Talk:Zombie (folklore)/Archive 4

Real Zombies

[[1]] It's a fungus that infects Ant brains, making them climb to areas with the exact environmental conditions to release more spores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.114.222 (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I added it to the See also section, but another editor removed it. I think he cited some Wiki-policy or another. I'm in favor of the addition; seems relevant for the See also section. I'd be happy to hear other editors' views. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove it; I moved it to zombie (disambiguation); it isn't the only zombie metaphor. Serendi^podous 09:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

South African Zombie Addition

The South African zombie and their creation has its origins in the fear of the loss of individual freedom caused by traumatic memories of the African slave trade. There is a notion among many African communities that witches employ zombies as servants in a nocturnal 'second world' from which there is no return. This draws many parallels to the shipment of African slaves to America to act as servants and workers. By being the masters of zombies and by exploiting the undead, witches become powerful wielders of authority just like white farm owners and industrialists who command hundreds of black labourers, something very desirable for many a person. Those most often accused of keeping zombies and practicing witchcraft were subordinate, elderly, envious, and poorer persons who looked to improve their position in life while those who most often accused were primarily members of relatively better-off households who literally felt besieged by their poorer kin and neighbors and believed that any sign of good fortune could trigger witchcraft attacks. TheKillerRabbit592 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that South Africa wasn't part of the slave trade. See the map at Atlantic slave trade#African participation in the slave trade. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This was information from an academic article (which was cited) that talked about the psychological impact of the African slave trade--not that it actually took place in South Africa. The psychological damage encompassed the entire continent, not just the directly affected areas. Kwdragon (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the paragraph appears accurate, but seems to mix in some of the contributor's conclusions (See WikiPedia:No original research). My main issue is with the third sentence ("many parallels"). I believe the relevant paragraph from the article states:

Discourses about zombies also capture the intense fear of excessive domination. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the notion that witches employ zombies as servants in a nocturnal ‘second world’ from which there is no return. In central and west Africa this notion echoes daunting memories of the Atlantic slave trade (Austen 1993; MacGaffey 1986; Shaw 1997). In South Africa it resonates with the experiences of migrant labourers who leave their rural households to earn a living in the centres of mining and industry called makgoweng (places of whites).

As you can see, the fear of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is confined to a different region of Africa, while the origin of South African fears is a little different. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jamaica

In Jamaica, it is believed that when a person dies, his duppy, or soul, can potentially escape from the body and come back from the dead to cause harm to those around him. Many traditions have stemmed from this belief, all attempting to keep the duppy pleased and within the corpse. Some traditions include nailing the corpse's garments to the coffin, and burying him or her with a pillow that has coffee, corn, and starched peas sewn inside. Gmtesta (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Gmtesta

Not really a zombie; more akin to a revenant or vampire. Serendi^podous 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. I considered relisting, but I'm not sure that would help since there are two moves here and this discussion was a moving target. It seems that there may be a consensus to move Zombie → Zombie (some_disambiguation). If a consensus can be established on that, then that could be one move. Zombie (fictional) seems to have a consensus as a poor title with no clear consensus as to what it should be. If in fact it is the primary topic, and a move of the current article at Zombie happens, then it would leave that open as a possible target. So more discussion is needed and maybe two move requests or a very well worded multimove request with a clear prior consensus established to avoid the unclear result here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Zombie → Haitian zombie
• Zombie (fictional) → Zombie

