Supernatural & ParanormalNo. 3814 · The 2026 edition
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halloween III: Season of the Witch
Plastic masks, a sinister TV ad, and a countdown to Halloween night that could spell doom for millions.
Our own summary of the original — the full post and photos live at en.wikipedia.org.
In this standalone sequel, Dr. Daniel Challis investigates a mysterious mask manufacturer whose Halloween-themed TV commercial triggers deadly consequences, leading to a chilling plot to sacrifice children on All Hallows' Eve.
About this
This is the Wikipedia Featured Article Candidates (FAC) review page for the article on the 1982 film Halloween III: Season of the Witch. It collects the nomination rationale from the article's nominator plus a series of support, oppose, and comment votes cast by other editors in May 2006. The discussion centers on prose quality, image licensing, notability, and how much production/critical context the article should include.
The list
-
01
Myles Long 2006
Nomination: sequel to the featured Halloween; comprehensive, well-referenced, images properly tagged with fair use rationales.
- 02
- 03
-
04
CanadianCaesar 2006
Comment raising eight points: intro bracket clutter, a passive sentence, ambiguous commercial sentence, unclear pod definition, and tagline placement; later satisfied.
-
05
SeizureDog 2006
No vote: deemed the film not notable, citing a 3.5/10 on IMDb; later retracted after confusing featured articles with front-page articles.
- 06
- 07
- 08
-
09
Bwithh 2006
Comment: questions the phrase about historians reading significance into the film's plot as redundant.
-
10
LuciferMorgan 2006
Support: prior two films' featured status irrelevant; asks for additional references.
- 11
-
12
Tony1 2006
Objection under criterion 2a: prose not brilliant; flags redundant 'additionally', 'imbedded', and a misused apostrophe.
- 13
-
14
Angr 2006
Oppose: seven copyrighted images exceed the limited number needed; doubts promo-photo tag and Fangoria cover fair use.
-
15
Zzzzz 2006
Object: copyediting needed; pod mislinked; reception paragraphs belong in merchandising; requests more on Kneale dispute, anthology plan, consumerism critique, and Dean Cundey.
-
16
Gmaxwell 2006
Oppose: too many unfree illustrations and no free illustrations at all.
-
17
Fallout boy 2006
Comment: disputes the free-image objection, arguing no adequate free images exist while the film is copyrighted.
-
18
Can't sleep, clown will eat me 2006
Support: well written and comprehensive; images not a prerequisite for featured status.
-
19
Jack O'Lantern (Mad Jack O'Lantern) 2006
Support: praises another excellent Halloween film article, hopes whole series reaches this level.
Facts from the original
- The nomination was filed on 11 May 2006 by Myles Long, who noted Dmoon1 as the primary author of the Halloween, Halloween II, and Halloween III articles.
- Tony1 objected on criterion 2a, arguing the prose was not 'compelling, even brilliant'.
- Angr opposed because the article used seven copyrighted images, flagging a promotional-tagged photo and a Fangoria magazine cover.
- Gmaxwell opposed due to an excess of unfree illustrations and a complete lack of free illustrations.
- Zzzzz objected over copyediting errors and asked for expanded coverage of the Nigel Kneale dispute, the anthology concept, corporate/consumerism critiques, and cinematographer Dean Cundey.
- SeizureDog withdrew its no-vote after admitting confusion between featured articles and front-page articles.
- The discussion ran from 11 May 2006 to 24 May 2006 and the page was last edited on 9 February 2023.
