Talk:List of zombie films/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Universal Soldier

Reanimated dead soldiers. Zombies? I'll let the experts argue over whether it should be included on the list or not. 76.251.231.160 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

your kidding right?--Ronnie42 (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For me this one is more cyborg related than the risen undead (or the voodoo variety of zombies if you prefer). But if there were some reliable sources discussing the idea of of zombies in relation to the soldiers int he films I wouldn't be opposed to listing it. I did a quick search and didn't find anything other than some (very interesting) blog posts and forum comments that we can't use, so I'm guessing it won't come to anything. Millahnna (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

there is no walking dead, there is no vodoo involved, there is no flesh eating, there back to live completely with will of mind. i can't believe that the other would even consider it a zombie movie source:the movie--Ronnie42 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Zombieland Twice?

Zombieland is on the list twice, so I removed the one nearest the bottom of the list.--киошledge ßяīиgs ƒæя 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

World War Z

...is a novel by Max Brooks that is beign adapted into a zombie movie with a 2010 release date. It should be added 12.199.45.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Did it...

carriers

this is not a zombie movie, people are infected with a disease and die, they do not reanimate, whoever said this is a zombie movie, deserves to have their brains chewed out!!! span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.99.147 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

28 Days/Weeks Later

There is some argument over whether the Infected from 28 Days Later and its sequel are zombies or not, since they are not actually dead. However, they exhibit some classic zombie-like behaviors, and the movie itself makes several nods to "genuine" zombie films, including Dawn of the Dead. Furthermore, several films on this list contain "zombies" who are not dead at all. Therefore, in the interest of completeness, I am re-inserting these films into the list. If you remove them, kindly leave a note here explaining why. Teflon Don 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting them because they aren't zombies, they're just infected. They run fast, which isn't classic like zombie behavior at all. You don't even need to destroy their brains to kill them. - Pennington

Please note that all of the films on the current list exhibit "zombies" with different characteristics and that the requirements you have listed (such as running fast, having to destroy their brains, infections etc.) are only interpretations of the individual film-makers. It would be counter-productive to scrutinize and exclude entries for such minor differences. For the sake of completeness, it would be better to include the two films as Teflon Don mentioned above. - Sunny

Exactly. They are in the zombie genre just as many other movies which don't necessarily subscribe to every zombie stereotype. I see some movies on this list that barely have any zombies in them, but they still deserve to be there. (Cardsplayer4life 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

--Nah I took them off again, there are NO zombies in either of the two films.

--By that logic Weekend at Bernie's II is a zombie movie while Shaun of the Dead isn't. I don't remember it ever being explicitly stated in Shaun of the Dead that people were coming back to life, just that they had been bitten or infected. It's implied that they appear dead, but it's never explicitly stated, so its incluson seems up for debate, just as it is with 28 Days Later. The Resident Evil series and Planet Terror (from Grindhouse) all feature "zombies" that aren't necessarily the undead, so you'll have to remove them as well.

--- indeed, there are plenty of zombie movies without the word 'zombie' used to describe the zombies. And they run fast in a few classic early zombie movies, where they also swim and fight sharks and everything. And whether the dead can move fast or not is a nonsense question since the dead shouldn't actually move at all. 28 Days Later pays too much homage to zombie movies and is too frequently referred to as a zombie movie to warrant exclusion because their uncontrollable near-death flesh-eating is due to a virus that was made by Western medical doctors and not voodoo witchdoctors.Earfetish1 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

28 Days/Weeks Later. They are NOT zombies. The use of the word zombie was reportedly banned on set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.214.114 (talk • contribs)

I just watched a movie called Zombie Diaries and they didn't call them Zombies either. I think a couple of the 'of the Dead' films also avoid the use of the word 'zombie.'Earfetish1 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no undead in 28 Days/Weeks Later. There are no corpses that get up and begin walking around. However, once infected with the virus, a person loses their humanity and becomes a mindless zombie. This is certainly a new take on the traditional zombie movie, but they are still zombie movies. 134.29.33.16 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

28 Weeks later confirms that the infected are, in fact, alive. However, if everyone will kindly bother to look up the word "zombie" you will see that being dead is NOT always a requirement. The 28 series is as much, and often more so, a contender for the title of 'zombie movie' as many on this list; it's apocalyptic, it involves hordes of mindless monsters attacking anyone not infected, and it's about survival. Not the hardest piece of evidence, but one of the original movie posters even said "Danny Boyle reinvents the Zombie horror genre...", so at least the marketing department had a right to call it one.

---

---

This is crazy! First of all, I don't know what zombie movies you're refering to help you define "zombie behavior" or how you could possibly know how a reanimated human would behave. And that's the key word: reanimated.

Would they run, talk, walk, stumble, vomit, throw poo at you? Who knows? All of the zombie movies change and rearrange the rules. The zombies themselves and their existence are handled differently in every movie.

In Romero's classics the cause of the zombie epidemic is never mentioned or explained, aside from a few biblical quotes and references. The zombies are slow and some have a notable level of intelligence ("Bub" shot a pistol at a living human in Day Of The Dead).

In the first three Return Of The Living Dead flicks, the zombies were able to run, drive cars, and a few were able to speak.

Some zombies used weapons in Fulci's movies and yes, a zombie fought a shark underwater. City Of The Walking Dead (a.k.a. Nightmare City) featured zombies that could fly airplanes, drive, and shoot machine guns.

You can't say that the people infected with rage in 28 days/weeks later were alive. They were killed from coming into contact with the virus and infected with a senseless and destructive rage. Whatever person that once was, your mom, grandpa, a kid down the street, ex-girlfriend, whoever it was, that person is gone and "dead", leaving only a primal instinct to kill and all it wants to do is destroy your lifeforce, just like a zombie.

My point is this...whatever the case, whenever humans are forced to barracade and lock themselves up, hide from legions of undead, defend themselves from reanimated humans, and find a way to survive, it's a zombie movie. 28 days/weeks uses this scenerio, without a doubt adding it to any zombie movie catagory.

Add these movies to the list and get on with the sequel!

Dave - October 3, 2007

---

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewha (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI for everyone, this was also discussed on the talk page for 28 Weeks Later here and here, as well as the page for 28 Days later here, all fairly long ago. The result of all conversations were to keep the movies in the zombie films category. (Cardsplayer4life 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, however obvious it seems that 28 Days & Weeks weren't about zombies, they're advertised as zombie movies, they're called that by oh so many good sources, and they follow the zombie movie formulas. For us to refuse to call them that would be OR/POV on our part. Doczilla (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

_________________________________________

Garrow- February 11, 2008

Why in the world would 28 Days Later NOT be a zombie movie? In a way it's better than a Hollywood-formulaic fantasy zombie movie, because it's realistic! Besides, why would you want to watch zombie movies that all have the same type of setting? I mean, even if you're friggin Romero, how many different plot lines can you have with retarded, slow-moving zombies that eat brains like baby food, but never crap it out.

Ultimatley, I think it's nice that zombie movies can have diversity. By the way, 28 Days Later was one of my favorite movies. BUT 28 WEEKS LATER IS THE CRAPPIEST SEQUEL EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.22.217 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The 28 Days/Weeks Later films are in no way, shape, or form zombie movies. Don't get me wrong, I love the films but I am also a follower of zombie films. The infected in 28 are not dead and any psychological reasoning used to imply that they are zombies and mentally "dead" is just ludicrous. It doesn't matter that they aren't who they used to be, they are just people infected with a virus who lose their minds. It's more of a murderous insanity that the infected go through. Zombies actually have to be dead in order to be deemed as such. Those who say that zombies can also be alive are referring to Voodoo zombies which are a result of voodoo magic and are only people that are under the mind control of a voodoo shaman. Also, just because there are people living behind barricades and in a world of danger doesn't make the 28 D/W movies zombie movies, it simply makes them survival/horror movies which does not automatically deem it a zombie movie. Yes, there are several other interpretations of zombies such as those in DOTD that run, but they are actually dead. Garrow is actually wrong in saying that the 28 D/W movies are realistic seeing as to how they are not based on true events. Again, one could easily argue against me and say that 28 D/W are unique interpretations of the zombie genre but it's just not enough. They do not belong in the same section as zombie films because the infected are simply not zombies. - Renegade - From Renegade Touch Productions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.220.49 (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

     _______________________________________________________________________________________________

My two cents, all Zombie films have 3 distinct traits, at least one of which is present in all zombie films.