– Colloquially, "zombie" is used 99% of the time to refer to the fictional, Night of the Living Dead - style zombie - almost never to the Haitian zombie. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is tough. I don't like "Zombie (fictional)" because it is an awkward title and because implies that other zombies aren't when only some are definitively real. Although, the subject of the Zombie (fictional) article derives from the voodoo zombie, it is clearly more widely known and probably the primary topic. In any event, the current Zombie article is not the primary topic. However, I'm also not crazy about the title "Haitian zombie" as it seems to apply nationality to the undead. (The article has sections on West and South Africa, too.) What about Zombie (vodou) or Zombie (voodoo)? In addition, what about a move of Zombie (disambiguation) → Zombie? —  AjaxSmack  02:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Use alternate moving disambiguation page to primary per AjaxSmack. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, folks, but the Haitian zombie is the clear primary. It got 374,000 page views in the last 90 days. That compares to 71,000 for the Hollywood variety. I suggest a page move to Zombies in popular culture. Kauffner (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of the title change was to show that the two beings were categorically different. The Hollywood zombie is not derived from the Hatian zombie. The two have nothing in common except the name and being undead. As far as page views go, I wouldn't put much stock in them; a) because people looking for the Hollywood zombie are going to go to "zombie" anyway and b) because the "Zombie (fictional)" title hasn't existed for 90 days. I would support moving Zombie (disambiguation) to Zombie and Zombie to Zombie (Vodun) or Zombie (Voodoo). Serendi^podous 07:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombie (fictional) was moved Oct. 14,[2] which is more than 90 days ago. I don't see how this title is any more "categorical" than "Zombies in popular culture". The title is a hash now since a disambiguator should not be an adjective. Kauffner (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The higher page views are also due to inbound links - there are about a thousand inbound links to 'Zombie' which are clearly about the modern horror zombies, compared to fewer than a hundred to the "(fictional)" article. From the thousand inbound links alone, it seems clear that when people say or search for "zombie", they are talking about the modern horror-film ones. (I'm actually a little concerned that a large number of those 303,000 leftover people would have been visiting Wikipedia intending to learn about modern-horror zombies, but somehow didn't make it as far as the Zombie (fictional) article.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: I also have never cared for the title Zombie (fictional). Is the Haitian/African version "real"? Is it "folklore"? Whatever it is, it's the "original" version, and I'm of the opinion it should stay put. Maybe move Zombie (fictional) to Zombie (popular culture), Zombie (undead), or Zombie (horror).Boneyard90 (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between folklore and fiction. Just because something isn't real doesn't mean it's fictional. As regards the disambigs, all could just as easily apply to either case (both types of zombie have appeared in popular culture, have appeared in horror fiction, and are undead). Serendi^podous 08:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Just because something isn't real doesn't mean it's fictional"... I had to think on that. And no, can't agree. The Legend of the Headless Horseman is folklore with a long history where I come from, but I always considered it fiction, even before they started cranking out movies about it. It's even folklore in other countries, where the article on European Headless Horseman states: "The fictitious headless horseman has been a motif of European folklore since..." So, looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Folklore is one aspect of fiction. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference betwen folklore and fiction is very simple: do the people telling a story believe in it or not? If they do, it's folklore. If they don't, it's fiction. Since belief in zombies in Haiti is nearly universal, it is somewhat condescending (and a little insulting) to Haitians to describe their beliefs as "fiction". Serendi^podous 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That is an entirely spurious set of assertions. I knew very well that the Headless Horseman wasn't real. What made it folklore is that the story was well known, told and re-told orally, and restricted (or at least perceived so) to a localized cultural and/or geographical area.Boneyard90 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Real or fictional and original or derivative makes no difference. This is WP:COMMONNAME we talk about here. Zombie has more page views because that's what people search for. Zombie (fictional) is clearly a bad name, but so is Haitian Zombie especially for an article that clearly is not just about Haiti. Some third alternative needs to be found, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Response: I support Zombies in popular culture for Zombie (fictional), Zombie (Voodoo) for Zombie, and Zombie for Zombie (disambiguation). Kauffner (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement compared to today. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support with "Zombie (Vodun/Voodoo)" instead of "Haitian Zombie". We have about a thousand existing inbound links to 'Zombie' from people writing about horror-film monsters, compared to fewer than a hundred to the "(fictional)" article - when people say or search for "zombie", they generally mean the horror-film monster. We're at the "conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance" of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - while there's obviously some recentism and cultural bias in the inbound links, I think (given that Romero's first zombie film was back in 1968) the movie monsters have enough long-term significance to back them up here. --McGeddon (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support 99.230.246.98 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - as Kauffner said, primary subject, and of course zombie in popular culture is derived from zombie. What else would it be derived from, werewolves? It's my opinion that Wikipedia needs to develop a whole set of _____ in popular culture articles to collect all the crap generated by TV, video games, cartoons and keep WP vaguely looking like an encyclopedia rather than a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose "...in popular culture": "Zombies in popular culture" is too misleading; are we talking about Voodoo zombies in popular culture or Romero zombies? We could lump them both together, but that would be incorrect too, as the Romero zombie has nothing whatsoever to do with the zombie of voodoo. It is an entirely distinct creature that simply got stuck with the name. Serendi^podous 16:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support this or other alternative title such as Zombie (voodoo). The Hollywood-style zombie is the clear primary topic. Powers ^T 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's so "clear", and don't see how that assumption is made. Even if it is, the interested reader is directed several times to the Zombie (fictional) article, and for the reader who is only lightly interested, this article has the small introductory section, Zombie#In popular culture, which may satisfy the curiosity of the casual reader. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear, given how (relatively) few people are familiar with voodoo versus those who've seen one of the many recent films or TV series with zombies in them. Powers ^T 13:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think users looking for zombie info will want to see both zombie variants. For example, a discussion of zombie movies should have the old vudu moves in the same article as Romero, and with a good explanation of the transition. The alternative - separate pages to discuss these two movie types, is awkward regardless of whether the two zombie variants actually stem from different antecedents. Regarding some of the proposals to simply rename Zombie (fictional) back to Zombies in popular culture, be aware that the article has been written away from what its title implies, and now is almost exclusively about the Romero zombie. For example, the Vudu zombie movies of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s are relegated to a short discussion of why the Romero creature was named 'zombie'. Also, there is no discussion of the more recent movie Serpent and the Rainbow and the related controversy. The move proponents seem to take the position that there is a complete break between the Vudu 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. I think the best option is to merge Zombie and Zombie (fictional). The primary is not much more than a stub now, and putting them together would emphasize the nice work that's been done on Zombie (fictional), and highlight the pop culture info that many users will be looking for. I'd propose a structure like this:

Zombie [merged article]

In folklore and literature

Africa

Haiti

Gothic

In popular culture

Evolution of the zombie archetype

etc... Pjwst6 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you merge the two together while keeping their histories separate? Serendi^podous 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Especially as there isn't that much here about vudu zombie history/folklore, I don't think it will be too hard, and what is there now on Zombie can be cleaned up and jazzed up. Just keep the history sections separate until we have the pop culture section that describes Romero - where we show that some feel there is overlap, and some feel that it is a completely separate branch. If anyone ever gets ambitious to expand the vudu zombie folklore section, we might want to give it a new page. I sense that you really want to emphasize what is an interesting point - that there is a strong argument for completely separate histories for the two variants - but, I'd argue that even if that is the case, the pop culture is intertwined in many users' minds (like mine), so to separate them is going to feel awkward for many. And, even if you do keep them separate, you still need to explain why on both pages, which isn't trivial. A merged article will highlight both branches, and the combined story is more interesting. The downside of the merged approach is we deny In ictu oculi his desire to keep pop culture off the primes. But, for zombie - pop culture (hopefully, plus historical context) is clearly what users are looking for. And, of course, easy for me to say that this isn't hard to merge... Pjwst6 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that the flesh eating zombie cites folklore that has nothing whatsoever to do with the zombie of Haiti. There is no way I can connect the quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Norse Draugr, or the mediaeval revenant to the Haitain zombie, which is derived from African antecedents. And yes, some papers do try to make a connection between the two, but as the thesis says, they don't try very hard, and so they don't actually say what connects the flesh eating zombie to the Haitain zombie. Serendi^podous 09:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• The writeup of the evolution of the two zombie types doesn't need to be exhaustive, and it shouldn't be on a prime page. Level of detail now is OK I think. The result will best highlight the interesting separation.Pjwst6 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Pjwst6's unified zombie article idea. Until someone writes such an article, "Zombie" can be a DAB. Even if readers really are coming here primarily from horror movie articles, we can't assume that they are interested only in movie zombies. They may want to know what other kinds of zombies exist. If you look at reference works such Columbia Encyclopedia or Britannica, they do not treat the horror movie zombie as primary topic. It does not matter what inspired Romero. His audiences recognized his monsters as zombies and the name stuck. Kauffner (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Kauffner's stop gap suggestion is: Zombies in popular culture for Zombie (fictional), Zombie (Voodoo) for Zombie, and Zombie for Zombie (disambiguation), until there is a combined article? I would support that. I would add that Zombies in popular culture should be flagged as unbalanced until it includes emphasis on the Voodoo Zombie movies and related pop culture.Pjwst6 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We see things the same way. Kauffner (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If it must be flagged as unbalanced, then why is it a good idea? Serendi^podous 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea only because I think its better than other proposals. The best idea is for a combined article. Not trying to inflame the discussion regarding flagging, but I think most folks who know the topic would be very surprised to land on a zombie pop culture discussion that doesn't start with the old vudu zombie flicks, regardless of the taxonomy of the later flicks.Pjwst6 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Serendipous: not sure I understand what you would prefer. You would make Zombie (fictional) the prime, but still not highlight the 1920s to 1960s Vudu zombie flicks? Pjwst6 (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep the title Zombie (fictional) for now, but make "Zombie" a DAB and change "Zombie" to "Zombie (Vodun)". I don't see how anyone could make a single cohesive article on both kinds of zombie in popular culture. It would be like creating an article called "Dragons and Elves in popular culture". Serendi^podous 17:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. 1) Of six editors above who comment on the title [[[Zombie (fictional)]]] above (including myself), all but you dislike the name. There is probably consensus to change the name to Zombies in popular culture if we go to a DAB page. 2) But, regardless of whether we keep the title Zombie (fictional), or Zombies in popular culture, either would need to cover horror movie Voodoo zombies to be consistent with either title. Movies like White Zombie (film) are fictional zombie movies, and are important to the history of fictional, pop culture zombies. Do you disagree with this second point?Pjwst6 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because I don't see the two types of zombie as the same creature. I don't see how inheriting a name grants the inheritance of its entire history. If we combine the two into one page, we are effectively committing WP:SYN by implicitly stating that they are related when they are not. Serendi^podous 18:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Serendipodous; these two topics are tangentially related at best and should not be in the same article. Powers ^T 18:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support original proposal. When the vodun/Haitian article is getting 5x as many hits as Romero-zombies then it's a case of readers not getting to what they're looking for, not that the world can't sleep at night without looking up this aspect of vodun. I maintain List of zombie video games, which are almost exclusively focused on Romero-zombies rather than the vodun variety. The video game list got 122,000 hits in the last 90 days. Compare that to 71,000 hits for the Romero-zombie article and 374,000 for what is currently the primary article. Even the game list was wrongly pointing to the vodun article until I corrected recently, peeking at 'what links here' in this article reveals a slew of videogames which shouldn't be pointing here either. I'm also totally opposed to merging the two articles, this article is a 'serious' subject and the pop-culture type have also had numerous books etc. written about them, they need work not folding into one. Someoneanother 21:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Struck support, the discussion had already snowballed before I posted, should have paid attention to that nagging feeling. I think there is more discussion needed on a lot of these points which goes beyond a simple 7-day move request. Someoneanother 02:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to wrap this up. No consensus has emerged for the original proposed move, and I'm not sure how much steam alternate proposals have. Seems like there are four relatively independent questions:

• Q1 Move Zombie (fictional) to Zombies in popular culture
• Q2 Move Zombie to Zombie (Voodoo) and Zombie (disambiguation) to Zombie
• Q3 Broaden Zombie (fictional) (or if renamed, Zombies in popular culture) to include both Voodoo zombie and Romero zombie pop culture
• Q4 Support eventual merger to a single article addressing both Zombie variants, regardless of moves we do now. Pjwst6 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As the originator of this whole kerfuffle, let me state that I support renaming Zombie (fictional), providing the new name makes sense. Perhaps the only genuinely unique, if unweildy, qualifier would be Zombie (flesh-eating). Second, I have no problem with making Zombie a DAB and moving Zombie to Zombie (Vodun). That would actually resolve a number of problems for me. I disagree with everything else, however. Serendi^podous 20:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Serendipdous: To avoid adding another issue, are you ok with Zombie (Voodoo) instead of Zombie (Vodun)? As seen on the disambig page Voodoo, 'Voodoo' seems to be the common wikipedia and popular form. I don't know much about the issue. If this is important, please explain. Thanks.Pjwst6 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, so I don't really care. Serendi^podous 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Zombie (popular) as an alternative to "(fictional)"? Powers ^T 18:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cases of 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)

"Genuine" zombies? Please, they are either fictious (movies) or imaginary (Voodoo). Might I suggest that the word "mystical" in the description isn't correct. Shouldn't it be "magical"?124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I question the assertion that voodoo zombies are imaginary. As the article says, there is at least on somewhat reliable eyewitness account for it, though it is disputed. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact you believe in fiction with a fictional book as proof is the same kind of stupidity that has caused many to believe the Necronomicon is a real book.--Sivos909 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wade Davis had many people believing in zombies back in the 1980s. It sounded convincing at the time, but I think somebody would have confirmed his work by now if there was anything to it. Kauffner (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this again

