Talk:Nosferatu

Brenton films and other clean-up

This article is in a bit of a need of a refresh. I count 22 sources to Brentonfilms, which appears to be a silent film fan blog, which fails WP:SPS (self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs" are largely not acceptable as sources.). There are several trivial mentions of Nosferatu or Count Orlok being referenced or named, or used in various forms of media either out sources, or just citing the content itself. This fails MOS:TRIVIA as " An article should not contain a section with a list of miscellaneous information. It is better to present things in an organized way.". The citation format is inconsistent throughout and could use some reformatting to clarify some details.

I've slowly been working on re-drafting some sections for clarity, better sources, and other content on my own sandbox. I'll ping some editors who are active and worked diligently on this article when Its closer for presentation, but comments are welcome in the meantime. It would be great to get this in an up and running shape before the Eggers remake comes out.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible FA or GA

Hi, I've been reading the article and I think it may have potential for FA or GA. While the state is a bit deplorable, if it is translated from the German Wikipedia it could be much better. However, I will give my comments here to improve the article. First, while the article has reviews from professional critics such as Roger Ebert, it would be good to include more contemporary reviews such as Variety, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, among others. Second, it would be good to add a "Legacy" section to see the impact the film generated. And lastly, to expand the article with more sections and complement the existing ones to make the topic more complete. So I call on the user @Andrzejbanas: to see what they think about the idea. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm calling on user @Andrzejbanas: again to see what he thinks about the idea. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, seemed to have missed the first ping. I'm a bit ahead of you and have been tackling that earlier last month. Still have some ways to go, but it's going well I think. You can see samples here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking over the article, it is a significant improvement of its original state. That being said, there are still things that need to be fleshed out like the production section and whatnot. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I've watched it and it's going great, but I have a few suggestions: first, there's no mention of Roger Ebert's review, Vatican and Empire, which is in the main article. The other thing is that when it mentions his appearance on SpongeBob SquarePants, he doesn't say when he first appeared, which was in the episode "Graveyard Shift" here are some sources to back him up: . That would be it overall, it's going well, I wish you luck in completing it. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I plan on including Ebert's review, the retrospective reviews and initial reviews are in no way complete. I might brush up some of the production as well. As for the spongebob thing, I'm on the fence about it. We have a seperate article for Count Orlok. I'm not sure how much of that article isn't just going to re-purpose material from the film. As the spongebob Nosferatu does show up quite a bit and this is a character they call "Nosferatu" not Count Orlok, or Dracula, I'm a bit confused on if we should put attention on it here or there. Orlok's a weird character as the imagery of him is strong in popular culture, but is it enough to have a seperate article from Nosferatu that won't be pretty much a re-iteration of whats in this article already? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: So in this case it would be better to simply say that the character appears in the series since the episode "Graveyard Shift", or on the contrary leave it as is, tell me what you think of the idea. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's that important on the debut of the character. This isn't an article (nor is the Count Orlok one) and in-depth article about the SpongeBob reoccuring character. the reason it's brought up in this or that article per the source is to show the longevity of the character, not be a brief bio about them.Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Well, in this case it is better to leave it like that. So I wish you luck with the article. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This article feels very incomplete at present. If you get it up to FA/GA status, great, but right now it's far from there. CapnZapp (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Was there ever a section on the lawsuit against this film?

Most of Florence Balcombe's wikipedia article is about her (successful) legal battle against the film. I was surprised this article didn't mention that. Did there used to be a section that got removed? 2601:244:200:2680:3881:D70C:CF61:2782 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree there's a lot missing in this article. There should be an entire "Development" section detailing how the movie came to be, and what issues (legal or otherwise) had to be navigated before and after its release. CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

almost Lost Work status

In articles covering the upcoming Eggers movie, there are throw-away references to the 1922 film almost being lost to time. Please expand on its history and its rediscovery. CapnZapp (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CoconutOctopus talk 13:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Nosferatu → Nosferatu: A Symphony of HorrorNosferatu: A Symphony of Horror – Nosferatu is now such a broad topic that it doesn’t make sense having this be the title for the original film. We should title is article by the full title of the movie. SuperFunHouse1 (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Film/German cinema task force, WikiProject Film/Silent films task force, and WikiProject Film/Core have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Do not move: I've slowly been working on developing a new version of this article here. From all my research, the title is more commonly referred to simply as Nosferatu, not the full length version. As this is the main-text that all other Nosferatu like films are named after, I'd rather it either keep this title or be disambiguated by year. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree and think the article shouldn't be moved. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose the original movie is the primary topic for this title and this title is its common name. Skynxnex (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Nosferatu is not such a broad topic that it doesn’t make sense having this be the title for the original film. It is one of the most influential horror films of all time, frequently referenced both explicitly and otherwise. All other Nosferatu‍s are directly referencing this film. Additionally, the short title Nosferatu is the common name for the film. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support alternate move to Nosferatu (1922 film), and Nosferatu (disambiguation) to Nosferatu. The subtitle is little known. However, there is no obvious primary topic by either pageviews or longterm significance between Nosferatu (word), which was used long before the film by Bram Stoker, and Nosferatu (1922 film). While the film is obviously significant, we should not be assuming readers wish to go there when "nosferatu" as a concept is larger than just the film itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Per the novel's full text, the word "nosferatu" is used by Stoker only two times in the Dracula novel, as a term for undead in Eastern Europe, and it was not well known before this film. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Nosferatu (1922 film) has almost 8x the views as Nosferatu (word) (see Pageviews) and the word owes its notoriety significantly to the film, even if its origins are older. Do you have evidence otherwise? Ngram shows it appeared only rarely in print before about 1960 and the lowercase form is far less common. WikiNav shows <3% of Nosferatu readers navigate to Nosferatu (disambiguation) and overall does not suggest a lot of readers are landing on the "wrong" page. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not about whether the word was "popularized" by the film - being the historical origin (or what popularized) a word is not determinative of a primary topic. It's about the general usage of the word "nosferatu" in the modern day to refer to vampires even outside the context of the film Nosferatu. That is, when someone says "nosferatu", we don't immediately think of the film or Count Orlok, but rather, a vampire in general. That is enough for me to believe there is no obvious primary topic here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I do immediately think of the movie, and the movie, or Count Orlok himself (much like “Frankenstein”), is by far the most common usage. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to see if we could figure how to systematically determine this, by my own first impression is this film and that is my sense of how the term is generally used. Referring to the movie(s) and not vampires generically. Skynxnex (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.