1. The dead re-animate.

2. The dead violently consumer the living.

3. ONLY removing/destroying the brain results in the re-animated corpse's 'death' in so far as it is no longer able to stay re-animated.

This confusion with the 28 days films can be solved thusly: The infected are neither dead, nor do they attempt to consume the living. And the infected in the 28 days movies can die from non head wounds, infection, starvation, falls, etc.

Oh, and the Weekend at Bernie's comparison?? Clutching at straws my friend. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)) ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Warning Devil's Advocate: 28 Days Later was advertised as a reimagining of the zombie horror genre. Also not all horror movies have followed the three criteria you suggested. Flight of the Living Dead: Outbreak on a Plane allowed the zombies to be destroyed without shooting them in the heard.

Of course your right they are not zombies. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have revived 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later.

The infected in 28 Days Later closely resemble zombies with a few exceptions. This is a list of common characteristics of zombies, developed from Romero's movies, quoted from Kim Paffenroth's "Gospel of the Living Dead," pp 2-6. (A great read that I recommend.)

1) "For some reason, recently dead human beings suddenly start getting up and walking around again. They no longer have human minds, however." While the Infected lose out here on a technicality, the filmmakers chose to make them visually resemble dead bodies, with discolored skin and dripping blood. 2) "Zombies are autonomous beings" that do not plan or think. Like zombies, the Infected act simply on the instinct to kill. Land of the Dead specifically violated this rule. 3) "Zombies rapidly increase their numbers by killing living people, who also become zombies." In 28 Days Later, when a character is bitten, they lose their humanity and become one of 'them.' While the characters are not technically killed, the attacks are violent and bloody, and would certainly be fatal if the body was not sustained by the adrenaline-like Rage. 4) "Zombies partially eat the living." Even Romero's zombies eat a small amount, leaving the rest of the corpse to zombify. Like zombies, the Infected usually attack by biting, appearing to eat their victims, but leaving the body in tact. 5) "Zombies are tenacious and will never relent in their attack" until they are permanently killed. The infected fight until they are shot or starved to death. 6) "The suspense in zombie movies comes more from how the human characters interact." The Infected rarely make an appearance in the movie, which is focused on the survival of Jim, Selena and Hannah. 7) "Zombies are almost always slow, shuffling, uncoordinated creatures, except in 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead, where they are suddenly possessed of the speed and agility of jungle cats." 8) Paffenroth states that Zombies are sometimes afraid of fire. N/A to most zombie movies. 9) Paffenroth ponders whether zombies eat animals or not. N/A to most zombie movies. 10) "Zombies are usually completely imbecilic, incapable of making plans, coordinating their attacks, or learning from their mistakes." Very similar to the point made in #2. The Infected fit this well, while Land of the Dead makes it a plot point to violate this rule.

Using the first criteria as a litmus test ignores the rest of the similarities between zombies and the Infected. The few zombie characteristics violated by the Infected are also violated in other zombie movies, and the first is only on a technicality. Since the Infected share the majority of these characteristics, they should qualify as zombies.

Also, like Romero's movies, both "28" movies have been recognized for their social commentary, such as post-9/11 anxieties of destruction, military control and the loss of humanity. In order to draw these comparisons, Paffenroth and critic Roger Ebert automatically recognize 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later as related to the zombie genre, specifically to the recent revival of zombie movies starting in 2002. This list should include these movies for the same reason.

Friendly Neighborhood Zombie (talk) 21:39, 29 Oct 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree that the monsters in 28 Days/Weeks Later are not zombies per se the sources point to the fact that they are generally recognized as zombie films. While I know the creatures in the films don't follow the "rules" of zombies, there are a lot of recognized zombies films that don't (Return of the Living Dead for one). In the end I don't wish to start an edit war but I do feel that we should defer to the sources. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This article contains a reference to a "28 Years Later" movie, but I can not find anything on it at its cite note, nor anywhere else on the web, so I'm going to remove it. 83.70.178.165 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Silent Hill Removal

How is Silent Hill a zombie film? There aren't any zombies in it, just monsters and demons. I'm taking it off. Vinny 04:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I Am Legend, but I Am Not a Zombie Movie

Since there's been an edit war over it, we need to discuss I Am Legend. It is not a zombie movie. Plenty of people will point out that 28 Days Later isn't really a zombie movie and yet it's listed. Neither one involves actually undead, after all. The people are "infected" in both. Here's the difference between the two:

28 Days Later was advertised as a zombie movie. Sources like Box Office Mojo classify it as a zombie movie.[1]

I Am Legend was never advertised as a zombie movie. Box Office Mojo, in fact, classifies it as a vampire movie. [2] I Am Legend is not on the chart for zombie movies.

We don't get to decide for ourselves which is which, though, or that would violate WP:NOR, WP:POV, and WP:V policies. We have to go by the best sources we can get. Doczilla (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing of it is, the source material is included in The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia (Richard Matheson's I Am Legend) as zombie related, and the inspiration for Romero's Night of the Living Dead. So at least one independent source calls the original material Zombie related. Jeffpw (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Zombie related" does not equal zombie. Just because Matheson's vampire novel inspired a zombie story does not retroactively turn Matheson's work into a zombie story. Doczilla (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Granted, but the film adaptations are included in the Zombie movie encyclopedia, so we have a source saying that the last two adaptations are zombie movies. What makes this film any different? I haven't see it yet, by the way, so I have no position in the matter. Jeffpw (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in the encyclopedia does not mean it's saying they're zombie movies themselves. If there's an article on Romero, that doesn't mean they're saying he's a zombie. It just means they say the material is relevant enough to be mentioned. Doczilla (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. The encyclopedia (have you read it, by the way? Wonderful book), lists and discusses the films as zombie movies. In fact, the author refers to the beings as zombies ("Overall, the relentless zombies are quite chilling"). Peter Dendle is the author. So we have a secondary source which refers to the book and film adaptation (not this latest one--the encyclopedia was written 4 years ago) as Zombies. I have no stake in this and do not intend to edit the list, but feel compelled to point out that there is precedence for calling these creatures zombies. Jeffpw (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• As to this particular film, HorrorWatch.com calls them zombies

  National Public Radio calls them zombies

  Roger Ebert calls them zombies

  The New York Times calls them zombies.

  Perhaps there is controversy about it, but several respected people call these beings in this movie zombies. Jeffpw (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

None of those are the original source. The movie does not use the term. Its advertising does not use the term (28 Days Later's ads did). The production company does not use the term. You name some decent sources -- in which case we have to evaluate the importance of the sources. From WP:V: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." Any source. Always. When we have a conflict between sources, we need to rely on the original source. Secondary sources do not take priority over primary sources.Doczilla (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The primary source, the film, does not call them vampires, either. It calls them mutants or the infected. [3]And here is an interview with the director, in which the creatures are referred to as zombies by the interview, and Lawrence does not correct him. That implies that he agrees with the assessment.