Move:

• Zombie --> Zombie (Voodoo)
• Zombie (disambiguation) --> Zombie
• Zombie (fictional) --> Zombie (horror fiction)

I'm not happy with the last disambiguation (Voodoo zombies also appear in horror fiction) but I think this would at least be an improvement on the current situation. Serendi^podous 19:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this proposal puts the cart before the horse. In our earlier discussion, there was a disagreement on whether there should be separate articles for Voodoo and Romero zombie horror fiction, and there was a proposal to have a single article that discusses both types of zombie pop culture. I think this needs to be decided before we start moving things around. Currently, the Zombie (fictional) article is narrower in scope than the title implies, and the current article only focuses on the Romero zombie type. It is also flagged on its talk page to only allow Romero zombie pop culture content. I think the Zombie (fictional) should be broadened to include the Voodoo zombie films that kicked off the genre.

Can we agree to make that decision before the discussion of the moves? Also, I think that discussion should take place on Talk:Zombie (fictional). -LaTeeDa (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (but with a suggestion) – The term "zombie" has its origins in African and West Indian religious beliefs; all other usage is derived from this. This is the primary usage of the term, even if it is not the popular usage. This was a similar rationale given for not moving Avatar (see Talk:Avatar/Archive 1#Requested move: Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism)). However, the Voodoo form of zombie is actually spelt zombi. The Haitian religion term is even catalogued at Encyclopedia Britannica as "zombi" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/657810/zombi), and the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/232982?redirectedFrom=zombi#eid) has all the terms under "zombie", but gives "zombi" as an alternative form and actually uses the "zombi" form in the voodoo definition. The "zombie" spelling is primarily used to denote its various manifestations in popular culture. Therefore I suggest a move along the following lines:

1. Zombi --> Zombi (disambiguation)
2. Zombie --> Zombi
3. Zombie (disambiguation) --> Zombie
4. Zombie (fictional) --> Zombie (fiction) (fictional zombies are not necessarily restricted to horror fiction)

Betty Logan (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious. What kind of fiction has zombies, but isn't "horror fiction"? Concerning the topic, you should probably see the discussion at Talk:Zombie (fictional)#Should we merge this with the voodoo zombie?.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have briefly commented at that discussion, but generally disambiguation terms should be as short as possible, preferably limited to a word (see WP:DABNAME). Unless there is a need to disambiguate zombie horror fiction from other forms of zombie fiction, then there is no need to incorporate "horror" as part of the diambiguation term. At the Film project films are not disambiguated by genre i.e. (horror film), (thriller film), (comedy film) etc; they are just disambiguated by (film) unless there is a need to disambiguate further than that, and I don't see the need for further disambiguation here. Zombie (fiction) does the job just as well as Zombie (horror fiction). Maybe a disambiguation term is not even necessary. If you move Zombie to Zombi, then perhaps you could have Zombie (fictional) at Zombie, and have a hatnote at the top of both articles for the other article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand the desire for a single word, but parenthetical DABs are also discouraged. How do you feel about Zombies in popular culture? I think popular culture is a little truer to the article topic than 'fiction'.LaTeeDa (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't oppose such a title, but that's really beyond what I am able to comment on. If the article only addresses zombies in popular culture then that would be an appropriate title, but obviously such a title would be dictated by the direction of the article, which is ultimately down to the editors to decide. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I gotta say, I'm liking the whole zombi/zombie distinction. I still think Zombie, as the common spelling, should be the "overview" article, that can point readers to the more in-depth articles of either Zombi or Zombie (something).Boneyard90 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Zombi vs Zombie - I didn't notice that spelling difference at all, but I think you're right. For example, the popular nonfiction treatment The Serpent and the Rainbow (book) uses 'zombi'. But, all the classic films about voodoo zombies use 'zombie'. I'd like to find a source that discusses the difference in spelling. One thing though - I don't think we should rely on a dropped silent 'e' to disambiguate in the article title - most readers won't know this spelling difference, and most readers won't see the dropped 'e' unless it is specifically called out. I think we'd still need something like Zombi (Voodoo).LaTeeDa (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

