Talk:Zombie apocalypse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article name

The name of this article is a bit confusing. If it's only literature and fiction, why include television and film, etc? Should this be renamed? Or maybe further split into two articles? Midnightdreary 15:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the TV shows and movies listed are fictional. If there's any documentaries in film or television, they should go in the main Zombie article. Perhaps, however, the article should be renamed to simply "Zombies in fiction." Travisl 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I guess I see fiction and just assume "literature." Still, it's a long article... rather than renaming, I'd recommend creating a new article for Zombies in television and film or something along those lines. Midnightdreary 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, List of zombie films already exists, and probably duplicates a lot of what's already here. Perhaps someone with time to do so can merge the Film and TV parts of this article and List of zombie films into a new Zombies in television and film? Travisl 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This article does not need to be split further. I do not quite understand why this was split from the main article in the first place. The comment on the discussion page for Zombie said "Does anyone else think that the lists of examples of zombies in literature, film, music etc. etc. could be split into another article or even just cut back to make this article more informative and less pop-culture orientated?". Fair enough, but aren't Zombies a pop culture phenomenon? I recognize that Zombies originate from Voodoo. Still, it seems very strange to separate the subject of Zombies from Zombies on film. What would Zombies be without film? Probably a footnote in the history of Haiti, and perhaps something we had never heard of. I do feel that the article was bloated and in need of editing before this split took place, but I think moving Zombies on Film to a separate page hurts the article.

I've moved this page from "Zombie in fiction and literature" to "zombies in popular culture". I think maybe "zombies in film" should be moved to it's own article, that section is pretty big.Tomgreeny 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with this, until such time as a non-fictional zombie becomes important to popular culture. *grin* Thanks for making the change. Travisl 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Chronology / Evolution of Zombies

I tried to create a chronological basis for the zombie's evolution into the pop-culture form it currently takes. I put the evolution into its own section, ending at Night of the Living Dead where it basically solidified into the 'modern zombie'. Due to the interrelation between literary and film zombies at the time, I decided not to split up the discussion of zombies pre-1968. It's not perfect but I think this a good start for a history of zombies as an archetype. I tried to limit my own references to ones that might have actually informed the creation of the concept; I don't know what to do about the later, non-chronological entries in other sections that turn the article into an unconnected mess of zombie references. I'm sure a lot of them could be pared down, given that the modern zombie is a hugely common archetype by now. --Subcreature 00:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Keep it up! Travisl 05:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Think I'm about done with this one. All that's left is cleaning up the end-section detritus. Maybe "List of zombie (insert media here)" pages would be better for all those wanting to catalogue their favourite non-essential zombie appearances, though I think they'd only get deleted in due time like other such pages. Subcreature 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Music section

I'm just curious as to why the Zombies in music section was reduced to two lines. There is hardly any real information now. ONEder Boy 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that for the same reason I pared the other sections down; too much minutiae for such a broad subject. I took my cue from the Vampire and Vampire fiction articles which concentrate more on the history and overview of the concept than tons of tiny details about bands that talk about vampires or something. The vampire article doesn't even have a music section. I also moved the horror punk zombie thing into the horror punk article, so that information is still available. If you want to add a "list of songs about zombies" article and link it, you could do that, but those kinds of articles don't always last long. Subcreature 06:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

I thought that in 28 Days Later, the infected were not actual zombies. I mean, they were infected with the Rage virus but they were not actually dead. And it's the same kinda thing in Cell. I really don't mean to be dufficult or anything I just wanna clear it up for my own ignorance. ONEder Boy 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true they're not zombies in the classic sense, though... critics and the IMDB seem to agree that the 28 Days series are zombie-inspired enough to fit into the genre. When looking up Cell I heard them literary critics saying the same. It's the zombielike behaviour of the victims and the overall themes of zombie apocalypse that (I believe) put them within the genre, even though the infected aren't dead. "Not-dead" zombies have nearly all the same typical traits as dead ones, at least from what I've seen. Subcreature 02:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was just trying to make sure. ONEder Boy 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I've noticed that instead of references, you have external links in the primary article. Please convert them into proper reference style, or I believe you may be failed instantly for a GA. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm working on that now Tomgreeny 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Tomgreeny 14:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Tomgreeny, good stuff. Thanks very much. Subcreature 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead Image

ONEder Boy moved the previous lead image of the zombie survival guide to the relevant section (personally I thought it made a good lead image). So I've moved the image from the zombie article here (should be generic enough not to be moved to a section). Now I'm wondering if we should have a different lead image for zombie. Comments? Tomgreeny 12:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All apologies on my end for moving the picture, (no sarcasm intended) but I just felt that it was more appropriate in the print and literature section. You can always move it back if need be.ONEder Boy 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think if I did put it back then after a while someone else would move it again. Tomgreeny 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

• (2c) I'm concerned that much of this article is original research. The history of zombies laid out here seems to be a synthesis generated by the editors - is that correct? If so, it cannot be presented here (however persuasive it might be). Wikipedia can only present material that has been previously published; it cannot even synthesize material already published as that is also original research.