As I said, I have no stake in this issue, but I always thought of the infected as zombies, and was surprised that there would be resistance to the term, given that others have written about them as such, too. Jeffpw (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Choosing not to correct someone isn't agreement. It's choosing not to annoy your interviewer. You're right that the movie doesn't call them vampires. I'm not personally advocating for adding it to a list of vampire movies either. Anyway, like you, I don't really have any stake in this issue. I'm just trying to anticipate what would best fit Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Doczilla (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering how the creatures in the movie are very similar to those in 28 days later, and not as much like the ones in the original I am Legend book, I believe it should still fit on the list. Even if it wasn't advertised as a zombie movie, generally, the majority of people who see the movie think of them as zombies, at least from what I've seen around my area and from a few people online. Wouldn't it at least fit on the list with a side note? For completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.117.196 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your personal experience is original research which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

However as those above have done; Citing authorities and sources on both movies in general, and Zombie Movies specifically, who do categorize it as such, as well as showing that the Director didn't overtly object to the terminology when it was presented to him, isn't original research though, that's providing supporting secondary evidence/sources. As you point out, interpreting the original source without reference to secondary sources would be original research however, i.e. it'd be as much OR to say categorically that it isn't a Zombie film without referencing a secondary source which supports this (And saying it is a Vampire movie, isn't saying that it couldn't also fit the genre of Zombie Movie). And since this is a matter of subjective terminology, then those authoritative sources are very relevant; being a Zombie movie isn't an inherent property after all but a perceived one. From the strength of the four links provided by Jeffpw above I would say it is clear that there is strong secondary source evidence that this is perceived as a Zombie movie, and should be listed here.Number36 (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a list of movies perceived as zombie movies by somebody, somewhere. It's a list of movies that are zombie movies. So the most arguable ones must be left out unless we get confirmation from the filmmakers that they're supposed to be zombie movies. 28 Days Later was advertised as a zombie movie; I Am Legend was not. Even though this section's heading says it is not a zombie movie does not mean the article itself says that it categorically is not. The article lists only those that categorically are. WP:V says the appropriateness of any source depends on context. Those secondary sources are not as good as the production company. Doczilla (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment wasn't in relation to the above links but was instead a reply to the statement: the majority of people who see the movie think of them as zombies, at least from what I've seen around my area and from a few people online. That statement is original research and unencyclopedic. IrishGuy ^talk 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy, I'm not sure why you think I didn't understand that, that's why I used the word 'however' and later showed I agreed with your assessment by saying 'As you say'. I was merely continuing from your point.

Doczilla, I'm afraid I disagree, and you don't appear to understand the point I'm putting forward. Whether or not it is a Zombie movie isn't an inherent property of a film, sift a film down and all you'll find are grains of celluloid, no genre molecules; and authorial intent, while important, isn't necessarily definitive in a matter which is subjective (and for that matter no one has shown that there is authorial intent to exclude it from being described as a Zombie movie (and some to show there's no overt objection), so it's a moot point). Authoritative secondary sources, especially from sources whose background is in critical analysis of the medium, are indeed relevant in this matter, and that is the context that satisfies WP:V, you haven't presented an argument that dissuades me of that. Certainly not by mischaracterizing it as merely 'somebody, somewhere'.Number36 (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Authorial intent is absolutely relevant and is never a moot point. However, we don't know authorial intent in this case.

2. I can throw plenty of sources at you that say it's not a zombie movie, and yet I must concede that the better sources tend to call it a zombie movie. Of the movie reviews linked at Metacritic, the majority call them zombies, a few call them zombie/vampires, and not one in the top half of the list (I got tired of checking somewhere down into the yellow section) specifically says it's not a zombie movie. Clearly, "zombie movie" has been redefined.

3. Because it doesn't really have any undead in it, do not relist this movie without linking several of the best possible sources that call it a zombie movie. Doczilla (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I didn't say authorial intent wasn't relevant, quite the opposite, I said it was important, but it's precisely because we have no evidence of what it is (and some to show no overt objection to being described as a Zombie film), that it is moot.

2. As I said, whether it is or is not a Zombie film is a matter of perception, it's not an inherent quality the film possesses, that so many regarded and authoritative sources conclude that it is indeed a zombie movie this lends to my argument. And since no one has said that it isn't a zombie movie and plenty have said it is, I can't see where the problem is. I'm not sure why you conclude that it has been redefined, it's not as though there was ever an official definition, if people conclude that it features enough 'zombie movie'-like traits then there's nothing incorrect about them calling it a Zombie movie.

3. Plenty of Zombie movies don't have 'undead' in them, in some the cause of the 'Zombie' outbreak is a virus (people infected with a virus are not dead, or undead), or even living people who have been cursed or controlled by a voodoo priest or something of that sort. For that matter in real life, the current opinion is that the people referred to as Zombies are actually under the control of a powerful drug, certainly not 'undead', so there's no reason for that to be a prerequisite. And what's wrong with the links that have already been presented, they're all of extremely high quality; highly regarded, authoritative sources in the area of movies, and/or zombie movies. Surely unless you can counter them, which you've said you can't, then this movie should be added back to the list.Number36 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? I just conceded. What do you think "do not relist this movie without linking several of the best possible sources" means? It does not mean they can't go in the article. The fact that we're having this whole exchange illustrates how seriously they need sources.Doczilla (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla, your post above mine here could be seen as a bit uncivil. I don't think there is anything wrong with Number36. I was also a bit confused by your comment. While you indicate that the film now, in your judgment, is fit for inclusion, you say it needs links to sources. Why? There are no other refs or links on the page for other controversial additions, such as 28 days or weeks later. As consensus has now been reached that the film may be included, I am adding it to the list. There are a host of sources on this discussion page, including the New York Times, which amply demonstrate that it has been critically received as a zombie flick. I'm going to see the IMAX version today; after all this discussion, my curiosity is piqued. Jeffpw (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew it could be seen as uncivil, and I hated that. I seriously did, but civil and impersonal somehow failed to make the point.

Sources on this discussion page aren't sources in the article itself -- besides which, there are no links to these sources (not the ones that directly call the I Am Legend film a zombie movie). Unless you want people cramming everything they consider a "zombie movie" which doesn't really have zombies into the list, those that don't really have zombies need citations to the fact that they're zombie movies. Once we add I Am Legend, we open the flood gates for a lot of other movies to pop up on the list. Either this list or the article itself needs sources establishing it as a zombie movie. Now that I Am Legend is on the list, 28 Days Later needs a source too. The filmmakers advertised 28 Days Later as a zombie movie; filmmakers did not advertise I Am Legend as a zombie movie. Now that criteria for inclusion on this list have changed, future readers will need some guidance as to why they should not add any old film that strikes their fancy. It's not just about consensus on this one film; it's about Wikipedia's greater consensus to provide sources (WP:V), to avoid personal opinion (WP:NPOV), and to show that you are not engaging in original research, to show that somebody else has decided it's a zombie movie (WP:NOR). There was one more relevant policy, but it slips my mind right now.

Sources will reduce how often people have to repeat these same discussions (about these that are already controversial plus films people try to add in the future). Not eliminate, but reducing helps. A lack of sources might eventually get this article deleted for appearing to be original research. Sources were what kept List of fictional anti-heroes from getting deleted. In a AfD discussion, the inclusion of controversial movies whose inclusions are not backed up by solid external sources could get this article killed. I've seen it happen too many times, and I do not want to see that happen here. Doczilla (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, at the risk of seeming deliberately obtuse, should we add a source for this film on this list, due to the controversy, and should we perhaps add a section to the film article about how it is perceived as a zombie film even though the filmmakers did not intend it as such? That should be easy to do, and I will start on that in the next few hours. Incidentally, having just seen the movie, I actually agree with you and Irishguy that this is in no way a zombie movie. The whole movie was disappointing, actually, except for the scene where Will Smith takes his shirt off. That alone was worth the €12.50 (US$18.50 at today's exchange rate). Jeffpw (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doczilla, I apologise if my last comments sounded divisive or argumentative, I was in a bit of a rush last time I was here and I was just trying to quickly answer your points in a clear fashion, point by point as you presented them.

