Talk:List of zombie films/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts

I feel that this article is being prevented from being constructive for certain reasons. In the interest of transparency, I think it is appropriate to disclose that I have brought up these problems at Wikipedia: wikiquette alerts, where I explained my problems in detail, with the hope of helping along consensus and building communication. SaintCyprian ^Talk 04:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many??

I added many, many movies to the list. It's my first contribution to Wikipedia and I just kind of jumped in full force. After reading this talk page (which obviously I should have done before) I frankly feel guilty. I didn't realize it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of zombie films - I just thought somebody was slacking. At the bottom of the list of zombie films page it said something to the affect of "This list is incomplete. You can help by adding to it." So... I did.
If anything I've added compromises the integrity or validity of the list, you can (of course) edit it. I apologize. Liquidpig (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologise, Wikipedia is here to be improved by responsible additions. SaintCyprian ^Talk 13:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How about if we link to the ZMDB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.240.7 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

necro-mutant

Is a necro-mutant a zombie? I think it is really, although it can run a bit faster than most of them. Then The Mutant Chronicles would be a zombie film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombiesOfRock (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If it was a human, then died and was reanimated (but isn't a vampire) then I would say it was, but wait for further opinions before adding it magnius (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New online movie: survivetheoutbreak.com

A new online zombie movie, which allows the user to choose which path they want is available at: http://www.survivetheoutbreak.com/ Does anyone else know of anymore of these types of choose your own adventure movies? travb (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Horror of Party Beach (working title Invasion of the Zombies)?

Any thoughts on including The Horror of Party Beach? Characters in the film refer to the monsters as zombies. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please...begging you

Can somebody divide the films in the years they are made, It really makes it difficult for me to find the latest zombie films...

and by the way, is it also possible for someone to put a section for Upcoming Zombie Films

Please... --17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.194.9 (talk)

You can re-sort the list by clicking on the little arrows at the top of the column. In this case you'd want the year column. Also, the list does contain at least three up-coming titles. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

References Section

There seems to be an issue with the References section. Items past 19 do not appear. Surv1v4l1st (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They're in a scroll box magnius (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At least they were...odd magnius (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When I posted, they were indeed in a scrolling list. When you scrolled to the very bottom, it was only footnote 19. Now it appears to not be scrolling and cut off at 14. Very strange. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been resolved. See Template_talk:Reflist#List_of_zombie_movies for info. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I'd like to note that WP:Film does not consider imdb to be a reliable source as the information on imdb is user-generated. I've already found errors on imdb before, so it should probably be noted that this website may not be the best for sourcing this article. I know there are over 300 films cited here, but to get this list up to standard, we should consider the validity of the films and the source we are getting them from. Anyone have any alternating ideas? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tons of non-notable films

Why do we have all of these unlinked titles? If there's no article for a film, it shouldn't be here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This has already been gone over extensively within the section on this talk page entitled 'The List'.Number36 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Anton ANDERSSON GoEs GaYbAr[23]" (2010)

The reference links to the imdb entry for "After Sundown". Editorial commentary on that movie or otherwise, it's just inappropriate. Since the page is currently protected, could someone with access remove this link, please? Oddmonster (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Evil Dead/Army of Darkness is not a zombie movie

The Evil Dead movies and Army of Darkness were removed. Aren't they generally considered zombie movies or am I mistaken? (Cardsplayer4life 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

There are no zombies in those films. The "monsters" are possessed by evil which is quite different. IrishGuy ^talk 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but this strikes me as the same type of distinction people were trying to make for the "28 _____ Later" movies, because the people were infected instead of being "living dead". Of course, they still were in the zombie genre if you apply it to how the movie is laid out, the theme of the movie, etc. I really need to watch the Evil Dead/Army of Darkness movies to see, though. Are the people being chased and if they are caught then they are "possessed" or whatever happens to them? If so, I would say it would be a zombie movie, but if not, then no. I do get lots of hits when I search for "Evil Dead zombie" on google, but maybe that is just a coincidence. (Cardsplayer4life 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Zombies are usually dead first, but in the few distinctions where they aren't dead first, they are infected. In Evil Dead they are demonically possessed which is very different. If Evil Dead is a zombie film, so is The Exorcist. IrishGuy ^talk 23:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will take your word for it on this one. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