• Sentences such as: One can readily imagine that this fact might have influenced later ideas of zombies as actual revived corpses certainly look like original research.

• (2b) The sources used here do not fill one with confidence. There is a lot written on these topics by academics and the editors are relying on commercial sites and self-published blogs of dubious quality to support their statements. Please carefully read WP:RS and WP:ATT. Also, many of the statements "likely to be challenged" are not sourced here. I have added some fact tags at the beginning of the article, but I stopped when I saw how many would have to be added. Please note that whole sections lack any citation whatsoever.
• (1a) Writing needs to be improved. There are a lot of convoluted, redundant sentences:

• Ex:The concept of the living dead, with regard to the flesh-hungry intent that characterizes the 'modern zombie', dates back to mythology and folklore from prehistory.
• Ex:From the following examples, it can be defined as having evolved from a mixture of ancient undead lore, tropes of Gothic fiction, a curiously Western interpretation of Voodoo and, most recently, a science fiction rationale.

• (1b) The lead should be a summary of the article capable of standing on its own per WP:LEAD.
• (3) I know that Romero is important, but considering the depth of the other sections in this article, his section seems to be getting undue weight.
• (6) The caption for the top right image doesn't identify the move and not all of the images have fair use claims. On a more minor note, why are all of the images on the right-hand side of the page? It is unaesthetic. Awadewit ^Talk 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Tomgreeny 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. This article is still undone and it was way too raw to submit to GA scrutiny. I agree with all the criticisms except the one about Romero, though -- his influence can't be overstated. Subcreature 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then expand the other sections to create balance. Since his movies receive so much coverage and almost every other work receives a couple of sentences at most, it is a problem. Awadewit ^Talk 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zombiesurvivalguide.jpg

Image:Zombiesurvivalguide.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" tag for Draugr

I am considering removing the "Citation Needed" tag for the term Draugr. While I've read the Citing_sources entry, I am still puzzled as to why it is applied to this statement. What, exactly, is the need for a citation in this case that is not fulfilled by the wiki entry on Draugr itself?

redlink removed

I removed the following:

• See also: List of books and comics featuring zombies

Since the link didn't go anywhere. If I'm wrong and there's an actual article out there on that subject, go ahead and replace the link.

Diary of the Dead

"Romero has recently returned to the beginning of the series with the film Diary of the Dead. Set to be released in early 2008, the film will take place on the same night as the original Night of the Living Dead." -- Main Article

Is there a source for this statement? Having seen "Diary" through the Toronto International Film Festival I can vouch for the fact that while the film goes back to the beginning of a Zombie outbreak there is nothing to suggest that its intended to be the same as the one in Night of the Living Dead. While the specific date of Night may be somewhat ambiguous, Diary clearly takes place in a modern setting not only featuring more modern technology but making references to the internet and sources like YouTube.com as their only means of discovering what is happening elsewhere. Its clearly a more modern setting, not the late 1960s. 99.225.201.49 (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:THRILLERghouls.jpg

Image:THRILLERghouls.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Added rationale. Travisl (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Feeling a bit lazy, but I thought that the Inferi from Harry Potter should be added to the list. Technically, they fit in the popular culture view of zombies. AllStarZ (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Other zombie appearances have been catalogued in dozens of novels... [T]he zombie archetype has spread so far and wide that it is impossible to provide a definitive list of resources." I think that already covers it. Travisl (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Romero use of word "zombie" to describe flesh-eating revenants

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku....ated-- zom.html I thought Romero came up with the idea of zombie cannibalism, however, I had earlier stumbled and found an article about Astonishing#35.

Issue #999 of 1182

http://www.oddballcomics....p?story=archive2004-03-18 Title: Astonishing Issue: Vol. 1, No. 35 Date: October, 1954

The zombie in this story gets described as a flesh-eater.