I entirely agree that linking refs is appropriate, and understand your point that Sources on this discussion page aren't sources in the article itself, but I must have detected more emphasis on your use of the word 'several' than you intended (which to me sounds like at least seven, but usually more), when the four already posted here seemed adequate to me, I was just trying to ascertain why those four alone might not be adequate with my question. I didn't want to add it back into the article if it was still in discussion as to whether it was appropriate to or not (and if so, what the appropriate way to reference it is).

For what it's worth, I agree as a strictly literal term it's an entirely reasonable position to say that 'Zombie Movie' is only technically accurate if the source material itself specifically references the creatures as Zombies; since Zombies don't actually exist after all, the creatures are only defined within the context of the fiction by the fiction itself. But since even fictional works don't exist in a vacuum, I still think that notable, authoritative, secondary sources, especially of a critical nature, are a valid and proper way to define the context of the fiction and unfortunately, even if this doesn't appear to be technically a Zombie film to us, it would be original research to ignore those notable secondary sources that do refer to it this way (in favour of our own opinion), taken in combination that there doesn't seem to be any overt disagreement from comparable sources, if some can be found, then we can reference that there's some disagreement, which would be the best solution I think.Number36 (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents should this topic re-flare by another editor, if I Am Legend is not considered a "zombie" film, then technically Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" should not be one either. Romero has repeatedly stated that he never intended the creatures to be Undead, but rather "flesh eaters". Essentially the definition of what a zombie is, remains to this day a question left up to the viewer. Not everyone lumps "zombies" into the walking corpse classification. Legend should remain in the list, if for nothing else other than that it remains a proto-zombie influence, much like NotLD technically is. Someone has double sourced it already so I guess the topic is mute anyway. --Trippz 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not zombies

28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later should be removed from this list. The people in those movies are not zombies, because they do not die before they turn.83.177.8.69 (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above conversation about these films. IrishGuy ^talk 22:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts of Mars

There is consensus on the discussion page for Ghosts of Mars that it is zombie film, so I've added it to the list.S0343463 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One comment and one agreement does not consensus make. IrishGuy ^talk 00:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Article itself calls it a zombie flick, too, though there is not one single ref in the entire thing. Jeffpw (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Without credible external sources, it doesn't go here. Doczilla (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't one citation in this entire list of films - the "28 Days Later" discussion proves that as far as zombie films go, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. Ghosts of Mars makes for a pretty convincing duck.S0343463 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are citations within the articles themselves. Ghosts of Mars isn't a zombie film but instead deals with possession. IrishGuy ^talk 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ghosts of Mars" doesn't "deal with" possession so much as include it as a plot device. The far-fetched assertion that "Ghosts of Mars" is closer in genre to the exorcist than to any zombie films just exposes that that we are using a very personally determined and artificial view of what a "zombie" is. There's no such thing as zombies. What determines whether or not a zombie film is a zombie film is whether or not it does the things that zombie films do. One can't speak in pedantic terms as to whether you can say that one thing is or isn't a zombie, as zombies aren't real. Zombies are mythical creatures that don't have a fixed definition. In other words: why does the definition of "zombie" exclude the potential for possession? S0343463 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC) modified S0343463 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My previous post doesn't contravene any civility guidelines, and from the sarcastic tone of your first post on this topic ("One comment and one agreement does not consensus make") I suggest that you also review the relevant civility guidelines. For the sake of argument, however, I've updated my post to make it less focussed on anyone personally. S0343463 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that my assertions are "far-fetched" and I am being "pedantic" is hardly being polite. As for my first statement on this subject, that wasn't incivil, it was a fact: Consensus requires more than two. IrishGuy ^talk 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand: the Ghosts of Mars article itself notes: When the door was opened it released "ghosts", disembodied spirits who possessed the miners. Ghosts. Possessed. These aren't zombies. It isn't entitled Zombies of Mars. IrishGuy ^talk 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts. Possessed. IrishGuy, read WP:CIV. Also, please answer my original question: why does being a zombie exclude possession?S0343463 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting is now incivil? If you are simply spoiling for an argument, you are wasting my time. IrishGuy ^talk 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, IrishGuy, I really am not, I simply think that in tone you have been just as disrespectful to me as you have accused me of being toward you. There is evidence that Ghosts of Mars is a film about zombies in that a) the definition of "zombie" does not exclude the possibility of possession according to any accepted definition of the word "zombie" and b) It is widely considered to be a zombie film by authoritative film websites (notably box office mojo, which was used as an example to sort out the argument as to whether or not 28 days later is, in fact, a zombie film). If every zombie in every zombie film was made into a zombie by the most traditional understanding of the word (via haitian voodoo), half the examples on the list would be gone.S0343463 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been more than 48 hours since I proposed my legitimate reasons for Ghosts of Mars being included in this list, without any response. I was hoping for further discussion and hopefully wider consensus, but as no one has replied, and the reasons I gave were straightforward, I will take silence to be consensus and alter the list to include Ghosts of Mars.S0343463 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You truly have no concept of what "consensus" is, do you? IrishGuy ^talk 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