How is a re-animated corpse possessed by a demon less of a zombie than a living person possessed by an alien entity (see Slither). If Slither is on this list, then the Evil Deads should be in my opinion. I'm not necessarily arguing for the inclusion of the Evil Deads, but rather that they and Slither get the same treatment Jbramley (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, but to add this, especially when it's inclusion is challenged by another editor, based solely on our personal interpretation would be OR & POV, however if there can be found (and I think it more than likely that there can be), an external reference from a reliable and relevant source which uses the term zombie film or the word Zombie to describe the monsters, then it can be added with that reference. Though I would have thought that Evil Dead wouldn't have been a contentious addition myself, the deadites are as close to the classical film depiction of Zombies as I could imagine, corpses reanimated by evil spirits, rotting flesh, a desire to kill the living, anybody who dies becomes one, etc etc.Number36 (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a major proponent of the inclusion of the Evil Dead films (I was shocked to find them not listed), and I suppose I would just throw in my own mix of evidence. For one, the idea of the Evil Dead "Deadites" being monsters rather than zombies is contradicted within the list several times: for one, C.H.U.D. (as well as its sequel) are both included on this list, despite the fact that the creatures within it are neither human, dead nor infected - they're simply...cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers. As for the argument that they are "demonically possessed" rather than "undead" or "infected", I think its important to consider the fact that - though the demonic possession can be broken - more often than not, it leads to death, and once dead, leads to the reanimation of the corpses (as seen in Evil Dead II, when Ash's girlfriend is possessed, killed by Ash, and returns from the grave). For those who would argue that this is still not satisfactory evidence - that they are still "demonically possessed" instead of zombies - I would refer back to the older concept of the zombie, which deals with the reanimation of a corpse through some form of spiritual possession (a good example of this might be White Zombie). Finally, though, I would bring my two biggest pieces of "evidence" to the table - though I'm not sure how well they will be regarded - 1) imdb (which is used as a reference for many of the other films on this list) - has lists "zombie" as being a keyword for the film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083907/keywords) and 2) the musical version of Evil Dead (Evil Dead: The Musical) refers to the creatures within the storyline several times as "zombies" (i.e. "What the f*** was that? Your sister has turned into a zombie" from the song "What the f*** was that?"). Anyway, I don't know if anyone is even monitoring this, but if there is, I'd like to hear someone's feedback. FallenSon (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

28 days later was a zombie because they were dead, only wanted to feed on the living while in Evil Dead there is no actual zombies and more like demons since there Deadites which is like poltergeist because they took over people even if there living to torture people so evil dead series isn't a zombie series because there possessed for a start, 2ndly they don't eat flesh and they talk which last time i checked zombies don't talk, tend to like eating people, even the one under the cellar is a witch or walking skeleton in the 3rd but theres no zombies whatsoever so its been removed till someone proves to me differently--Ronnie42 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly clearly written, but I'm calling OR, Zombies aren't real so any properties you perceive them to have are moot. Though as I said above they're as close to the classical depiction of Zombies as you're likely to get, decaying corpses reanimated by evil spirits/magic that spread by infecting the living with a bite. But for the purposes of Wikipedia we merely need a reliable source that says they are zombie films, or calls the subjects of the films zombies. As mentioned above the musical version of the film refers to the deadites as zombies, and plucking the first ref to hand allmovie.com has 'zombies' as one of the film's themes. Not to be contentious, but it's not correct to say we need to prove this to you, it's what RS say that matter. Also the subjects of 28 Days Later were not dead, they were living people infected with a virus.Number36 (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

