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
Help is more than welcome here. Right now, these works are listed in chronological order, but I'm thinking alphabetical is more sensible. I'm not committed to the introduction as it is right now, either. The "other works" section is a bit tough to tackle as well (does "Hoax" merit its own subsection? If so, shouldn't "Textbook" for The Conchologist's First Book?). Also, I plan on checking all the links to make sure they work and eliminating all the red links. The next stage at this point is to add a selected bibliography to the main Edgar Allan Poe page, based on multiple requests on talk pages, peer reviews, etc. Any other general suggestions and opinions are more than welcome. --Midnightdreary 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the genre division is quite good. I'm ambivalent about giving the hoax is own section, although I can entirely see why we would want to. I think a good argument could be made either way. What do the scholarly Poe bibliographies do? When in doubt, ask the experts. :)
Chronological order makes sense to me and it is standard in bibliographies. I would stick with that.
I don't think it is necessary to eliminate the redlinks - I think you should redlink what you think an article can be written on. That is actually helpful information to have. It seems like you will eventually get around to writing the articles, anyway. :)
I would include the original titles and publication information. I did this with
(a very extensive and thorough page). It makes the page more comprehensive and useful for a wider variety of audiences, in my opinion.
I would also include the source for your bibliography, especially since you hint in the lead that some works are disputed and attributed. I would put any attribution information in footnotes.
I think the lead is, by in large, quite good. It is general, which is appropriate for this type of article. However, I would add a few phrases about "nineteenth-century America", just to identify the time frame. Sadly, not everyone reading this is going to know that is the century we are talking about. I would also include Poe's birth and death dates - again, just basic information that rounds out the general information of the lead. The only thing I might alter would the emphasis on Poe's reactiveness, which seemed rather strong in the early part of the lead.
These are all great suggestions! I was especially curious about how to cite the full list of works - I think I'll take a look at those suggested lists you linked. I'm glad to hear the lead works the way that it does; I wasn't sure where to go with that. My hope, by the way, is to get a Poe featured topic by January 19, 2009 - it's my little 200th birthday present for him. We'll see... ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, regarding redlinks... I'm hesitant to build more articles on Poe right now; I went a little nuts earlier this year with starting loads of stubs. Now I think that was a mistake and it's more important to build higher quality articles that are already here. Just thought I'd mention it. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you regarding stubs vs. quality articles. When I first became an active editor, I was encouraged to create stubs for tons of articles, but they ended up just being little paragraphs that I have yet to expand (of course no one else has taken them up either). What I meant to say was, leave the redlinks so that other editors know articles should be created. That is what I have taken to doing. (I think your idea for a topic by 2009 is excellent - a very worthy goal.)
Question/suggestion that I would like input on: For the sake of completeness, should we consider linking titles that do not have Wikipedia articles to the full text on Wikisource? For this to be a fully-functioning and usable listing of Poe's bibliography, I feel a collection of titles with no additional info isn't particularly helpful. Thoughts? --Midnightdreary 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is probably a good idea. I have been encouraged to do this in the past. I have also been encouraged to link to
I just noticed that in some places it's "A Few Words on Secret Writing" and in some others it's "Some Words on Secret Writing". In Google it's 1650 results vs. 6, so I think it's the former. I'll modify it whereever I find it. The only reason I'm posting here is to let you know, should I be wrong. Dex Stewart (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's original title was "A Few Words on Secret Writing" (see eapoe.org) before it was renamed. This page is generally the more commonly accepted titles (as opposed to chronological first or last), so I'm okay with this one either way. But, anyway, that explains the discrepancy. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:37, 10 December
2007 (UTC)
Possible missing item
Recently read a story ghost-written for Houdini, I believe entitled "Under the Pyramids," or sometimes "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs." Is this eligible for inclusion here? If so it doesn't seem to be listed.
It's not Poe. If it was written for a newly-born Houdini, Poe was already dead by 25 years. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, having looked it up, it's Lovecraft. Apologies, and excellent work picking it up so quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewssoul (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a journalist, Poe wrote literally hundreds of other miscellaneous items; we can't reasonably be able to include all of them. The one you are referring to is a modern article on one of Poe's various published essays on ciphers. Why is this one more relevant than any of his other articles? --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These 2 EAP ciphers were not been solved until 160 years have passed!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.102 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... and...? The link is not to an article written by Poe so I have trouble seeing why it's relevant to the bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ligeia
Don't know if anybody cares, but I removed the part about "The Conqueror Worm" being Ligeia's dying words. The tale tells us that Ligeia had written the poem sometime before her dying day. The Narrator reads the poem for Ligeia. Ligiea's dying words are from the (fabricated) "Glanville" quote. Thanks.
MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I've fixed it so that it's clear that Ligeia (supposedly) wrote the poem. I just wanted a quick line to explain the relationship between the story and the poem. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the update is still not technically accurate but close enough. Thanks.MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not for this page. The year is meant to establish the publication year, not manuscripts, etc. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[sigh] I know that elsewhere, a discussion came up that articles titled "[Author's name] bibliography" don't mean the same as those titled "Bibliography of [author's name]". Why was this article restored to the incorrect version? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a glance at the history, it seems like the page was moved as part of a histmerge, on August 13.
I don't recall the prior discussion, but from Category:Bibliographies by author, most of the articles share this current naming scheme, including 1 of the other featured lists, S. E. Hinton bibliography. So, if this needs to be fixed, it needs to be fixed on a wide scale. :)
If you can find a link to the prior discussion, I'd be interested. WP:WikiProject Books is near-silent, but it'd be worth noting there too. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion came after one editor went ahead and moved as many of the bibliography articles as he/she could find. That's why they've all been "standardized" this way, though not by consensus. Discussion popped up in a couple places, but I can't seem to find them now that I'm looking. In the case of this page, if you go back further in the history, you'll see that it had been changed, then changed back, and stayed that way for some time before the histmerge on August 13. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If true, that sucks. I would have moved it back, if the redirect had not also been salted as "unprintworthy". cygnis insignis 12:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox removed
I removed the infobox but provided a bad link in the edit summary. The correct link is
Is Infobox bibliography a good thing?. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Tales of the Folio Club
American author Edgar Allan Poe the originator of the Detective story {The Mystery of Marie Roget} is offen regard as the MAster of Macabre story {The Masque of the Red Death}; of the storyteller of Revenge {Hop Frog; The Cask of Amontillado}; or the chronicler of the insane mind {William Wilson (short story); The Tell-Tale Heart}.
Yet Poe had a comic and satiric side as well {The Devil in the Belfry}. A projected project of Poe's was a collection of stories called "The Tales of the Folio Club" of the rise of "Dunderism" of literary writing. The stories would be published-but never under the title of "The Tales of the Folio Club" during Poe's lifetime.
Posthumous publication
The Edgar Allan Poe society on their website has reconstructed the projected "Tales of the Folio Club"