With hatnotes at the top of each, of course. This article is about AAAA, for the article on BBBB, See BBBB. <-Like that.Boneyard90 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Academic writing seems to make the same distinction too. "Zombi" seems to refer almost exclusively to the Haitian/voodoo beliefs on Google scholar, while "zombie" refers to many things from films, to computer terminology to economics. This book makes a clear distinction between the Haitian "zombi" and the American "zombie". That book may be useful for further development of the article (I notice some of you were looking to bridge the gap between the Haitian depiction and the American movie version) and this book reckons the modern "zombie" was created in 1964 in the film version of The Last Man on Earth, and cemented with the Romero Living Dead films. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah, but it doesn't say how it happened. The issue is, how did the one become the other? If all that happened was that the name was borrowed for a completely different creature with a completely different cultural evolution, then, same name or not, they can't be considered the same creature, anymore than an American robin and a European robin. Serendi^podous 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

True, but I might point out we have the article Dragon, with main focus on the European term, but which includes brief descriptions of the various types from all over the world, and then there's the more specific Chinese dragon. The article Mummy focuses on the original Egyptian, embalmed mummies, but includes descriptions of mummies from other parts of the world, as well as other methods of preservation, including natural methods, such as those frozen or found in peat bogs bog bodies.Boneyard90 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OK then, how would you define a zombie? Obviously the Voodoo definition can't apply to the Romero version, so we would need some overarching definition that comprises both. Serendi^podous 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is probably beyond the scope of a 'move' discussion. At the moment we have two articles and a disambiguation page, so the debate should solely address what their titles should be changed to, if changed at all. If you are thinking more along the lines of a merge I would suggest closing this move proposal, and resolving the 'merge' proposal at the other article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

[outdent] I am perfectly happy with the original proposal. Others, it appears, are not, and so I am trying to hammer out a compromise. Serendi^podous 19:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alternative proposal After reflecting on all this discussion, I think we should avoid a DAB page as the prime. The current Zombie (disambiguation) has a ton of stuff on it, and it will be distract most users from what they are overwhelmingly looking for, which is the pop culture zombie material. I agree with the initial move proposal idea that Serendipodous supported - making the pop culture article the prime. (Note the zombi/zombie spellings).

1. Zombie --> Zombi (Voodoo)
2. Zombie (fictional) --> Zombie including classic and contemporary zombie pop culture, and starting with a brief discussion of the Voodoo zombie antecedant

As Boneyard pointed out, we'd need a flag at the top pointing folks to the DAB page and/or the Zombi (voodoo) page. The pop culture article would present the material chronologically including the classic/voodoo zombie films. If we go this direction, I'm willing to work with Serendipodous and others to address their concern that Gothic antecedents to the contemporary zombie are given significant discussion, and to highlight differences between the classic and contemporary zombie. I think if we do this right, the interesting discussion of 'what is a zombie and what are its origins' will help make this article especially interesting as we try to improve this to GA/FA status. LaTeeDa (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the African/Haitian 'zombie' is the primary topic for "zombie/zombi" (all other usages are derivative of the terminology and original concept), so it shouldn't be disambiguated. It should either be at "zombie" or "zombi", but whichever one is chosen shouldn't be disambiguated. Betty Logan (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIME, the derivative nature of Zombie (fictional) isn't a key criterion in whether it should be prime. There are two key criteria - 1) that the topic is the topic most readers will be searching for, and 2) that the topic has greater enduring notability. I think on both counts that the pop culture zombie wins out, especially as the contemporary form has morphed away from the original form. As I suggest above, Zombie (fictional) could have an introductory paragraph or two that introduces the non fiction Voodoo zombie concept, and should link the article on Voodoo zombi. This was discussed in the formal move discussion above, and not sure there was any consensus. I don't think it's a big deal either way. LaTeeDa (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are conjecturing, there is no real empirical evidence to back it up. Here are some stats: In terms of usage, these are the hits the actual disambiguated topics received over the last 90 days i.e. zombie (...):

1. Zombie – 402k
2. Zombie (fictional) – 95k
3. Zombie (novel) – 4k
4. Zombie (comics) – 4k
5. Zombie (album) – 6k
6. Zombie (song) – 70k
7. Zombie (Dungeons & Dragons) – 1k
8. Zombie (cocktail) – 21k