sounds to me like this musical needs to do more research also this wiki is to define zombie movies, none of the deadites in evil dead were bitten to be infected or crave to eat also its not me you want to prove to but the people reading this since i don't know anyone who would class evil dead as a zombie film since there's not horde's of zombies chasing people down, etc... and they have no need to eat the flesh which are common needs of any zombie also a musical is not prove since that's nothing to do with the movie. if we'r going to add evil dead then poltergeist may as well be a zombie film but how many can agree with that? --Ronnie42 (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Being bitten to become a zombie is a relatively new thing to the undead variety of zombie genre (and not uniform within the genre). In the classic Romero flicks it was just that the recently deceased were rising. I believe it was his partner who went on to do the Living Dead films who stuck to the "bites only" variety. After reading all of this debate, what I'm wondering is if we could find enough sources to talk about films that are considered within the zombie genre by many but are disputed. For example, it's not too hard to find references in reviews of the 28 Days/Weeks Later films that note the debate amongst fans. Are there enough sources out there talking about this with The Evil Dead films that we could do likewise? Millahnna (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Poltergeist this is sort of what a deadite is so technically that's the closest you'll get to evil dead while the only thing i will agree on is that the movies are a horror but as far as i'm aware evil dead. if you can class a poltergeist as a zombie then that's you up to you but last time i checked they were completely different things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie42 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you personally think deadites or zombies are, or how 'people you know' would categorize the films, the only thing that matters is whether a reliable source WP:RS refers to the films and/or monsters as Zombies as shown above. Your reasoning above is original research WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Zombies have a broader range of possible characteristics than you seem to be aware. Indeed the original basis of zombie lore were merely people enslaved by a sorcerer for labour, either revived from the dead or given a drug that made them appear dead, nothing at all like the shambling directionless flesh eaters of the Romero-zombie apocalypse sub-genre, and even then this concept from Vodou has been combined in modern culture with older mythologies and traditions going right back to Gilgamesh, where a quite common cause of the reanimation of the dead was believed to be evil-spirits or demons. Even certain vampire traditions have been folded into the modern concept of a zombie, most overtly via Richard Matheson's I am Legend and it's influence on Romero, but if you look at older concepts of Vampire from folklore, dating to before the late 19th C and the popularization of books like Dracula, they have more in common with the modern Zombie than they do with Edward Cullen, Angel or the suave, charismatic Count Dracula image. There isn’t a clear crisp single definition of what zombies are, the modern concept draws on and has evolved from a number of different ideas and sources, and not to mention, because they’re not actually real. The Evil Dead films may be an outlier compared with the more prevalent modern depictions, but they do employ defining tropes and concepts of the genre, not just in what the creatures are, but in how the story is told.Number36 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

firstly i have already gaven a decent explanation that a deadite is a demon which posses people which may also be know as a poltergeist, its not a 'opinion'--Ronnie42 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And the Great Zombie Debate continues! Seriously? I don't see why Evil Dead/AoD movies would be excluded. They certainly fit the definition of Zombie, and 3rd party sourcing shouldn't be too hard if it is causing that much grief - I just found a ton of them through Google. These particular zombies happen to be of the reanimated dead type, and also "possessed", demon or otherwise. Yes, possession and zombies are VERY well connected, even longer standing than flesh eating and zombies. And "deadite" is an in-universe term that the Raimi schoolhouse likes to banter around. How is this any different from "ghoul", "flesh-eater", "golem", or even "revenant" as a term applied to zombies? Call them what you will, they are all within the same group. The only sub-class of zombie that has broken away to achieve a notable stature separate from zeds is probably the vampire, as someone mentioned above, and maybe the mummy, and begrudgingly I suppose Frankenstein (though this one I still argue). Zombie is a broad category, and the constant debate on what makes a zombie a "zombie", is silly. Don't take this so seriously, after all you are talking about the undead (and not in all cases). Sheesh! If this keeps up the zombie will become as emasculated as the vampire. Just what we need, monsters that are too pathetic and take themselves too seriously to be funny, and too popularized and sexed up to be horrifying. Please, don't kill the zombie! This just in: Fourteen year old emo-goths already killed the vampire and the werewolf, please don't let them get to the zombies too. There is NO canonical "zombie", and there never should be! Evil Dead IS a zombie movie! 28 Days IS a zombie movie! Hell, even The Crazies IS a zombie movie! Being dead doesn't = zombie. Eating flesh doesn't = zombie, any more than being partial to brains does. Also, being possessed doesn't = zombie. But, any of these things could = zombie. The linking quality seems to be "emptiness of person", often what physically remains, being "un-itself" and subject to instincts and desires that are not of their own choosing, be it brains, flesh, blood, revenge, or historically the will of a controlling operator. In our largely secular time, the controlling operator has just been transplanted by science, in the form of virus or toxins - sometimes themselves even being used by scientists/corporation as the controlling operator to create a zombie workforce, army, or superbeing. These "secular zombies" are not the only types to be found in both mythology or contemporary works. To exclude all other types of zombies does a huge disservice to the creature and the genre. Listen, people are using this list to identify zombie films, and their views are not always of the flesh-eater variety, so keep that in mind when thinking about which films should, or should not, be listed here. BTW - if someone doesn't add Frankenstein to this list, I will lose all respect for it ... and then probably be tempted to add it myself. You could even consider The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, or Life Without Soul for that matter. White Zombie the first zombie film ... ha, bulls***! Its probably the first one with "zombie" in the title, and likely why it is so often sourced by lazy ass writers who don't know what the hell they are talking about when doing a hack job piece for an equally dumb ass editor. --Trippz 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Trippz is correct. Ronnie42, as I said before, your 'explanation' is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it's moot. Please do not remove these again against consensus and without justification.Number36 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