When an article has only one contributor, consensus is simply what one person believes. You disappeared and decided not to take interest in my legitimate and straightforward reasons for including Ghosts of Mars, so I assumed that you had stopped contributing. I therefore took it upon myself to continue to construct this article with no reason not to. Please engage in discussion, do not simply wage a revert war as it seems that you are more than willing to do. I think it is obvious from my willingness to discuss this matter instead of simply reverting things immediately that I am keen to avoid that state of affairs.S0343463 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above: the Ghosts of Mars article itself notes: When the door was opened it released "ghosts", disembodied spirits who possessed the miners. Ghosts. Possessed. These aren't zombies. It isn't entitled Zombies of Mars. You are't obviously willing to have a discussion...you merely ignore what I have posted and push forth your own opinion. And no, one person isn't consensus. IrishGuy ^talk 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to take the article to provide a definitive definition on whether it is a zombie film, then the final line of the synopsis section should tell you everything you need to know: "Williams returns and teams up with Ballard to fight the alien zombies." As for the fact that it is entitled "Ghosts" rather than "Zombies" of Mars, if that's going to define whether or not there are zombies in the film, surely the other two films on the list with the word "ghost" in their titles should also be removed?S0343463 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Illogical argument. The Ghost Breakers has both ghosts and zombies. The Ghost Galleon is the English title to an Italian horror film...that is also known as Horror of the Zombies. Ghosts of Mars, however, has no zombies. Only ghost/demon possession. IrishGuy ^talk 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The argument is not illogical. I included those two examples only in order to demonstrate that a film can have zombies even if it has the word "ghost" in the title as you had contested. Your argument has constantly been that the creatures in the film "Ghosts of Mars" are not zombies because a) it doesn't say so on the wikipedia article for Ghosts of Mars and b) because the title doesn't say "zombies". Frankly I do not find either to be very convincing lines of reasoning. I will ask for the fourth time: Why does being a zombie exclude a state of possession? I fear that you are consistently avoiding my arguments, particularly the ones I brought up above at 20:35, 9 February. S0343463 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where else has possession = zombie? Ever? You are trying to shoehorn this into a zombie film by simply saying "why couldn't the people being possessed by ghosts be called zombies?" That is original research and pure personal speculation. IrishGuy ^talk 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The original research is entirely on your side. You are qualifying what is or is not a zombie by your own personal idea of what a zombie is. However, as zombies are entirely fictional creatures (and ones that a) derive from folk tradition and b) have developed and changed throughout their appearances in films), there is no clinical definition of what a zombie is - apart from the very narrow definition of a corpse raised via haitian voodoo. A zombie is something that does what a zombie does, and therefore we can arrive at the conclusion that a zombie film is a film that does what a zombie film does. There is no existing definition of the word "zombie" that precludes the possibility of possession, or science, or voodoo. Furthermore, Ghosts of Mars is widely considered to be a zombie film. You are accurate in defining my viewpoint as being based partially in the argument "why couldn't the people being possessed by ghosts be called zombies?" The onus is on you, with your hidden definition gathered from original research of what a zombie is, to explain why it can not be.S0343463 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot have your cake and eat it to. You cannot claim there is no set definition of "zombie" and then turn around and demand explainations of definitions. Your arguments are circular and illogical. You are POV pushing your own opinion. While you claim "Ghosts of Mars is widely considered to be a zombie film" you have provided exactly nothing to corroborate this claim. I have quoted the article itself. I have a reference, you have opinion. This is why I don't bother replying...but then you turn around and attempt to claim that me being bored with you equals you magically having consensus. IrishGuy ^talk 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am "demanding explanations of definitions" for the very purpose of exposing that you cannot provide a set definition. This is crazy. You are an administrator and your aggressive tone, unwillingness to listen or communicate, and poor judgement frankly leave me stunned. I want another administrator to take a look at what is going on here.S0343463 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted above: While you claim "Ghosts of Mars is widely considered to be a zombie film" you have provided exactly nothing to corroborate this claim. I have quoted the article itself. I have a reference, you have opinion. Aggressive? Really? As for the rest, I would remind you again to read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that you haven't actually bothered reading what I've written. You referenced the article, I referenced the article above (00:22, 12 Feb) Contrary to what you are saying, I have provided a reference (20:35, 9 Feb). I'm not irritated that you disagree with me, it's just that you are not even bothering to read what I've written. I've provided references and solid argument, you've provided original research and an aggressive manner, and yet you will ultimately win because you're the more "wikipedia savvy" of the two of us.S0343463 (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Claiming something isn't the same as providing a reference. IrishGuy ^talk 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I have written above before replying. I do indeed provide a reference, Box Office Mojo, a widely used film resource.S0343463 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you claimed that Box Office Mojo is a reference. You haven't provided anything to back that up. Links. Anything. IrishGuy ^talk 18:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because I was more interested in sparking up dialogue with a view to adding constructively to the article, as opposed to fighting a little wikibattle. Here's the link.S0343463 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I followed your stipulation that I should add a reference in the article for Ghosts of Mars, which I have done, and so I will add Ghosts of Mars to the list if you have no objections.S0343463 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I object. You are incorrect. John Carpenter himself doesn't consider them Zombies. Rotten Tomatoes calls them possessed, NOT zombies. Absolutely none of the press material for this film refers to them as zombies....because they aren't zombies. IrishGuy ^talk 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By that logic 28 Days Later isn't a zombie film. Should I remove 28 Days and Weeks Later?S0343463 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You would be going against the consensus above. IrishGuy ^talk 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then aren't you defying the above consensus by leaving Ghosts of Mars out? The above consensus isn't about one film, it's about whether a particular film with particular specifications can be called a zombie film. We can't apply a double standard- Ghosts of Mars and 28 Days Later have equal claim to be called zombie films. If 28 Days Later stays, logically Ghosts of Mars has to stay. The only difference between this discussion and the one above is that there are fewer people involved.S0343463 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Your argument (which incidentally, changes everytime it fails) has nothing to do with the various discussions to do with 28 Days Later. There is no infection in Ghosts, there is possession. Ghosts and 28 Days do not have equal claim to be called zombie films, in fact, you are the only person who thinks they do. Personal opinion is original research. The fact that your argument and reasoning changes everyday simply proves that you don't actually have a valid argument and instead are simply pushing forward because you personally want the film in this list. IrishGuy ^talk 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I do have several arguments. This, however, is because you are wrong for several reasons. However, your argument, to be fair, has stayed roughly the same: Ghosts of Mars isn't a zombie film because it involves possession. This non-argument is naturally self-defeating, as no definition of the word "zombie" precludes the possibility of possession as the means of becoming a zombie (which has, of course, been the thrust of my argument this whole time). You accept that 28 Days Later is a zombie film, even though it is not called a zombie film in its press statements or Rotten Tomatoes. The only reason you can give for this is that 28 Days Later involves infection and Ghosts of Mars involves possession. Hmmm... If Ghosts of Mars is closer in genre to the exorcist, surely 28 Days Later should be excluded from the list for being closer in genre to 12 Monkeys. Why not just admit that if 28 Days Later is included in the list, in order to avoid double standards and follow consensus we must also include Ghosts of Mars?S0343463 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said I personally felt that 28 Days Later was a zombie film: I stated that there was a consensus for it. My personal opinion is irrelevant. Your entire above statement is a fallacy built on something I never said. Anything else? IrishGuy ^talk 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You never said that Ghosts of Mars isn't a zombie film because it involves possession? Look above, you've said that several times. I'm not bothered about your opinion either: either way, logic dictates that if 28 Days Later is a zombie film, so is Ghosts of Mars. In order to avoid double standards and conform to consensus, Ghosts of Mars belongs on the list. Please try and follow the discussion, don't try and derail it with posts like your last one. With all of your posts, I've taken the time to read them and address them, I'm still getting the feeling that you aren't bothering to read my posts before replying to them. Wikipedia is built on openness and communication, please try to adhere to this ideal.S0343463 (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You stated:You accept that 28 Days Later is a zombie film....and yet I never said that. Your argument stemmed from that one invalid point. And no, saying that if 28 Days Later is a zombie film then Ghosts of Mars must be is in no way logical as the two films have exactly nothing to do with each other. Nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, for the sake of argument I'll take that back and instead say "You accept that there is a general consensus that 28 Days Later is a zombie film", although I don't see that it matters very much. The point is that we are bound to adhere to consensus. 28 Days Later has a lot to do with Ghosts of Mars- they both have zombies.S0343463 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Being smug isn't a valid argument. No, they don't both have zombies. As you have yet to counter what I have put forth, I see no need to continue to indulge you. Obviously, you simply like arguing for the sake of arguing. IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IrishGuy, let's be reasonable. Ghosts of Mars has all the same qualifications of being a zombie film as 28 Days Later. There is consensus here that we are bound to accept.S0343463 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, you have no refuted anything and your opinion isn't consensus. IrishGuy ^talk 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We really don't seem to be getting anywhere here, because no one else is around perhaps a third opinion might be useful.02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just wanted to give my opinion. I don't think Ghost of MArs is a zombie film. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Arguments back and forth about what constitutes a zombie film are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Stick to what references indicate about the films. If the filmmaker objects to a particular categorization, it is fine to note this in a short note in the main article text or provide a quote in a footnote, if the assertion can be reliably sourced. On this specific film, it does seem to be regarded by many critics as a zombie film.[4][5][6][7] Since critics associate it with the trope forming the topic of this list, it should be included (with references). We should not be inventing standards for inclusion, but rather relying on appropriate sources to determine whether or not a film fits. Vassyana (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fourth opinion; I absolutely agree with Vassyana, and would say something to this effect should be noted here, perhaps prominently at the top of this page, as the proper consensus for anything when inclusion on the list is disputed. No more arguments for individual films going into what constitutes a Zombie Movie, and whether each specific film qualifies as one. Just, if reliable references can be provided (and are provided), that's it. No need for any discussions.Number36 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fifth Opinion. I appreciate the sentiments of opinions 3 & 4, I can't say that I disagree. But still, I wish to point out some things. What constitutes a typical "modern" zombie film will likely not be the same as what defined one in the past, particularly prior to the 1960's. So much so that finding modern citation could be difficult, because critics often forget the original roots of the genre. In this particular discussion I'd like to add that Possession and Zombies actually historically DO very much go hand-in-hand. Even in the original and contemporary mythology/religious practices that still exist in the real world. Classic examples of zombie films include "White Zombie" (mentioned in the intro - and a possession film), later, "Serpent and the Rainbow" (on the list), and a huge host of pre-1960 films that first fit into the original zombie genre. Particularly regarding voodoo possession. Yes, there were "zombies" before Romero. It's just that currently the undead zombie is the stereotype. Technically, every Frankenstein film is also a zombie film, but yet that character is often lumped into the monster category. However, I haven't seen GoM, so I can't say on this particular film. The movie was so bad I couldn't watch more than a few minutes. I hope that it not being a particularly well received film is not what is keeping it off of this list. First because that's not fair, and second because there are a hell of lot of bad films already in the article. Speaking of which, why are there no Frankenstein films here? --Trippz 15:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