Clearly, out of the 400,000 hits the Zombie article gets, less than 25% of them continue to the fictional Zombie article. Even if you look at just the disambiguated topics, the fictional monster gets 95,000 hits and the others (not including the main zombie article) get 106,000 hits. There is no foundation for the claim that most readers are seeking the fictional monster article on the basis of those figures. As for longterm significance, well Google Scholar returns 1800 hits for "+zombie +haiti", 1300 hits for "+zombie +haitan" while "+zombie +romero returns 1800 hits and "+zombie +"night of the living dead"" returns 1000 hits; given the fact that scholarly analysis is usually indicative of notability, the google hits for academic coverage is inconclusive. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That the old Cranberries' song is getting so many hits is an important discovery. Even so, I don't think it is as enduringly notable as the page hits indicate. Zombie is the signature song for the band, and is probably getting a lot of recent airplay and interest because the band released its first album in eleven years in February 2012, and started its first tour in March.[3] There seems to have been some hype leading up to the tour.[4]

Regarding the use of Google tools, let me add to your research:

• 'zombie OR zombies haiti OR haitian OR caribbean' gets 18.7M hits on Google, and 7,110 hits on Google Scholar
• 'zombie OR zombies film OR movies' gets 160M hits on Google and 24,600 hits on Google Scholar].

BTW, the '+' operator is no longer used by Google[5], and appears to be ignored in searches. LaTeeDa (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above proposal to use the title, Zombie, for an overview article on the topic addressing both the Voodoo sense and the fictional sense, akin to Vampire, which addresses both folkloric and modern depictions. bd2412 T 01:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm reluctantly OK with the 'summary as prime', and Vampire does show how it could be done. Several editors have supported a prime summary page above and at Talk:Zombie (fictional). If we go that way, do we need a separate Zombi (Voodoo) article yet? The current content of Zombie now is not even adequate for a summary - for example Haitian zombie picks up with Wade Davis in the 1940s. I'd suggest we clean up and expand the current Zombie into a full summary, and changeZombie (fictional) to address all the zombie fiction material. Are folks OK with this? LaTeeDa (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, but (you knew it was coming), why Zombi (Voodoo)? Are there other Zombi articles?Boneyard90 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Zombi (Voodoo) (rather than just Zombi), mainly because 1) it's hard to see the difference between Zombie and Zombi, and 2) this difference in spelling doesn't seem to always be used. For example, no one in the original move discussion ever brought up using the zombi spelling, so of all those interested editors, apparently none realized that Zombi is apparently the preferred spelling (at least in the scholarly literature) for the Voodoo zombie. In fact, the Zombie article hasn't recognized this spelling difference after many years of existence. So, I think we'll avoid some confusion by adding 'Voodoo'.

Also, what should we name the pop culture article: Zombie (fiction) or Zombies in popular culture? The former is maybe more accurate, but I think the latter might be easier for readers to understand. Pure conjecture, but I think many folks will be confused and think Zombie (fiction) refers to zombie literature only and won't look here for film, video games, comics, etc. Any thoughts? LaTeeDa (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we have consensus? The final option discussed was posted about a day ago, and there haven't been any opposing comments. Just so everyone is clear, this is what is proposed:

• Zombie (fictional) will be changed to Zombies in popular culture, and content will be changed so that it addresses classic and contemporary zombie material.
• Zombie will be expanded to be a summary of both Haitian Voodoo spiritual/folklore and popular culture zombie material. The intention is that once there is enough material to warrant, a stand alone Zombie (Voodoo) or Zombi (Voodoo) article will be created to expand the topic, but that Zombie will continue to summarize both topics.

I'll leave this notice up for a couple of days, and if looks like we have consensus, I'll propose request the formal move. LaTeeDa (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Concur: Sorry I didn't respond to yesterday's comment; I missed it somehow. But your points were well made. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Add for "popular culture"?

• For Die-Hard Zombie Fans, A Chance to Romp With the Undead; 'Run for Your Lives' Races Are Big Business; Discount, Free Beer for the Zombies July 8, 2012

99.181.143.128 (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2012

There needs to be additional information about the new trend in zombie fiction, such as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(book) as this article does not even discuss that.

Another film reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombies_of_the_Stratosphere

though the film seems to be less relvant to the topic, but is noteworthy for another use of the word "zombie", and was an early film of Leonard Nimoy. There is also the "Walking Dead" tv series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)

Some of these could be listed by way of a Wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_(fictional) 67.169.72.186 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is about voodoo zombies, not "Romero-type" zombies. The article for that is Zombie (fictional). And Zombies of the Stratosphere contains no zombies whatsoever, of either type. Serendi^podous 08:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am setting this edit request to "answered" as Not done: per the above response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)