how the hell is the movie not the flipping source? there's no flesh eating zombies whatsoever, there flipping demons taking over things like poltergeist fact, how can anyone disagree with the actual movie?, then try say something else says its different. its not a opinion the facts are right there in the flipping movie--Ronnie42 (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie42, please read the above linked policies, and specifically to your last point WP:PRIMARY. I have now added refs in-article, they really should have been there anyway, do not remove these again your reasons explicitly violate the above linked policies, are flawed, and go against consensus.Number36 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it again, fleshing eating has nothing to do with being a zombie. If it did, then Silence of the Lambs would be considered a zombie film. Its not. Zombie is a state of being, not a particular behavior. I'd recommend reading about zombies, including their history, and you will quickly see that demon possession is commonplace in the folklore. --Trippz 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

like i said before deadites are demons that possess humans, even a hand which has no characteristics of any known zombie type thing even with the typical or non typical, to re-add them without a decent enough reason is why wikipedia is becoming a unreliable source if you had read what i had said before it does not involve any vodoo like some people seem to think makes a zombie but that's just a zombie like state while deadites are demons that take over peoples body like a poltergeist which is a already backed up my source wiki.--Ronnie42 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the linked policies for your own understanding, Wikipedia is specifically identified as not to be used as a tertiary source WP:PSTS. Your other reasoning is still WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and is also incorrect in its specifics, as Trippz said I recommend reading about the history of Zombies and the genre, your concept of them seems quite narrow and overly based on prevalent modern popular culture depictions. Not that it matters however to whether they should be included in this list or not, the only relevant policy is WP:RS, which this is supported by.Number36 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