Other Atlas stories featuring zombies Suspense#26 Uncanny Tales#21 Journey Into Unknown Worlds#5 Astonishing#25 Uncanny Tales#16 Menace#9 features a revenant called a zombie said to eat flesh http://www.atlastales.com/storyScans/839.jpg Mystic#25 Fella Needs a Zombie

According to Ronald Byrd:

Actually, a story featuring flesh-eating zombies appeared even earlier than that, in "Horror in the Graveyard, Adventures Into Terror #12, 1952. When it was reprinted in Crypt of Shadows #11, the word "zombies" was changed to "ghouls." IIRC.

So, it seems that Romero did not come up with the idea of flesh-eating revevants called zombies (Romero did not even use the word in NOLD, he used it in Dawn of the Dead)

13:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)~Enda80

Fast Moving Zombies

I think there has been a very obvious shift from the classic archetype of zombies as being slow lumbering creatures. I know it is something I've heard discussed in many different context so I don't think there should be original research issues. A quick Google search turned up this, I'm sure there is much more. http://www.slate.com/id/2097751/

Anyone else think it might be worth including? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDanberg (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding More on

To add Edward's influence (and Bella's) in twilight in the page will be quite useful.Vjingo (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Um...isn't that book/film about vampires not zombies? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Joke

The 200th episode of the show details the main characters coming up with movie ideas based on their operations; one of the ideas was a zombie infestation in the SGC, which the producer ridicules, saying "Zombies have been done to death". Is this even remotely worth mentioning in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderflame (talk • contribs) 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

28 Days/Weeks Later

The monsters of these films are generally perceived as zombies by the general public despite the fact that they are not "undead." The definition of a zombie is ambiguous enough to include these films in this article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I have not looked closely at this article before and will chip in later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by the thing about Frankenstein. Sure it is a scientific origen of what might be considered a zombie, but shares no traits with the type of zombies to which this article refers. In particular, anyone who thinks that the wretch is more degraded and violent than their "living selves" may have seen the movie, but obviously has not read the book. This reference needs to be fixed or it needs to be made clear that this line refers to film portrayals and not to anything Ms Shelly wrote. 75.177.47.137 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Frankenstein sentences reflect the movie more than the book. Frankenstein uses 'updated' alchemical processes to revive the dead. Whale's film introduces the buzzing electronics and scientific bent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.69.167 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the cited item that "Regarding speed, zombies in recent popular culture have considerably increased their locomotion, as exampled in recent movies..." be added back in. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But then again they were pretty speedy in Return of the living deaad....."bring more paramedics.." ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(I think) they are zombies, zombies don't need to be undead nowadays, there's always the fact that the reason that infection and 'alive' zombies are used is to bring realism into the subject and that adds more Horror to it. Zombies are a horror movie monster, so they change with the times to add more Horror to the subject.  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing important information

In popular culture zombies often have a green skin tone. Where is the mention of chainsaws? In popular culture there is a stong association of chainsaws with zombies, although I'm not entirely sure why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.49.222 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This article declines in quality about half way through

The article starts off well, but by the time it's half-done, it has descended into partially prosified list-making. There is no attempt to determine the cultural influence of zombies through their appearance in Slither, Planet Terror, Zombie Strippers, Fido, the Harry Potter series, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and so on.

The measure of the value of these additions is taken by removing them and evaluating the damage done to the article. In almost every case, I see none.

More analysis, sourced from the many books about undead story-telling, would be better placed in this article. -Miskaton (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New York (magazine) resource

How to Survive a Zombie Attack; A fight-or-flight primer to outliving the urban undead by Dan Kois Published Oct 16, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

genuine zombies

it annoys me that there is not a single mention of genuine outbreaks- e.g., the one in new orleans, in a haitian community. another good example was in ancient egypt. a virus, known as solanum, infects them. kmmnderkoala 07:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs)

And your source for this bit of history would be....? Boneyard90 (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read the book World War Z and The Zombie Survival Guide too and I read the final chapter in the latter which does fictionally mention outbreaks that supposedly occurred but please learn to distinguish fiction from reality. It really does seem like the book was an actual informative text and this was Max Brooks' intention but keep in mind his a science fiction writer and like most writers they do extensive research to improve it's plausibility. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of word "Ghoul"

I am under the impression that the word "ghoul" means something like a canibal human that becomes degenerate, not one that has returned from death. In Lovecraft's tale Pickman's Model, at least, that is the case (well, almost, but they're not IN ANY WAY zombies).

Monstrim (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A ghoul, strictly speaking, is a figure from Islamic mythology. It is a type of jinn, or demonic spirit. It is not and never was a human. Serendi^podous 21:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Zombie apocalypse?

Please understand when you use the words themes and tropes, you are using them completely wrong.

