Talk:The Vampire Diaries (novel series)

Novels: Fantasy Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.

Horror

	This article 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pictures

Under the Global free whatsit, is it possible to take photos of the covers of the books mentioned here, at low resolution, and attach them to the article? Cheers Wadhamite (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ljane?

The name 'Ljane' should be removed from this article (and other L.J. Smith articles), except as a passing reference to something she tried out. Lisa decided against using the name in the middle of last year. -- 28th March 2009

Notes

This information should in fact be under the TV section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauralubelle (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena gilbert loves Stefan Salvatore but there is a diffrence between them stefan salvator is not a human he is a VAMPIRE and his big brother Damon Salvatore is against him and elena because his other true love kathrine in the 1880's Kathrine turned demon and stefan into vampire's and now demon hates stefan and stefan hates demon. Elena finds out that stefan and demon are vampires and gets very scared of him and then she gets over it and helps him but it is very hard for her not to tell her bestfriend "BONNIE" Elena found out that Kathrine looked exactly like her and thought that stefan only liked her just because of that so when stefan was getting her a drink she saw the picture and then she put the necklace that he gave her to protect her from the mind things that the vampires do and left but it was very foggy outside and Elena saw somebody in the middle of the street and tried to stop but ran over the guy and her car flipped the guy craked his arm,legs,and neck and then got up walked in front of her car and Elena "SCREAMED FOR HELP" to be contiued...... next Thursday

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved - The Vampire Diaries (TV series) moved instead. Google results (wikipedia results filtered out) indicate around a 6:1 ratio of hits for TV vs. novel, thus the TV series is the primary topic. A hatnote has been added to the main page to link to the novel series. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vampire Diaries (novel series) → The Vampire Diaries —

The latter is a disambiguation page that only contains two pages. Therefore, one of the articles can become the main article, and a hatnote can be added to the top of the article to point to the other. Gary King (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If either of these 2 pages is a dominant meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer the TV series, since it seems more prominent. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the move, this is the original "The Vampire Diaries" and should have that name. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the TV series is the more popular article, but I recall in several discussions that it's preferred to have the original work as the primary topic, and then in the hatnote say "For the TV series based on the book, see The Vampire Diaries (novel series)". Gary King (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that would be against WP:PRIMARYUSAGE 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Theft of work from wiki.vampire-diaries.net

Rather than go through every page on the wiki, I'll highlight a really obvious page:

http://wiki.vampire-diaries.net/Minor_Characters

Compare it to the minor characters section here, you will see it's lifted VERBATIM.

The books:

http://wiki.vampire-diaries.net/The_Vampire_Diaries_%28Books%29#The_Books

Click on the summaries for each of the books. Stolen. VERBATIM.

Character information has also been stolen directly and littered in with other character descriptions. Feel free to check the edit dates for confirmation. If this doesn't constitute as proof, I don't know what does.

195.137.123.12 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the links you provide are also a wiki, the text there could also very well have been copied from here. You're going to been better "proof" than that. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read this page, as the terms of use for using the MediaWiki software appears to allow this kind of re-use, *if* it is as you claim.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes as proof in your eyes then? The fact that the history dates on our wiki would show that our article was created first isn't good enough? Why on earth would we even bother lying about it? If we stole it from here, why would we even bring it up in the first place? It is appalling that someone can take content like this from another wiki and just post it without any credit to the original source at all. Fans worked hard on those articles, and this is a slap in the face to them and their integrity. 195.137.123.12 (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll get more specific with date stamps - http://wiki.vampire-diaries.net/index.php?title=Minor_Characters&oldid=2078 & http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Vampire_Diaries_%28novel_series%29&direction=next&oldid=396850801 -- as you can see, the last edit on our article about minor characters was 20th of September 2009. That section did not appear on the wikipedia article until the 15th November 2010, as added by TwilightFanx23 - over a year after I wrote it. 195.137.123.12 (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - the Nightfall synopses is ours, the rest aren't. I was angry after carefully going through the minor characters section, and then the main character section to find the stolen parts, of which there are many. I noticed the Nightfall synopsis was exactly the same and assumed the others were, too. My bad, I apologise. My point still stands about the rest of it, though. Our book summary for Nightfall as of April 2009: http://wiki.vampire-diaries.net/index.php?title=Nightfall&action=history . As you can see from the May 2009 edit on the wikipedia article - AFTER we wrote our article - there is an entirely different and much shorter synopsis. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Vampire_Diaries_%28novel_series%29&oldid=292798502 - The fact that the current Nightfall synposis is a huge chunk of text with no paragraph editing as ours does have should be further proof that this is a copy and paste job. Again, I apologise for my haste - I was incredibly angry - with the other summaries, but the theft of the other content still stands. 195.137.123.12 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now signed up, I am no longer anonymous. I have confirmed an email address. I have provided timestamps above that show the content was in place on our site over a YEAR before they appeared on this particular wiki article. If this proof is not substantial enough, it would be appreciated if you could tell me what proof you actually require so that I may get it for you. Thank you. RedVDN (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have given credit in the article to the Vampire Diaries Wiki, per the Creative Commons licensing agreement shown at the bottom of the Minor Characters page. Specifically, the agreement allows any kind of sharing, copying and distribution as long as the original site is credited. I think references pointing to the VD Wiki page is a suitable answer to the concerns voiced here. Such named references should follow each paragraph copied from VD Wiki. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio warning

It seems the material being referred to has excised from the article, I think for sourcing and other reasons. If this hadn't happened, the material should be removed anyway since the above discussion appears to confirm there is a WP:Copyvio involved. (The only possible exception I can think of would be if the person who contributed them to wikipedia is the sole author of them on the external wiki or the timeline given above is wrong.) Let this also be a warning in case anyone wants to restore material from the history that they need to use great care to ensure they don't reintroduce the copyvio material.