so far you claim that the opera mentions them as zombie but like i said before the movie is a reliable source, to add them on based on opinions since the movie clearly mentions them as them as being controlled by demons, like i said before a reliable source would be google poltergeist description, you'll notice they roughly say the same thing, need someone with a book to help get rid of possession. furthermore there isn't much else you can argue on this i have already given you 2 strong sources : evil dead movies/poltergeist which have been known to make people believe that there were possessed by the devil source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Demonic_possession i would find other sources but i bet there's probably a ton in that chat page or via google--Ronnie42 (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We're going in circles here. Ronnie I'm genuinely sorry and trying to be helpful here, but you clearly still haven't read, or haven't understood, the linked policies, suffice to say your reasons are not valid, if you persist in removing these films from the list you may receive a warning for disruptive editing WP:DIS. I will urge you one more time to read the linked policies and the reasons for them, they are central to the function of Wikipedia and continued misunderstanding of them may hinder your progress here.Number36 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If i have to press this further i will, its bad enough people taking the piss about universal soldier being a zombie movie which it clearly isn't but by adding this by mentioning that evil dead opera is a zombie theme is not a source since the opera is not the same as the movie which i have already mentioned several times which is not proper WP:OR and you can debate your opinion all you want but unless you get direct proof from Sam Raimi or a credibible source then I may need to report this page for vandelism since the page is there to name iconic zombie movies which evil dead has never been proven, to add evil dead 1,2 and not 3 seems biast since these movies all contain Deadites which are demons that take over people which I have already backed as poltergeist with the wiki link which wouldn't be there without a WP:OR also i understand you may believe different things but the facts are there--Ronnie42 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake .... here: http://www.thingsthatgoboo.com/monsters/zombiesmovies.htm] , a study guide, the flippn UK Telegraph ... any of these will work, but the Telegraph is the best one IMO. Listen Ronnie, I completely sympathize with you. I believe Frankenstein should be on this list too, but have yet to find a source, so its not there ... yet. I don't know anything about an opera you mention (unless its Evil_Dead:_The_Musical, but that's not a film and shouldn't be here, if it is), or you are just trying to give the trilogy a classy name. You may not see these films as Zombie flicks, but yours is just one opinion - and some share it. But ... the above cites clearly show that it is referred to as a Zombie film by many credible sources. Having been on your end of these types of arguments, I know how it feels. Also, I know you are going to lose. Not a debate between myself or Number, but one with Wikipedia. You seem to be under the erroneous belief that Wikipedia is a credible source for verified information. Its not. Its a web-o-pedia, that does not present the "truth", but rather seems to be a place were editors support their comments with citations, and those comments are not always the truth. Sad, but true, considering its global web dominance. The cites show it IS a zombie film, according to those sources. If you want to add ED or AoD to a possession, poltergeist, demon film list, then you probably can. It is possible for films to be more than one genre, and in fact genre bending is typical of these types of films, as to keep them energetic. Even if you find a source saying that it is a "demon" film, the above sources will still be sufficient for it to be on this list. Funny, but even if Raimi stated they were not zombies (something I have yet to hear), it wouldn't matter ... because other sources claim it is. Case in point, Romero and NoTL, he has repeatedly commented that he never intended the original zombies to be what what most people now call the "Romero Zombie" - yet it will always be considered a zombie flick in the media, and probably should. I'm not adding the cites, someone else can if they want. But I may rewrite the intro to address these concerns ... provided I can find cites. --Trippz 11:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Ok people have different opinions on what a zombie is but how can someone have a biast opinion, say Evil dead has zombies while the 3rd doesn't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Also while I'm here anyone else thinking Frankenstein is a zombie will lose their credibility too but anyway there's a big different between a zombie, a demon or we might as well be calling gou-alds zombies which would stupid.

Asinine idiocy of including Horror of Party Beach

This movie is categorically NOT a zombie film. What is in the movie is sea beasts, plain and freakin' simple. Watch it. NOW. See. Okay? Or just take my word for it as I finished watching it not 4.7 minutes ago (give or take a little, of course.) So please remove Horror Of Party Beach or ye shall feel the wrath of, ummm, something, like an evil possessed rapid bunny or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.197.35 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Horror of Party Beach is included in The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia by Peter Dendle (ISBN 9780786463671). While calling the sea creatures "zombies" may be a stretch, the shooting title of the film was Invasion of the Zombies, the film drops the z-bomb frequently, and the maid, Eulabelle, even fashions a vodou doll for protection. I say while a weak zombie movie, it should be included here because of these reasons. LlamaScout (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Read my lips -- there are NO zombies in that movie.

I can shoot a movie about frogs in Kansas and call it Prostitutes Of Czechoslovakia but that doesn't mean it should be included on a list of films about prostitutes in Czechoslovakia. Would you include my frogs in Kansas movie on a list of movies about prostitutes of Czechoslovakia? I sure hope you wouldn't. That would be STUPID if you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove the 1971 TV movie "Escape"

Having this movie listed, along with Horror of Party Beach, is lying to people telling them they might actually watch a zombie movie if they choose to press play on said titles. You should not condone this lying. Because of that lying, I wasted my time on both movies.

I just watched Escape and once again -- there are NO zombies in this movie. Please don't say it's in someone's book so it should be included. That's lame. There isn't even the word "zombie" in the movie. It's about a playboy escape artist/private eye who tracks down a scientist whose scientist brother creates something that can then be used to create man-made life. But the scientist never actually creates a monster or zombie or anything at all. NADA. NOTHING. ZILCH. I should just delete the listing myself but I thought I'd type this out instead.