Most of the information in that article is either examples in media (which are listed here) or historical background (which is listed here as well). The unique material (such as Robert Smith?'s study) would be well suited to this article, I think. Serendi^podous 22:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I merged it. I think the article, as it stands, is a concise, comprehensive overview of the topic, and I'm planning to list it for peer review in preparation for a GA resubmission. All the material from Talk:Zombie apocalypse (and its archive) has been moved to Talk:Zombie (fictional)/Archive 1. Serendi^podous 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaming and music

could do with a pruning but I don't feel qualified to make the judgement call. Serendi^podous 20:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombie Movies Vs. Rage Virus Movies

It may be of benefit to this article to differentiate or at least note, the difference between the two horror genres of zombie movies and rage virus movies, and how in modern movie interpretations, the two genres have often been perceived to be merged or otherwise simply placed under the banner of "zombie movies". For example, early movies under the Rage Virus genre include Chronenberg's "Rabid" and Romero's "The Crazies" (both in the 1970's). Neither were classed as zombie movies at the time (nor are they generally now, including the 2010 remake of The Crazies), however, modern movies like 28 Days Later and it's sequel, 28 Weeks Later, which deal with the same subject matter (I.e. a virus or contagion that causes living people to become feral, blood-thirsty hordes), are now often thought of as Zombie movies. This also shows a shift in the public perception of the genre, towards the idea that "zombies" need not be reanimated corpses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luthaneal (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find an article discussing it, it would be original research. Serendi^podous 21:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Zombie - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote

This article should not have a hatnote as it is not primary topic for the term "Zombie". In WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, they use the example of Defamation (film), which has no hatnote for Defamation, although "Defamation" has a hatnote for the film. Kauffner (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fictional" disambiguator

It's nagging at me that this perhaps isn't the best disambiguator to use, when the basic zombie article is about "an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means, such as witchcraft", which is hardly in the realm of fact. Would "Zombie (horror fiction)" be better here? (We shouldn't be using an adjective by itself anyway.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION says to avoid the parenthetical disambiguation when possible. So I'd suggest a return to the old title of Zombies in popular culture. Kauffner (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, have just noticed that there's a move discussion already happening at the Zombie article, which has already made this exact point. Ignore me, carry on. --McGeddon (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we merge this with the voodoo zombie?

Note that this discussion follows on an earlier move proposal. - LaTeeDa (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is, as far as I can tell, no connection aside from the name between these two creatures. There is no logical way to combine their two histories, because there are points of overlap. Simply sharing the name "zombie" does not make it the same thing. Serendi^podous 20:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not this page is merged with Zombie. I think there should be a single article including all zombie pop culture. Despite a title that implies a combined discussion, the current Zombie (fictional) only emphasizes the Romero zombie pop culture, and is flagged at the top of this talk page to only include Romero type there is a flag at the top of the Zombie talk page that Romero Zombie content is to be posted only at Zombie (fictional). Here are some reasons to have a combined pop culture article:

1) In most discussions of the history of zombie films, the Voodoo and Romero zombie types are discussed together. For example:

Bishop, Kyle William. 2010. American Zombie Gothic: the rise and fall (and rise) of the walking dead in popular culture. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co.

McIntosh, Shawn, and Marc Leverette. 2008. Zombie culture: autopsies of the living dead. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.

Dendle, Peter. 2001. The zombie movie encyclopedia. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland.

Russell, Jamie. 2005. Book of the dead: the complete history of zombie cinema. Godalming, England: FAB.

2) There appears to be some consensus in the secondary literature for a significant continuity between the Voodoo and Romero zombie types, which would argue for keeping the pop culture zombie discussion all together. To quote myself from the archived move discussion (see Talk:Zombie) "The move proponents seem to take the position that there is a complete break between the Voodoo and Romero zombie variants, a position that underlies the emphasis of Zombie (fictional), which cites a masters thesis by [Stokes] to back this up. But Stokes, on page 9, cites two scholars who disagree and apparently separately argue for a relationship between the Vudu and Romero zombie types in pop culture. Therefore, if there there isn't a consensus around the 'complete break' position, that would be another good reason to keep the discussion of the two zombie types together. Additionally, a quote from the current Zombie (fictional) supports the link between the Voodoo and Romero zombie types: Romero "bred the zombie with the vampire, and what he got was the hybrid vigour of a ghoulish plague monster" (Ref #19, Twitchell).

3) From the article creation in 2007 to at least the beginning of 2011, there was a relatively stable Zombie (fictional) (previously known as 'Zombies in popular culture') article that included a chronological discussion that started with Voodoo zombie movies, and moved on to the more modern movies. Sometime in 2011, the article was made non chronological, and the flag was added to the top of the Zombie (fictional) talk page stating that Zombie (fictional) was only intended for the Romero type zombie topic.