Firstly the licence for the MediaWiki engine is irrelevant here. MediaWiki is under a copyleft licence, which means anyone who releases software derived from MediaWiki will need to comply the licence which includes releasing the source for their version and allowing people to use it under the licence. (However as it's not a Affero General Public License or other similar licence which attempts to close the ASP licence, it's likely that if they only run it on their server, they don't have do distribute anything.) But this doesn't affect content on any wiki running on MediaWiki, anymore than someone using Linux or OpenOffice. In other words, they are free to use whatever licence they want for content hosted on their wiki.

Which is where we hit the snag. The statement above that the licence allows any sort of 'allows any kind of sharing, copying and distribution as long as the original site is credited' is incorrect. In fact, the licence linked above is CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 which specifically precludes commercial use. It also disallows derivatives. Both of these are incompatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence wikipedia requires for content copied from elsewhere. Although we're not a commercial project, we require that work be under a sufficiently free licence and a non commercial licence is not sufficiently free. Furthermore, the no derivatives clause is incompatible with the idea of a wiki point blank, particularly when it comes to text. (Either those in charge of the Vampire Diaries wiki don't know what they're doing or they have terms elsewhere that allow derivatives on their wiki. Either way it's not out concern.)

While the wiki appears to be down, a check at archive.org [1] seems to confirm that where a licence statement existed, it was the licence linked above.

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Copyrights if there is any further confusion.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L. J. Smith's Status as Author

So news has just hit that L. J. Smith has been removed as the author from "her" own book series. Apparently this can be done because publisher HarperCollins commissioned the series, hiring Smith to write it, retaining full copyright and whatever else over the series. While Smith created the characters and the events and what not, HarperCollins created the premise. With that, and the fact that Smith won't be writing any more of the series, I would suggest that instead of referring to the the series as "written by L. J. Smith", it would be better served to refer to it as "commissioned by HarperCollins" (or alternatively, published). I don't really know how to go about Wikipedia voting and what not to create large change, so I'm just posting this here, in the discussion page, and hopefully someone else can go about making decisions. Now if you don't mind, I think I'll have to go kill myself for actually having anything to do with a Vampire Diaries article, ick. --99.225.1.14 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smallwood vs Lockwood

While Tyler and his family are Lockwood in the TV series, they are Smallwood in the book series. Since this article is about the novels, the surname should remain Smallwood. 76.20.213.207 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not because Tyler Lockwood sounds much better than Tyler Smallwood 104.171.64.48 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this topic

As requested on the topic page, I have substantially edited and condensed the subject matter to address quality issues. Twice now, within a couple of days of my efforts, the same user has erased all of my extensive edits and returned the material to the original form, which includes grammar errors, numerous redundant statements, and opinions. What should I do about this (if anything)? So far I have gone through and replaced my work, but I don't want to do this every time this other person puts back the original rambling, poorly written material. It's kind of annoying and discouraging to have my hard work deleted. For whatever reason, it is not possible to revert this other person's edits. Am I doing something wrong, and should I just give up? Forego5 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this article has been gutted and has very little useful information in it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.217.97 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com

Amazon is used as a references in many a featured article. The Wire is a good example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OTHERSTUFF, and therefore irrelevant here. An Amazon commercial link is WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your standard excuse. Deal with The Wire or I will delete the amazon entries and quote you as my guide so I cannot be accused of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing at all to do with me. It's policy. If you don't like the policy, then lobby to change it. Qworty (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys. Please calm down. I ask that you please take the conversation elsewhere, such as Talk:The Wire#Amazon not spam or your talk pages, since the conversation seems to be more about WP:SPAM or citing Amazon on The Wire. Thank you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

qworty is only interested in still deleting all over the place and made one of his usual inane WP contribution at Talk:The Wire#Amazon not spam instead of contributing his opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please observe WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another non constructive answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan's Diaries

I'm trying to help my daughter navigate her way through the books, and I think it's confusing that neither this article nor the TV Series main article, has any mention of Stefan's Diaries. In the end I had to go to L.J. Smith's own homepage to find out that they're ghostwritten. I can understand that one might not want to pollute this page with too much discussion of ghostwritten spin-offs, but a mention would be helpful. 130.225.26.33 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Vampire Diaries (novel series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090522112540/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ic8543054a8a9084de067a8e4d399b1d7 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ic8543054a8a9084de067a8e4d399b1d7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy

Who are Alloy? The article as of late April 2016 doesn't clearly explain it. 89.242.141.235 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Vampire Diaries (novel series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]