Listen, instead of trusting a book, why not view questionable films yourself and discuss with someone who has also seen the movie? Yeah? Sounds smart to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDB and sub-lists - Page clean up needed.

As per WP:RS/IMDB IMDB is not reliable source, this has also been previously discussed in the sections above. The criterion for addition is a reliable source that classifies the film in question as a Zombie film or otherwise explicitly makes reference to zombies in connection with the film. Primarily of course because of WP:RS and secondly to avoid all discussion here based on personal OR opinions of what constitutes a Zombie film. I propose a short period where anyone interested can go through the list, about a month is reasonable I think, and replace IMDB refs with appropriate reliable sources, established films reviewers for example, published authoritative works, and so on. After that deletion of those films that are only supported by IMDB with a link back to the archived version of the list on the talk page so people can easily access it for reference if they wish to re-add any of those deleted with reliable sources in the future.

Also, on a related note, I see at some point someone has added sections for television shows, even individual episodes, documentaries and short films. I don't think any of this falls under the definition of this page, and note the vast bulk of these sub-lists are also only supported by IMDB.Number36 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand deleting the television episodes and series, but documentaries and short films are zombie films as well. What if they were cited by something other than IMDb? ONEder Boy (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with documentaries, as I'd say these were films about Zombie films rather than Zombie films themselves. Short films... perhaps, I did consider this, but the lack of reliable sources made it a little moot. If they had a reliable source reference that referred to them as a zombie film or the subjects of the films as zombies. I'm not sure that there'd be enough notable subjects to justify splitting this into a separate list though. The main list is going to become awfully depopulated once those films only supported by IMDB are removed though, so I hope someone takes an interest in finding suitable citations from reliable sources for as many of those as possible. I'd suggest reviews (from notable reviewers or publications), or books on the genre. I'll hold off for a reasonable amount of time but the article has been tagged since August 2009.Number36 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple listings of the same movie with different names.

One example is 'Aaah! Zombies!!' (2010) This is the name they used when it was released on DVD in 2010, but further down the list we also have 'Wasting Away' (2007), this is the same movie which had a different title when it was originally released. I don't know the protocol for correcting the listings, which should stay as the main listing and which should be the alternate title? 111.92.178.246 (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Another example is 'George A. Romero's: Survival of the Dead' (2010) it is listed again further down as 'Survival of the Dead' 2010. 111.92.178.246 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

zombie fan - list of chronologically listed zombie films

although in russian, but still understandable. Nice to check with. Pessimist2006 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Evil Dead Trilogy

This is a discussion moved from two talk pages regarding the validity of considering the Evil Dead films 'Zombie Films'. I've made my points clear below - I understand that they do not fit the traditional 'Zombie' criteria, but they are considered Zombie flicks by reliable, verifiable publications, and so, by Wiki Guidelines they belong on this list. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This entry on the admin notice boards by Ronnie42 is also relevant.

From the user talk pages:

Dude you can't force opinions on others. I have already stated a fact that you can't count evil dead 1,2 and then put ears in fingers and say evil dead 3 doesn't have zombies since the same movies, continue to vandalise then you expect a editing ban yourself. I already have proven what I have said, if you don't like it file a report, I will fight you to the end on this one since your clearly your trolling for a response. --Ronnie42 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What opinion? This information is cited; it's not an opinion. Further, why is this edit showing up as having been done by Cfred? --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: Ronnie42 left the message above on User:Williamsburgland. I moved the message from there to User talk:Williamsburgland, which is how I got involved in all this. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand, apologies to CFred. Ronnie, you're approaching this in utterly the wrong way. Name calling and aggression are going to get you nowhere. Now, as to the Evil Dead films, this isn't my personal opinion. Each movie is referenced by verifiable sources as zombie films. The fact that you don't consider them as such because they don't meet classic zombie criteria is irrelevant. If you wish to discuss this in a coherent, adult and non confrontational manner, I suggest you do so on the talk page of the entry in question. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, because it seems there may be some confusion on this, all three Evil Dead films are on the list. I understand your opposition to calling the Deadites zombies, but the films are indeed considered Zombie Films by reliable sources, and as such are on the list. I am now going to move this discussion to the articles talk page. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is he doesn't realise Army of Darkness is on the list.Number36 (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Slander of name calling is not what I have done which is a lie. I have only stated facts. Unless you get a direct from sam raimi that deadites are zombies then it should be removed completly. Also the strange 'thing' is it keeps constantly removing, adding when Evil Dead 3 clearly wasn't on the list. This matter has filed, reported. There was no mention as Deadites in the movies being refered to as zombies at any moment. Some people claiming Evil Dead movies are zombies are opinions and not facts. If you want to add them you should discuss why instead of vandalising. I also have stated previously why there not zombie films, that has been ignored which is a fact. Further changes to the list by User:Williamsburgland will be issued with a warning. --Ronnie42 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I forget Deadites are Poltergeist http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Poltergeist Or we might as well count this as a zombie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdSnim1rDLw If you watch the video thats what Deadites are but the only diffence is they deteriorate after a while, become insane, taunt there victims like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnigxYPl_qo People seem to mix up zombie like state with real zombies. Deadites are intelligent, think for themselves, there only want to murder people but not for food, there more like parasites. They don't control from a distance like with witchcraft, yes I know theres one witch in Evil 1/2 but that witch didn't control any of the demons. This entire page needs to be either changed to zombie like state or removed from the list. --Ronnie42 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie, please familiarize yourself with WP:Verifiability. As Number36 Stated, Evil Dead 3, known as Army of Darkness, is' on this list and always had been. As I've already mentioned, the fact that the Deadites do not meet the traditional Romero style criteria of zombies is irrelevant - they are considered zombie films by reliable, notable critics, and furthermore, they do rise from the dead and kill people. The introduction to this article clearly states that 'Zombie' is a broad term, and that while there are clear exclusions like vampires, and presumably poltergeists and other ghosts, the genre is more inclusive than exclusive.

I feel I've made my point clear on this as have you, and I'm open to hearing what others have to say to reach a consensus, but what's not going to work for either of us is you pushing your point of view to the end (that's almost a direct quote from you) are throwing warnings around. Calling me a troll is indeed name calling - I've got 4 years and a couple thousand edits under my belt; I think I've earned good faith.

In case you missed this the first time, I'll say it again - I understand where you're coming from. As a matter of fact, the first edit I made on this article a year or two ago was to remove the 28 Days Later films as the 'infected' are not dead and are clearly not zombies. After my edits were reverted I monitored the discussion which brought about the consensus that despite these movies not containing zombies, they do follow the format of zombie films, and reliable, notable film critics consider them as such. The consensus is that the pathogenesis which produces the 'zombie' is irrelevant, it's simply that the film is considered a zombie film by notable critics, and that the antagonists cannot be put into another broad category of movie monsters. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No you don't know where I'm coming from because 28 days had people coming from the dead eating flesh while evil dead series has none of that, its your opinion that its seen as zombie movie, already stated facts to why it isn't a zombie movie. It's like saying avp is about zombies but theres no zombies in it. So you agree theres no zombies but then explain why its claimed to be a zombie movie? theres no credible source from the original director cast or Sam Raimi, those reviews are opinions, not facts--Ronnie42 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie, some of your statements cause me to wonder if you've seen any of these movies. 28 Days Later did not feature people rising from the dead in any way, shape or form. "The Infected", as they are called in the movie, are people that catch "Rage", a disease developed by scientists. They can be killed like a human being, and are quite alive. Meanwhile, all three Evil Dead films do indeed feature people rising from the dead and killing people. In neither series do the 'zombies' eat people, nor is it in any way relevant. Now, onto your other statements, once again I need to suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:Verifiability. If you can find a reliable source that states that AVP is a zombie movie, then by all means add it. The fact that your personal, and frankly quite unreasonable criteria isn't being met is irrelevant - we don't need the entire cast and crew to sign notarized documents indicating that the movie contains zombies to include it on the list, it just needs to meet basic criteria and have reliable, verifiable sources.