4) In the past there was Romero zombie article. By consensus this was deleted because it was decided that it was better to have a combined discussion of pop culture zombies. See [[1]] for the archived deletion discussion. The recent narrowing of the scope of Zombie (fictional) seems to go directly against the consensus established in the earlier deletion discussion.

These classic Voodoo zombie horror flicks had a lot of impact on later horror movies (zombie and otherwise), and it would be a shame to push them off to the side. LaTeeDa (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The answer is simple. Find the connection. Don't just lump the Voodoo zombie into the article and not provide any connective tissue, as was the case with this article when it was called Zombies in popular culture. Find the connection and then we might be able to think about merging. Don't expect other people to read your sources for you. This is your case to prove, not mine. I've made my case and done my research. Now you do yours. Serendi^podous 22:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

this discussion would perhaps be more productive at Talk:Zombie which seems to be the hub for this discussion. Kaini (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kaini, I'm not sure where is the best for the discussion, but I suggested having the discussion here because it is specific to the scope of Zombie (fictional). I flagged the other discussion regarding the new location.

Serendipodous - First - keep in mind that I'm arguing for to go back to what was a stable article approach from 2007 to 2011. The scope of the the article was recently narrowed in a way that clearly doesn't represent the title, and I'm arguing to go back to the original scope that reflects the title. In fact, the scope has been narrowed so that the logical title is now "Romero Zombie" which is a title that was rejected in the past by a consensus decision (my point #4 above). It would have been much better to have changed the title first, which would have precipitated the discussion we're having now, before the article was changed. I think the burden is now on proponents of the narrower scope to show why we need the scope and title change, not on me to defend the stable status quo approach.

Second, do you disagree with my point #1 above, that most general treatments of zombie pop culture history include both zombie types? I show four examples above. I don't think there exists a general zombie guide along the lines of "Encyclopedia of Romero Zombie movies" or a "Guide to Romero zombie, ghoul and vampire movies". There are examples of guides and histories that include both zombie types. Two additional ones are: Zombie movies, the ultimate guide and Zombie Movie Encyclopedia. This abundance of combined treatments suggests that common reader and scholar expectation would be for a combined article including all the zombie pop culture.

Finally, you demand that I "find the connection", by which I think you mean, find a tight evolutionary link between the two zombie types. I disagree that we need any evolutionary link. The fact that the two types are clearly linked in the popular imagination, are typically discussed together in encyclopedic treatments, and that in the 1960s folks thought Romero's ghouls resembled voodoo zombies enough to give them the name 'zombie' (not 'vampire' or 'ghoul') - all of that might be enough to have a single pop culture article on zombies. Folks in the 60s recognized a zombie for a zombie and called it so - regardless of whether Voodoo or Gothic antecedents were referenced. But, there is clearly overlap. Although not discussed in Zombie (fictional), consider The Plague of the Zombies from 1966, or better yet, watch its trailer [2]. These are voodoo zombies created by witchcraft, but they are also undead creatures, risen from corpses with the slow stumbling gait of later zombies. Additionally, other pre-Romero Voodoo zombie movies also include the idea of apocalypse by zombies and corpses risen from the dead but controlled by a master, for example the alien zombie flicks Plan 9 from Outer Space, or [Invaders]. These hybrids are some of the "connective tissue" you consider so important.

