I can think of few more egregious examples of WP's bizarrely nerdy-fanboyish nature than this.

Please note; not only does this article list all kinds of vampires, from entertainments both well-known and obscure.

It also lists the "appearance" and "weaknesses" of Sesame Street's Count von Count,
and the cereal mascot Count Chocula.

Citable? Certainly.
Original research? Possibly.
Encyclopedic? Absoloutely not.

I could see a well written article examining vampires in literature, film and television, but this listcruft with tables and grids is an example of Wikipedia at its worst.

But who would win in a fight between Sesame Street's Count von Count and the subject of my all-time favorite piece of Wikipedia shite, Vampire pumpkins and watermelons?

Heh! Heh! Heh! One bad Wikipedia article!

I disagree. This is Wikipedia at its best. Sadly.

Though there are some things that WP does pretty well (where it has competition), although not better than anywhere else. Still, it's better than anything else you'll find on-line for all kinds of topics. In such cases, the arguments against WP degenerate to the idea that it's not better than anything you can find in any library. Well, that's a hell of a high standard. Having the stuff available in 30 seconds on your iPhone anywhere, is worth a certain price in reliability and completeness. After all, even if WP magically didn't exist, you'd have exactly the same problem with what a Google search on your iPhone produces. Right? This is NOT a problem invented or even foisted upon the world by WP. It would exist without WP. Much of it is a tension between humanity's store of data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. And how much of any of this stuff you can EXPECT to have access to IMMEDIATELY, free, via your telephone or mobile computer.

How much do you THINK you should be entitled to?

Well, I await an answer. That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like everybody to think about it.

It's worse in how much of a time sink someone spent in coding and formating all of those tables, getting the colors just right, when they could be doing something far more interesting like adding actual content. But, alas, it's work like this that leads the path to adminship.

That's not quite true. The path to adminship is by tagging such articles for speedy deletion, after making certain that you don't mix up your G1s with your A1s, or, heaven forbid, mistakenly tag an obvious A7 as a G11; that kind of slovenliness bites you on the ass at RfA. Voting "Delete/Keep/Merge as per nom" at AfD is also good, so long as you're careful to wait and see how the wind's blowing before jumping in. Don't want to be seen on the wrong side of deletion debate, that would never do, as administrators have to be infallible. The easiest option of all though is to hang around AN/I supporting every call for a civility block that comes in, no matter how absurd. That way you build up a reputation for being a pratt staunch defender of the wiki with almost no effort whatsoever.

I'm betting it all on Count von Count, because

While this might be a reasonable subject in some sense, the article as currently constructed seems rather ludicrous. It does remind me of a question from my childhood, though: Is Count Chocula an ordinary vampire who just happens to enjoy chocolate cereal, or does he actually survive on chocolate cereal in the same way that ordinary vampires survive on blood? I just don't think there's much basis for comparing him to the other vampires until we know the answer to that question.

This just went on my Facebook.

Milton, you old blowhard... if you ever are in a situation where you truly, earnestly NEED this page immediately on your iPhone, please call me. I just want to hear your final scream as the fangs sink into your neck.

Count Duckula is alluring?

I like one of the comments from the article's AfD that said its content would've been suitable for a circa 1999 tripod.com website.

Just the idea of including Count Chocula in an encyclopedia article on vampirism -- let alone comparing him to other famous literary vampires -- is (pardon the expression) batty.

Honestly, it's articles like these where Wikipedia shines brightest. There's absolutely no reason to delete this article; there are no BLP concerns here (as there are no "real" vampires) and if the article is off or "biased" in some way it's extremely unlikely to lead to real-world harm.

Wikipedia's best destiny is to become the world's most comprehensive collection of cultural trivia; this article fits into that role perfectly.

In which case, WP are practicing false advertising. As I've said before, the thing should be named in a more accurately descriptive fashion, such as "Nerdopedia" or "Fancruftpedia". Then I would have much less of a problem with their "all human knowledge" crap, because its validity would be denied up-front.

Just for completeness, remember this thread for some examples of WIKI-FAIL.

It's great

There are plenty of books and film pages which actually have tables comparing the various fangsters. There is no other fictional entity for which attributes are so scrutinised.

What really sucked is that there were pages linked off the page at the AfD and yet there were comments of OR there (which was and is blatantly untrue)

Bring on the Lost Boys..what a cool flick that was

How charming. Since it appeared on Reddit and I pointed it out yesterday, the article has become a magnet for "improvement' and vandalism, and been protected by Blueboy96.

Those fools missed the point.
And Mr. Liber isn't helping, by participating on the talk page.

The latter.

Essentially, Count Chocula is merely a dramedic foil for the far more interesting Frankenberry; at the time both were introduced by General Mills (along with Boo Berry, Fruit Brute and Fruity Yummy Mummy), they were meant to compete with Quaker Oats' Quisp (T-H-L-K-D) and Quake as marketing entities. However, the cereals themselves were all essentially derived from the far-superior Cap'n Crunch (T-H-L-K-D). Of course, it must be pointed out that it's Cap'n Crunch, not Count Chocula, who survives by drinking the blood of the living - indeed, living virgins who are kidnapped and brought to his pirate ship in the middle of the night wearing little more than... oh, never mind.

"According to tradition, watermelons or any kind of pumpkin kept more than ten days or after Christmas will become a vampire, rolling around on the ground and growling to pester the living."

Now we know where the scriptwriters for the Killer Tomatoes got their ideas from...

You know, Protonk was in the Navy -- do you think he served under Cap'n Crunch? (It may explain a lot of his behavior.)

Where's the Comparison of Disney character traits (T-H-L-K-D) so Wikipedia can finally answer the ultimate question of all: what the hell is Goofy (T-H-L-K-D)?

That's Dr Liber to you

Yeah, I always wondered what Goofy was too....

Pluto is to Mickey what Ryulong is to SlimVirgim, while Goofy is to Mickey what JzG is to SlimVirgin. In the former it is a master-dog relationship. In the latter they are equals although one is much stupider. If you don't get it VoC does.

News in Film has now discovered this bloody fount o trivia too.

I feel so...so vindicated....hmmm must add Lost Boys stuff if'n no-one else has.....

Me thinks they have.

Judging by the chart, Count Von Count is the big boss vamp-
He's a daywalker with no known weaknesses except a fetish for simple maths.

That article made me laugh out loud... first time something on Wikipedia (outside of AN/I, the ArbCom pages, and similar internal drama) did this for me in a long time! Please don't get them to delete it!

But of course!


However, there may come a time when I shall ask you for a favor in return...

Seriously, if there is any one creature which has its attibutes and vulnerabilites compared ''ad nauseam'', it's the vampire. Just about every book I have on them has rigorous discussion on these. So, we have in-depth discussion of >2 reliable sources.

However, I didn't come up with the table and was a little wary at first, until I realised it fulfilled notability criteria

Now ''that's'' the placement of chompers I like - the canines. I really hate it when they make the incisors (a la barlow in the 1979 Salem's lot) like some sort demonic chipmunk....''(now why don't we have a little vamp emoticon? C'mon, if we can get Cthulhu...)''
Cas

PS: He's in one of those compendia too...must add....