On the Frankenstein suggestion, it would need an RS that referred to them as such and/or discussed them in that context, which I don't think overly probably in this case.Number36 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

yeah, that's the problem. I'm still looking for a citable source, but because he/it has a status all his own, its a point of contention. Eye of the beholder and all that. I'll keep looking --Trippz 09:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The list

So, even if there is no article about the film (in this case Mulva: The Zombie Ass Kicker) shoouldn't the film be on the list anyways, even if it is direct-to-dvd? I mean, what is the purpose of this list, to list all movies about zombies that HAVE articles in Wikipedia or list all movies about zombies. When I first encountered the list I though it wa a list of all zombie movies and frankly, I used it to get ideas to add to my Netflix queue. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 04:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree here, the article is called "List of Zombie Films", not "List of Zombie Films That Have Articles on Wikipedia."S0343463 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. The list is a list of notable Zombie films (i.e. films with articles to substantiate notability). IrishGuy ^talk 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles on wikipedia should be irrelevant as to whether something is notable I think. External secondary sources should define notability. Notability is also about context, something might not be notable enough for an article in it's own right, but still be notable within the context of another article, as a relevant/notable fact concerning the subject of that article, or in this case list. If the subject of this list is Zombie movies, then it would probably be relevant to include any properly released Zombie movie.Number36 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)"

Also, no one may have bothered to actually write an article on that, as it happens with any other things. So, this should not dictate whether it is in the list. As it stands, the list is missing tons of zombie movies that shold be added. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Irishguy, I see you have put the note back re the discussion above, I feel you are mistaken, as you cite WP:NOTE, as that guideline is pretty clear where it states; These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Also, as I understand it, it is incorrect to use wikipedia itself as an indicator of notability, or as a reference of any kind, all information should be garnered, and preferably referenced, from reliable external sources. I'm not going to edit-war obviously, so I'll leave the page as it is for now, but I'll need a reason for why what I've pointed out doesn't apply, to change my position on this.Number36 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You stated: Articles on wikipedia should be irrelevant as to whether something is notable I think. so I pointed out that WP:NOTE says quite the opposite. As for adding non-notable films without articles to the list, as I noted before, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you take it that [WP:NOTE] says the opposite? If you mean that as it appears, then I think there's a logical flaw in your argument, just because all A equal B, or All article topics (should) equal having notability, does not mean all B equal A, or Having notability equals having an article on the topic. And that still ignores my main, and over-riding point, that wikipedia should not be used as a reference of any kind, which is what I meant by saying that it should be irrelevant. As well as the fact that as WP:NOTE says, the guidelines for notability apply to the subject of the article not the contents. The threshold for notability within an article should be taken in context to the subject of the article, i.e. if something is a notable in relation to the subject, not whether that something is notable in isolation. As the subject of the list is Zombie Movies, Zombie Movies are notable and relevant to the subject.

If you read Wikipedia is not a directory, which you cite, it applies to the article as a whole, and not one of the five points it lists would seem to apply to this case, neither do those listed under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the list were on a subject that had not enough notability it might apply (To the entire article that is, as opposed to any individual piece of content), but since the subject of the list is Zombie Movies, and if that is accepted as a notable subject, then properly released Zombie Movies are relevant to that subject and should be listed. Also please understand that I do not mean to give an impression of a negative or disrespectful tone in my reply, but am merely presenting the situation as I perceive it.Number36 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You stated: Articles on wikipedia should be irrelevant as to whether something is notable I think. Whereas WP:NOTE states: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". How do you not see that the two are polar opposites? Your opinion doesn't fit within the notability guidelines. This isn't a list of every zombie film ever. It is a list of notable zombie films, i.e. zombie films with articles. IrishGuy ^talk 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

hm, this is difficult, unfortunately you don't seem to follow my meaning. Those two things are absolutely not polar opposites, and I'm not sure how you think they are, in light of my explanations above, however since you obviously do think they are, then you must be interpreting what I have said, in way other than that which I have intended it, perhaps I am at fault in my phrasing. So I will endeavour to explain my position as clearly as I can;

1. You forward that only films which are notable should be added to the list.

2. You define 'notable' as only films with wikipedia articles.

3. Based on the guidelines you cite, you seem to arrive at this definition because wikipedia articles should be on notable subjects.

4. I counter that as I understand it, articles on wikipedia are irrelevant to whether something is notable, and have since expanded on what I mean by that, the most salient points being;

a. It appears to be appealing to a logical fallacy, if all A equal B, all B equal A. In this instance, that having a wikipedia article equals being a notable subject (or should), but it doesn't follow therefore that being a notable subject equals having a wikipedia article.

b. Context. The notability of something within an article is taken in context, as the notability of that thing in relation to the subject of the article. Notability criteria for an article on the other hand is based on of the whether the subject of the article itself is notable in and of itself, which is a completely different criteria.

c. Most importantly. This uses wikipedia itself as a source to determine whether or not something is 'notable', contrary to the established principle that only reliable external sources and references are acceptable sources.

I hope that makes my point less ambiguous to you. Cheers. Number36 (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is the problem. :) :2. You define 'notable' as only films with wikipedia articles. I never said that. I said the articles are of notable films, hence them not being deleted. I never said that only films with articles are notable, merely that films with articles are notable....otherwise the articles wouldn't exist. Now, if a film is notable and doesn't have an article...create an article. At that point, feel free to add it to this list. IrishGuy ^talk 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But you did state however; notable Zombie films (i.e. films with articles to substantiate notability). By saying 'i.e.' ('that is'), a term used to define meaning, you appeared, to me, to be defining what you meant by 'notable Zombie film' as 'films with articles to substantiate notability'. So hopefully you can see why I would have taken that meaning. Especially when as I said, we shouldn't use wikipedia to substantiate anything, but always external sources.

As to your point about creating an article, please see point 4.b., the criteria of what constitutes notability for the creation of an article is different than the criteria of notability for inclusion within this article. Simply put, if it's notable within the subject of this article, it doesn't matter if it has an article of it's own or not.Number36 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