In fact, in the 1950s and 1960s horror movies with Zombie in the title were "just as likely to feature thinking, planning Martians (Zombies of the Stratosphere) or deranged disfigured ex-lovers going on killing rampages (The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies) as they are traditional zombies" according to McIntosh (cited above). Dendle calls the 1950s and 1960s a "transitional time for the screen zombie" (in his Zombie Movie Encyclopedia), which suggests a linkage. And Romero's zombies in Night of the Living Dead is considered to be significantly derivative of the Voodoo zombie flicks by some scholars. McIntosh writes: "Romero's original presentation of zombies, although derived from several older zombie traditions and portrayals, including 1950's comic books, breathed new life into zombies" and Twitchell (cited as Ref #19 in Zombie (fictional)) writes Romero "bred the zombie with the vampire, and what he got was the hybrid vigour of a ghoulish plague monster". I don't have Bishop (cited above) in hand, but according to Stokes (ref #1 of this article, p. 9), she also argues for a linkage. These are all good, scholarly, secondary sources that point to a transition and a linkage between Voodoo to Romero zombie. I don't think anyone would argue Romero didn't also pull from Gothic ghoul and vampire antecedents, or come up with some new ideas. But, pop culture is a mish mash, lineages are not pure, and there are lots of ways that Romero's zombie followed in the tradition of monsters that had been called zombies in earlier movies. There is no pure voodoo zombie pop culture or pure Romero zombie pop culture, and I think we'll do both topics the most justice by discussing them together. LaTeeDa (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The "status quo" was a joke. There was no attempt whatsoever to explain the insertion of voodoo zombies in the "evolution" section, which focused on the Gothic antecendents of the Romero zombie. If the two traiditons "merged" prior to Night of the Living Dead then the two traditions should be placed in separate sections. Also, each zombie type will need to have its own "in culture" section, because they are so completely different from each other that to combine them is misleading. Serendi^podous 21:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've solicited input from all the folks who were part of the move discussion in the past. The proposal at hand is: Content regarding Voodoo zombie pop culture should not be included in Zombie (fictional), but rather should be included in the current Zombie. Once we resolved that one way or the other, then let's propose new names/moves for the resulting combined or separate articles. I don't think anyone wants to keep 'fictional' in the title. LaTeeDa (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion

It seems to me there is enough material that two articles are warranted, never mind that they may or may not be different, that there may or may not be some tenuous connections. Romero (whose name I had never heard of until I entered into this prolonged debate) made a version of undead that is now considered "zombie". A merge of the two articles would make one very long article, and the inundation of B-movie fodder would drown the significance of the "real world" zombie. You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see three zombie articles:

1. Zombie would be an overview of the two (or more types), with a summary of the voodoo type and a brief--and I mean brief--overview of the latter day Western version; like 2 or three paragraphs. I think most readers may be interested in the latter day version, but are also interested in origins, early versions, etc. There would be appropriate "main article" templates for the two versions below:
2. Zombie (folklore) or Zombie (Vodun) or whatever you can come up with that covers the South African, West African, Haitian version. It should have a cultural references section that is strictly about that version of "zombie". It would have to be defended religiously to keep casual additions to the latter day version at bay, but the title would provide ample justification for deletions and whatnot.
3. Zombie (fictional) (a title I don't care for) or Zombie (popular fiction); This would contain the bulk and detail of all the B-movies, novels, video games, and comic books.

Having an "overview article", not a disambig, would be more gratifying for the average reader and prevent inadvertent, undesirable wiki-links to the wrong version.Boneyard90 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I like it. =) Powers ^T 13:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really answer the question of whether or, if desired, how to combine the "Voodoo zombie" cultural references with the "Romero zombie" cultural references. Serendi^podous 15:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the cultural references to the traditional zombie would fit just fine within that article (#2 in Boneyard's list). Powers ^T 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, let me offer my tentative support. I'm kinda wary of creating a page that is halfway between an article and a disambig, but perhaps it could be combined with Zombie (disambiguation). Serendi^podous 20:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the cultural references: Right, as LT Powers said. I would leave Zombie (disambiguation) alone, except to add any new titles (as in, those that are now red-linked, above). The disambig page already has a healthy list of titles.Boneyard90 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Boneyard, you say that "A merge of the two articles would make one very long article, and the inundation of B-movie fodder would drown the significance of the 'real world' zombie." But, my suggestion above is not to merge the spiritual voodoo zombie stuff with the pop culture. Rather, its to have a single pop culture article with all the films, and probably make it the prime. Also, looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, I don't think we have a size problem. Regarding the new title ideas, Zombie (popular fiction) is proposed as a new title, but how are the classic zombie movies not popular fiction? If we're going to separate out the classic zombie movies, why not have a title regarding newer zombie movies that is clear about what is being discussed? 'Romero' or 'contemporary' or 'flesh eating' would be much better than 'popular fiction'. Also, Zombie (folklore) is an unclear title for an article that describes the first 30 years of zombie movies. Zombie (Voodoo) is better.

