Talk:Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter (novel)

How exactly is this a "mashup novel"?

While similar in theme to "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", this book isn't a mash-up of anything, it's entirely original work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.210.38 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely original - more like a rip off of "Queen Victoria: Demon Hunter", published the year before by A. E. Moorat124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

epistolary novel?

An epistolary novel is a novel written as a series of documents. If the novel is based on the diary of one man IMO it is not an epistolary novel. 'Some of Your Blood' has letters from and to the shrink and others from and to his patient. It is an epistolary novel as is 'Dracula'. I'm not sure this novel meets the criteria. Nitpyck (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I know this is late in coming, but I agree, and have altered the article accordingly. It is far more fitting to call it a personal journal - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move for Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter (novel); Move Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (film) to Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. There's pretty solid consensus that the film is the primary topic. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter (novel) → Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter – A disambiguous page is not necessary for just the novel and its motion picture adaptation. NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support: to follow convention for novel titles. Shrigley (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you link the convention you are using as foundation for your support? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Typically this is how we treat such works assuming neither the novel nor the film qualify as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Can you show that the novel is the primary topic? If not, this move shouldn't go through. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the novel is the primary topic and the article should change back to its original title.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The film is ten times more popular than the novel. Look at Doctor Zhivago and its film adaptation. --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what exactly is your point?! This is not about popularity, it is about necessity. There is no need for a disambisguous page for just two medias. This artcile should revert back to the original title. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"(film)" is primary topic. Why forcing 5,000 film readers to read about a novel? --George Ho (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support this proposal, or making the film the primary topic; either one per WP:TWODABS. Powers ^T 22:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "(film)" is primary topic. Why forcing 5,000 film readers to read about a novel? --George Ho (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  I do not doubt that the film is more popular, however I doubt it is faithful to the original work. Look at The Wizard of Oz and its series of adaptations. I do not intend to force everyone to read about a novel. Everyone has free will, they can choose to read whatever they like. I am not a god. I merely propose a necessity.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is no support for performing WP:TWODABS this way, but rather, the other way around as the film as the primary topic. However failing support for this, leaving things with the DAB would be far preferred over the proposal. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment:I also believe that NeoBatfreak doesn't understand that TWODABS doesn't force a user to read anything, and if that logic was to holdover, if anything, the proposal would possibly make 10x more people looking for the film "forced" to read about the novel. And while page views doesn't specifically justify a specific page as a primary topic, it does present strong support for it. It is also supported with 10x the number of google results (film versus novel). Tiggerjay (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-free file problems with File:Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter Cover.jpg

File:Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter Cover.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter Cover.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is Endorsement

does Abraham Lincoln's estate endorse this book, i mean you got to respect Lincoln for all he done and this book kinda cheapens him, was he really a vampire hunter?

To what Abraham Lincoln estate are you referring to? Abraham's last known descendant, Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, died in 1985. A possible descendant, Timothy Lincoln Beckwith, has no rights to the family's heritage due to his disputed paternity. There seems to be no organization connected to Abraham's works. Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)