4.b, however, has absolutely no guideline to back it up. It is simply your personal opinion about what should be allowed. IrishGuy ^talk 01:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, actually WP:NOTE, specifically says; These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. which is exactly what I am saying.Number36 (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You stated: Simply put, if it's notable within the subject of this article, it doesn't matter if it has an article of it's own or not. Beyond the fact that there is absolutely no guideline at all that states this, that would simply lead to any YouTube video with a zombie to be added here as technically it would be a zombie film. IrishGuy ^talk 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because a youtube fan video is not notable within the subject of this list.Number36 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, it's actually your position which would need to be supported by a guideline, since you are making a positive assertion; i.e. that there needs to be an article to substantiate notability. Especially considering it goes directly against the principle that information should only be substantiated by reliable external sources. I don't need a guideline to say it doesn't need something, you do need something to assert that it does (Though as I say above, WP:NOTE does support what I'm saying in any case). Number36 (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. If I understand you correctly, your contention is that the list of Zombie films is notable and therefore each addition need not have individual notability to be on the list...merely be a zombie film. Nothing in WP:NOTE would back that up. The guidelines state: reliable sources that are independent of the subject are required to illustrate notability. A straight to DVD film (which is what started all of this) doesn't necessarily have that. And if it does, it should have an article. Ergo, the list should be for films that have articles...not a catch-all list of every zombie film anyone can think of. IrishGuy ^talk 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you do not understand me correctly, firstly as I have already pointed out WP:NOTE states These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. , WP:NOTE is simply not applicable to a discussion about content as defined by its own parameters. Secondly I did not say content does not require notability, I said that the criteria for it's notability should be taken in context, that is in relation to the subject, in conjunction with pointing out that reliable external sources are required to substantiate notability. Thirdly nowhere is there a guideline that requires anybody to create a page about a subject if it is notable, there is no onus on anyone to create a page about a film to show that it is notable, or for any other reason.Number36 (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Number 36. Further, I want to stress my earlier comment. Just because there is no article on Wikipedia relaitng to a specific movie, zombie movie in this case, does not dictate its notability. It may merely mean that no one has taken the time or effort to write an article about it. Also, a "List of zombie movies" should include zombies movies regardless of the availability of an Wikipedia article on it. It is not because we want to put together an exhaustive list but because these movies should be included in the list because of their main theme, i.e. zombies. Lastly, including the movies that do not have article may encourage people to create the articles, it kinda makes editors aware that there are articles that should be created. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I really must agree with Charleenmerced and Number36 here. Nowhere does it say "wikipedia article=notability". Consensus=notability.S0343463 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

IrishGuy...As the contributor to many lists on films, I have to say that you should step back and allow the addition of films which have not yet had articles written about them. The fact that you will revert any addition on a film just because it doesn't have an article is just wrong, in my opinion. If I did that with the lists that I help maintain, I would not be able to rest. If I were to use your logic on those film lists, I would have go through and delete over half of the material on those lists. That is a lot of films that will not have any mention at all. There are many films on those lists which I would like to remove, but they qualify to be on the list, so I leave them alone.

There is a good reason to have films without articles on the list. If a film is on the list without an article and is wiki linked, it will come up red. The more times that film without an article has a link, the higher on the wanted articles list it will be.

I think that you are overruled on this subject by the people that have been discussing this with you over the past few days. I think it is absurd to limit any film list in this fashion.

I feel that if a film has the corporeal living dead without bandages and fangs, the film should be listed here, no matter how off the wall it is. Any film with reanimated corpses would apply to this list. Now that I think about it, I think I may add Chronicles of Riddick to the list, since that film has reanimated corpses running around killing people, even if they are highly intelligent and dexterous reanimated corpses.

In closing, I agree with Charleenmerced and Number36. - LA @ 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I don't think that the list really needs the alternate titles of those films. They clutter the list more than red links would. - LA @ 11:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While you may personally agree with the other two editors, none of you have any policy behind your opinions. IrishGuy ^talk 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It says nowhere that wikipedia article = notability.S0343463 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, time to move on from this discussion (it is too long) and we should reach a consensus, a vote should be taken. See below. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote

The proposition that has been put forward is whether the List of zombie films should include titles of movies relating to zombies even if they do not contain articles in Wikipedia. Vote either For of including the films or Against including films which do not have Wikipedia articles. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1. For including zombie films, even if they do not have a Wikipedia article. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
2. For including zombie films, even if they do not have a Wikipedia article, although I recognise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that this exercise is not binding, but can help us gauge where people stand and hopefully aid us in arriving at a consensus.S0343463 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3. For including zombie films, even if they do not have a Wikipedia article, and mirror what S0343463 said about Wikipedia not being a democracy. - LA @ 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
4. For the reasons I've outlined above. Also, in reference to the above discussion, and it's unfortunate, apparent stalling; Irishguy, it appears to me, that you keep repeating that none of us have any policy or guideline to back our position up, and citing WP:NOTE. I, in answer to that, have repeatedly pointed out exactly which part of WP:NOTE supports what I'm saying, and why I think it shows that your application of WP:NOTE is incorrect in this case. In conjunction with pointing out that, even if it were valid to apply WP:NOTE to content, your contention that we use wikipedia to substantiate notability, goes directly against wikipedia policy in that reliable external sources only should be used to substantiate information, such as notability, not wikipedia itself.

While I continue to assume good faith, there's no point in my continuing to repeat these answers, to your repeated assertions, when they're not in turn being engaged or even acknowledged. I presume that, for one reason or another, my meaning hasn't been expressed in a way which is clear to you, despite my best efforts to do so (As would appear to be the case when you incorrectly understood my position to be that I was contending content doesn't need notability).Number36 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

1. For. BUT only for films that could have a wikipedia article. Or this list could (and would) include indie films made by middle-schoolers, or F-list, direct-to-video films from third-rate film festivals. It would (and will based on indie content producers that try to use Wikipedia as fee advertising) become exhaustive to the point of becoming irrelevant.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
2. For though I agree with the points made above that the list should not be exhaustive (there are far to many than could be listed practically) and should concern itself with notable films. Possibly the articles name could be changed to: List of notable zombie films to reflect this. Notability can be for a wide variety of reasons and I suggest the re-introduction of this criteria to the article could improve its quality, as then it would make sence to recategorise films by their notable quality rather then by alphabetical order. For example: highest grossing zombie films, comedy zombie films, the first zombie films.
3. For - but only for films that have some degree of notability and can be cited to a reliable independent source. Lists are useful for covering things that are verifiable and somewhat notable but about which we don't have enough information to write a separate article. But the list shouldn't be used to cover every zombie flick created by a film student somewhere as part of a class project. PubliusFL (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

Per WP:LIST: any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space IrishGuy ^talk 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This list does not exist primarily for maintenance or development purposes, so that quote has nothing to do with what we're talking about.SaintCyprian ^Talk 21:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The argument for allowing numerous redlinks is to allow for the possibility of articles to be created later. That is development puposes. IrishGuy ^talk 00:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then surely you should remove the linking function instead of removing the item from the list. This list is a list of zombie films, and inventing criteria for notability instead of relying on verifiability is original research and is not appropriate. SaintCyprian ^Talk 02:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree...hence my quoting actual policy instead of personal opinion. You, however, haven't. IrishGuy ^talk 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you agree then why have you been removing whole films instead of simply taking away the red-link function? And I did link to original research because your tendency to invent criteria for inclusion is original research. SaintCyprian ^Talk 02:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Constantly repeating it won't make it true. I have quoted policy, not "invented criteria for inclusion". You, however, have provided nothing more than a personal opinion. You like arguing as this talk page can attest. IrishGuy ^talk 03:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't true and frankly I think it's unfair for you to you accuse me of arguing for the sake of arguing. You deleted Days of Darkness earlier, which is a zombie film. Why did you delete it? It was a zombie film, and this is a list of zombie films. SaintCyprian ^Talk 03:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I was User: S0343463, and I've changed to this name because it's more normal than a bunch of numbers. User: S0343463 is now inactive. SaintCyprian ^Talk 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IrishGuy...may I ask what is the motivation for your opinion on this subject? I know that I can get pretty hard line myself when editing a list, such as List of disaster films. I have been working on it for a very long time and recently made changes that are not universally liked, but I am willing to discuss the matter. Why do you have such an animus against any film which does not have an article? Seems that you are wanting a list exclusively of Wikipedia articles that deal with the subject matter. Would you feel better if the rest of us slapped up a few starter infoboxes on all of the films that should be included and haven't been because of your personal distaste for links that are red, or non-linked articles? I guess I could go through a list of zombie films that I have laying around somewhere and see which ones need to have articles, at least an infobox with a stub template attached. That would give you a blue link and make it notable according to your definition. - LA @ 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what I said and I have clarified that numerous times. For the last time: articles must have notability to not be deleted: as such, if there is an article, the subject is notable. The article doesn't confer notability, the notability of the subject is the reason there is an article. IrishGuy ^talk 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article does not "make" something notable. What, then, does "make" something notable? SaintCyprian ^Talk 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Irishguy you say above that you have not invented any criteria for inclusion, but that is exactly what you have done, the specific criteria that to be included a film must have a wikipedia article is your invention, there is no guideline that specifically states that, and the policy of using external sources to substantiate information, such as notability, directly contradicts it (and you do specifically state that your criteria of having a wikipedia article is to substantiate notability). It also does not match current practice as far as I can tell, such as when articles on individual episodes of a television show do not have enough notability individually to justify their inclusion as per WP:NOTE, and are instead condensed into lists, as they have a collective notability. The sub-genre of Zombie films is also collectively notable so the same applies in this case, I can't see that any reason has been presented that would contradict this.