I think the classic and contemporary zombie films should be presented together in a single zombie pop culture article, and I've documented above that most of the scholarly literature sees the two zombie types as linked, and I've pointed to films bridging the gap. There has been no effort to engage with these arguments or site opposing sources, and the original article relies on a masters thesis. If you feel like I'm in left field - watch this trailer[3], and tell where in this proposed organization you would place this flick? This is just one example. If you feel that the case for a strong connection hasn't been made clearly enough, give me a week or so to get some more of the print secondary literature in hand to better support this. LaTeeDa (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You haven't really shown how these two are linked. If you have access to sources citing the films you mention, then great. If not, then get some. And even if they are connected, you haven't suggested how to link them in the article. You seem very dismissive of this, for some reason. If you were editing an article on dragons and I suddenly started adding information on griffons, would you not demand an explanation as to how they were connected? The two types of "zombie", whatever their connections, are completely different in virtually all respects. Voodoo zombies are slaves; "modern" zombies, for lack of a better word, are uncontrollable. Voodoo zombies eat human food; modern zombies eat human flesh. Voodoo zombies are created by magic; modern zombies are created by infection. Voodoo zombies perform tasks; modern zombies are mindless shuffling corpses. Even if they were related, they are so different that to simply include references to both in chronological order would be incredibly misleading. Serendi^podous 08:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've devoted hundreds of words above showing that at least four scholars separately consider the zombie types significantly linked, in addition to several encyclopedic treatments that keep them together. As for the how, these articles (and I above) point to transitional movies, where 1) instead of possessed living, there are possessed dead, or 2)where Voodoo isn't present, but martians or mad scientists are at work. There is probably more to say on this, and I'm working to get more of the print references in hand. Also, just watch the trailer I keep pointing to[4] - those undead possessed zombies physically resemble Romero's ghouls with their vacant eyes, slow stumbling gate, overwhelming numbers, etc. The proof is in the pudding, which in this case is that everyone back in the day called the Romero ghoul a zombie, not a vampire or ghoul, and today, we don't have a commonly recognized adjective to separate the classic from the 'Romero' zombie. As Boneyard points out, no one nows what a 'Romero' zombie is, but everyone recognizes a pre-Romero zombie as a zombie when they see one. LaTeeDa (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

While LaTeeDa has some valid points, and no disrespect, but let me address the questions posed by Serendipodous regarding my suggested idea. I would say that Cultural references section within the Voodoo-zombie article would address one concern, while the Romero zombie would be in Zombie (popular culture). I think this goes to "recognition", because, for one reason, I never heard of Romero until I got into this debate, so how would an editor know to search for or select (from a disambig page) the article on Zombie (Romero)? He (and I mean "I") wouldn't. So we need to find the suffix term that has the best recognition for the reader. I used the term "(folklore)" as a way to bridge the geographic and cultural gaps between the multiple African cultures and the Caribbean, as there religions are now fairly divergent, whatever their common origins. Regarding the "first 30 years of zombie movies", I would say those movies are Cultural references to the Voodoo-zombie. For the horror zombie, I would be ok with "(contemporary)", though I thought it was you who pointed out that there are still practitioners who believe in zombies, and believe they're real, thus negating suffixes like (modern), (contemporary), (fictional), and such. Maybe that was someone else. The suffix "(flesh-eating)" might be too restrictive. Is there an article for Zombie (undead), and is the Voodoo zombie a form of undead, or just hypnotized or psychically bound?Boneyard90 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That was me. I don't think we're ever going to come to an agreement on the issue of folklore vs. fiction, since that is largely a matter of samantics. Whether Voodoo zombies are undead is a matter of belief; if you believe Hatian religion, then yes. If you believe Wade Davis, then no. Serendi^podous 08:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Stokes thesis is fixated on drawing random links between zombies and odd preceding bits of European and American folklore and pop culture. The author actually seems motivated by a desire to erase the Haitian origins of the zombie myth from the modern canon, and that motivation is extremely suspect at best. Veritost (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it is simply saying that the creature most often nowadays called a "zombie" has little or nothing to do with the zombie of folklore. Serendi^podous 07:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an extraordinarily false assertion. There are very clear links between the Haitian zombie archetypes displayed in White Zombie (1929), Revolt of the Zombies (1936) and I Walked With a Zombie (1943) and the flesh-eating Western zombies of I Eat Your Skin (1961) and The Plague of the Zombies (1965). In fact, the only alteration between the two modes is the loss of the bokor figure in Night of The Living Dead (1968). Again, no idea what the motivation behind that thesis is, but it's not rooted in factual observation of the fictional character's phenomenology. Veritost (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back up your claims? We're not writing an essay here. Serendi^podous 19:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of fiction versus folklore: If it helps, I think it best to look at the intent of the portrayal. In movies and horror fiction, the zombie is meant to be a fictional subject; there is no serious pretense (except as a literary device) that there are real zombies. "Folklore", being stories or beliefs of "people" (and not movie producers or novelists), incorporates what may or may not be true, but what told and re-told, and may be believed to varying extents of the population. I don't think it would be an insult to call the Voodoo-zombies a piece of "folklore". Indigenous herbal remedies may be folklore, but often the medical efficacy and benefits have been scientifically confirmed. Something to think about.Boneyard90 (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think in this case it is complicated by the fact that Haitian zombies are integral to Voodoo, so they form the part of religious beliefs, so they can viewed along the same lines as Buddha or Jesus. Fiction is basically stuff that is untrue stuff that is depicted as untrue (i.e. Frankenstein), folklore is fictional stuff that is depicted as being true (Arthurian legends), and then you have religious beliefs that some people regard as fiction but others actually beleive as true. I would say Haitian zombies as depicted in Voodoo cultures qualify as a religious belief, since—although I'm no expert—voodoo practicioners actually believe that dead people can be re-animated as zombies. Is it any more absurd than Christian belief in the resurrection for instance, since Jesus ends up a glorified zombie does he not? Betty Logan (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly, "zombie" as in its practice as a religious belief and its subsequent study within a medical and anthropological context is a very different to an analysis of its popular culture counterpart. The zombie article isn't very well developed, so they could be merged at this point if the approach was simply to give an overview of the origins of the term and its manifestation in popular culture, but this would not be taking a longterm view. The proper approach I believe would be to keep the articles separate and develop them into proper treatments of their subject. On the same note, there is also a move discussion that could impact on this debate at Talk:Zombie#Let's try this again. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has continued at Talk:Zombie. LaTeeDa (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Who elected Serendi^podous leader ?

