and made it less pixelated and of a higher quality.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, CyberGhostface. It looks better now. hornoir (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the prolonged absense…

I've been dealing with my father's failing health in recent months and it hasn't allowed me great amounts of time online. Thus, my apologies for allowing the Project's upkeep get a little behind. I hope to be able to increase my online time in the future. Hope all have been well, hornoir (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

{{WPBannerMeta}}?

All Banners are being upgraded to use {{WPBannerMeta}} instead of own code. I upgraded {{WikiProject Horror}} but Hornoir reverted my edits saying that consultation is needed. So I post here the issue: "Does template need to be upgraded?" SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 10:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, not all WikiProjects use the {{WPBannerMeta}}. Look at {{WikiProject Film}} as a for instance. Our banner actually does some functions that WPBannerMeta isn't set to do, yet at least. As a for instance as to why this set-up is better, we were using a six point B-Class Rating scheme about six months prior to WPBannerMeta incorporating it.

Regardless, me point was that you shouldn't make significant changes to a WikiProject's banner without consulting the Project directly (or via the Talk Page of the Banner). It's wikicourtesy. hornoir (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But, well, all features are now either availble in {{WPBannerMeta}} or can be additionally coded (see my revisions). SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

All the features currently in the template are now available in {{WPBannerMeta}} but that doesn't change the fact that by keeping the coding independent it allows a greater breadth of control. And, unless I'm missing something, options like our Project template automatically assigning some Classes based on location aren't supported by WPBannerMeta yet.

Is there a particular reason you are dedicated to the idea of changing it? hornoir (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Standardization, everything up-to-date, cleaner code and lesser size (2.2K vs 26K). SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 08:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an optional template for WikiProject, not the standard (see also {{WikiProject Film}} or {{WPMILHIST}}). By not using {{WPBannerMeta}}, you *can* keep a Project Banner up-to-date faster as well as innovate new alterations. Sorry, but I prefer the freedom we experience without {{WPBannerMeta}}. hornoir (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)