Your use of WP:LIST ignores the relevant word 'primarily', this is not the case with this list, nor resembles what is being proposed, so is irrelevant. The purpose of this list is primarily to be a list of Zombie movies, not a list of wikipedia articles on Zombie movies, such a thing already exists and it is Category:Zombie films. Nor is anybody proposing that the purpose of the page be changed to be a list of needed articles, or that it is the intended purpose of including films which do not have articles.

You continue to repeat that your position is based on policy, regardless that you have not produced any guideline or policy that directly supports your position, and specific guidelines you have referenced have been shown to not directly apply to this situation. Further my position is based on policy, that external sources and references should be used to substantiate information. This is not personal opinion but standard wikipedia practice.

I am also interested in your answer to SaintCyprians question above on what you feel does confer notability.Number36 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim: you do specifically state that your criteria of having a wikipedia article is to substantiate notability even though directly above I noted otherwise. As you simply continue to put words in my mouth and then strike down the strawmen you create, I see no point in continuing with you. See WP:NOTE and WP:LIST as I have pointed out numerous times. IrishGuy ^talk 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I am repeating what you yourself have specifically stated, from your own first post in this discussion; The list is a list of notable Zombie films (i.e. films with articles to substantiate notability). Please do not accuse me of creating straw-men and instead engage the points above in good faith.

Yes, you have cited WP:NOTE and WP:LIST numerous times, and this has in turn been repeatedly addressed; neither of those apply in this case for the reasons which have been stated, if you feel that for some reason the stated reasons are invalid, then please by all means, make some answer to the points raised, without which any further conversation is completely stalled.Number36 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I am somewhat confused as to why IrishGuy respects consensus in some areas (ie. 28 Days Later) and not in others. Is consensus less valid when IrishGuy disagrees with it? SaintCyprian ^Talk 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus for 28 Days Later didn't violate any guidelines. The idea of "I want redlinks to have ideas to fill my Netflix queue" isn't within guidelines. IrishGuy ^talk 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're blatantly setting up strawmen with the old "netflix" argument, aren't you IrishGuy? SaintCyprian ^Talk 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all: When I first encountered the list I though it wa a list of all zombie movies and frankly, I used it to get ideas to add to my Netflix queue. --Charleenmerced Still arguing for the sake of arguing? IrishGuy ^talk 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to divert us from the main issue, but your "netflix" argument is a strawman. It is an easily refutable misrepresentation of the viewpoint you are opposing. My viewpoint doesn't rest upon "netflix", it rests upon the fact that you invent standards for notability and inclusion, instead of relying on consensus or sources. SaintCyprian ^Talk 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Much akin to your complete nonsense claim that I stated that wikipedia = notability? I quoted someone, you created strawmen to continue an argument. Why not spend that time better...like actually contributing to the encyclopedia? IrishGuy ^talk 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am actively being kept from contributing here by an editor who is much more technically experienced but is completely unwilling to discuss anything. I may have been a bit hasty by defining your argument as wikipedia=notability, perhaps it would be more accurate to say "IrishGuy's opinion=notability". If I'm so far off, what then is your argument? SaintCyprian ^Talk 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that keeps you from contributing is yourself. Look at my edit history and then look at your own. See a difference? I actually contribute. You argue. Feel free to scroll up to read my various restatements of my argument...of course, that wouldn't assist you in constantly making personal attacks and strawmen. IrishGuy ^talk 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to question my motives, and you only do so because you don't want to discuss the issue. I should not be at a disadvantage here because my lack of technical ability/fact that I have a girlfriend means that I may not spend as much time on wikipedia as some other users; it defies the anti-elitist ideals of the project. I'll repeat: If I'm so far off, what then is your argument? SaintCyprian ^Talk 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: scroll up. You should be able to find time in your busy schedule to do that, no? You seem to have ample time to start arguments. IrishGuy ^talk 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I scrolled up and found this: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. The list is a list of notable Zombie films (i.e. films with articles to substantiate notability). IrishGuy talk 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)" Guess I wasn't far off. SaintCyprian ^Talk 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

...and casually ignored: I never said that. I said the articles are of notable films, hence them not being deleted. I never said that only films with articles are notable, merely that films with articles are notable....otherwise the articles wouldn't exist. Now, if a film is notable and doesn't have an article...create an article. At that point, feel free to add it to this list. and If I understand you correctly, your contention is that the list of Zombie films is notable and therefore each addition need not have individual notability to be on the list...merely be a zombie film. Nothing in WP:NOTE would back that up. The guidelines state: reliable sources that are independent of the subject are required to illustrate notability. A straight to DVD film (which is what started all of this) doesn't necessarily have that. And if it does, it should have an article. Ergo, the list should be for films that have articles...not a catch-all list of every zombie film anyone can think of. as well as everything in this whole subsection. Of course...you are still building strawmen so it doesn't behoove you to honestly quote my view. IrishGuy ^talk 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, I never said "I want redlinks to have ideas to fill my Netflix queue". IrishGuy has you have blatantly misquoted me. I said, and I quote: "When I first encountered the list I though it wa a list of all zombie movies and frankly, I used it to get ideas to add to my Netflix queue." The meaning behind my statement was that I expected to find a more "inclusive" and more "comprehensive" (I hate to use the word, but you get my meaning) list. That because I thought it provided with a good idea/look/list of the zombie movies out there, I used it to get ideas for what movies to watch. I mean, what else is this list for? To know what movies have zombies in them or are about zombies. For what can you use this list? To watch the movies, when writing a paper about zombies, when writing articles and for reference. When the list is not *more* complete because only movies with articles in Wikipedia are allowed in said list, it gives a somewhat erroneous idea to the reader that there are not that many movies out there, that those are the only movies he can get info on, etc. Instead, we can promote readers to become involved and write articles when they notice that a movie that IS listed does not have an article in Wikipedia. So, I would really appreciate is you stopped misquoting me.

Second, SaintCyprian, IrishGuy is not gonna change his mind and the argument is just going in circles. Apparently his ideas are set and that is that. Regardless, there is a vote to reach consensus going on (and by the way, Irishguy has not voted) and I think we should set a deadline for voting. I want to have a clause that anyone can, in the future, still vote and add to their discussion. And that the results of the voting, if it ever tilts in favor of "Against" will be abided by. The reason I think the voting period should end is so that we can move forward and work on improving this list (aka add the missing movies). I also want to add that when you add movies that do not have wikipedia articles in them, the person who does should add a link or source as to the "existence" of this movie in the Edit Summary. That way, we can scroll back the history when we are doubtful as to the existence of a movie. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• As an outside observer, I think it would be useful to have non-wiki movies listed, so long as they are legitimate feature films (taking IMDB as the source, for example). Having red-linked and unlinked titles of feature films serves as a resource for other zombie enthusiasts (I am not one, BTW) to expand and add wiki entries on this subject. The "Zombie Film" subject is clearly under development on wiki, and for this reason, I think this page should facilitate that process by including films that need further attention.

I am an at-a-distance, general wiki-user, to take my opinion for what it's worth. Regards, --216.161.142.10 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)