I have been away from these shores for many, many a moon, well in fact since 2009. However when I return like the prodigal son, I find a POV pusher has taken over the roost. Since Dec 2011, they have been banging on about merging two articles, and in doing so forcing two squares through a round hole. Much information has been lost, and because now two goes into one, innuendo creeps in tainting the information.

I am of course talking about the unrectified issue regarding "infected" vs "undead". I have no idea why the two articles should have been merged? Reading the ongoing discussions it was clear it was not the right thing to do...but it got pushed and pushed. Why? Is Serendi^podous responsible for the storage space on the servers? Needed some room? Both articles were separated by a single click, but in doing so, they retained distinctions. There is no explanation now in this mish mash article regarding the variations between zombies, apocalypse and survivalist genres (tropes). I use this analogy, you don't put all the ingredients for the starter, main and dessert into a bag together and make a great meal: the result would be a mess. This is what this article is now. And it's all thanks to: Serendi^podous.

The Zombie apocalypse has moved on, films like 28 Days Later contain living hoardes not the undead! Other recent ones, like Quarantine (2008) or the remake of the The Crazies all contain tropes familiar to the zombie-apocalypse genre. But there classification as zombie films is ambiguous despite them containing "changed people" that are not dead or have been reanimated.

This whole condensed article now tries to tell the whole story but in jumps rather than in smooth narrative. For instance it starts with Night of the Living Dead in the late 60s. Where is the mention of Carniitval of Souls? Truly the progenitor of all undead flicks? If anything, this article should have a section on how the "zombie apocalypse" genre is now less defined and unclear. Thanks in part to landmark films like "28 Days Later" that brought "living" speed to the equation rather than shuffling undead mobs.

However Serendi^podous has decided the best solution would be to squash everything together. IMO both articles should be demerged and rewritten to disambiguate between apocalypse (dead/infected) and zombies per se (living reanimated as dead). Keeping them as they are perpetuates the innuendo that the like the 28 Days/Weeks franchise are true zombie genres (because they are on a page regarding fictional zombies) when it is in fact survivalist in the face of an epidemic. With that in mind, 12 Monkeys involved nearly all the tropes of a (modern 28 days later) zombie apocalypse infection, quarantine, failure etc. The only difference is, it is first and foremost point a sci-fi/time travel film but the elements are all there. I rest my case, because the genre is just too wide ranging nowadays it is impossible to slap a label on it. To do so is both limiting and self defeating. Stand-alone articles would have at least allowed scope for deviation and development. Now everything written here must, and to the liking of self-appointed leader Serendi^podous, be limited to the heading Zombie (fictional). I can't say anymore save shake my head and walk away...maybe I might return but not while the article is under this current management (and with scant regard to the spirit of WP:OWN). It is a shame, it really is !  :-(( 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.73.197 (talk)

is your opinion supported by reliable sources that make such a disctintion? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I, personally, have removed very little information from this article, or from Zombie apocalypse. I've moved a lot around, but deleted very little. If such information was removed, such as Carnival of Souls, it wasn't by me. But yes, I agree with RPoD vis a vis, sources. Serendi^podous 14:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

thirded. if you can't back up your claims with reliable citations, they're nothing but WP:OR. Kaini (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)