It seems there will be no convincing you, so my suggestion would be to participate in the process of gathering consensus, and try to convince others of your point of view without being demeaning or contentious as I feel you've been in every single exchange with me. Furthermore, a quick review of your past edits indicates a history of treating talk pages as discussion forums and outright vandalism, vandalism and more vandalism. Since both movies are properly referenced, please do not remove them again until a consensus has been reached. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie you've made that exact same point in regards to 28 Days Later in earlier discussions on this page, and it was pointed out to you then that it's completely incorrect as well.Number36 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea that such an in depth discussion on this had already taken place; I'd call that a consensus. For posterity's sake, here is the discussion I am referencing: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_zombie_films&oldid=462483324

Ronnie, at this point the matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. A consensus has been reached that all three Evil Dead films qualify for inclusion of this is. Any further removal on your part would constitute disruptive editing as you've been involved in the discussion throughout. I hope this closes the matter, and I wish you the best of luck in your future editing endeavors. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously I know what Vandalism is, already reported you for Vandalim previously. 2ndly I never stated AVP was a zombie movie but was proving a point that Avp isn't but has several features that relates to taking over peoples bodies which is similar to a Deadite, I have said this countless times the source is the movie, once again, you have shown no source whatsoever from the original director even remotely calling them zombies. For the record you have already been disruptively editing the page without any facts to back up your statements. Even Ign clearly states "Sam Raimi's Evil Dead II, while not a zombie movie", source http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/05/29/resident-evil-and-the-hollywood-zombie-movie, thats a good enough reliable source last time I checked. And if thats not enough MTV even state "'The Crazies' Is Not A Zombie Movie, And Neither Are These Five Thrillers!" at http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/02/26/the-crazies-is-not-a-zombie-movie-and-neither-are-these-five-thrillers/ Do you need more proof or are you going to keep ignoring facts? And yes I have watched all 3 films even the first which is basically a more serious version of the 2nd film. Any further changes will be taken as trolling since you have ignored my statements from which I have sourced,clearly don't care if I have watched the film, made aquastations about me that weren't true. --Ronnie42 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie, the IGN reference says it isn't a zombie movie in the classic sense, it doesn't say it isn't a zombie movie, and the second link you pointed to is a blog, which isn't reliable, and it doesn't matter, because for whatever reason you're now complaining that the Crazies is not a zombie movie. I'm done trying to point you to Wikipedia protocols and policies and I'm done having this discussion. The consensus has been that these films are zombie movies since before I joined this useless discussion. Feel free to 'report me for trolling' all you like, but as I've already pointed out, you've got a long, long history of disruptive editing, treating wikipedia talk pages as a forum (which seems to be the bulk of your usage here) and outright vandalism. I'm not going to bother playing games or offering advice next time, I'm simply going to seek outside intervention. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop making stuff up. I never mentioned 'Crazies' movie. I have already reported, already told you that you have violented rules with several attacks personal/directly, avoided sources constantly, your the one with the 'disruptive editing'. This page is not a talk page, have stated facts which have been ignored, they were removed till someone can prove differently, that has not been backed up but instead re-added, been frequently disrupted by User:Williamsburgland, claiming vandalism when I have not made any random edits, mass deletes or false information. I have already seeked outside intervention, will be forwarding this on further, attacking me on my own wall to provoke responses will get you nowhere since theres threats against my account directly from you. Please refrain from posting further or will be seen as act as aggression/vandalism --Ronnie42 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. --Williamsburgland (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I Am Legend

I am legend is a movie based on a vampire book. While the movie makes the vampires seem oddly zombie like... they are not zombies, they are vampires. I have removed it from the list. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/03/i-am-legend-vampire-novel-century ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 22:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall one way or the other, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up one thing or another, but I'd just note that, as with every other argument arising from this list, what these monsters are matters less than what verifiable sources call them. Can you provide something that indicates they're vampires for sure to put the issue to rest before it rises from the dead and becomes one? ;) --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to point out that while the link regarding the book certainly helps with your point, one that specifically refences the 2007 movie would be more definitive, since filmmakers are free to change the contents of their source work as much as they see fit. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick visit to rotten tomatoes seems to reinforce the position that they can be considered zombies: the First, Second and Third reviews all refer to the monsters as zombies. That said, BOM does not seem to consider it a zombie film. I hope others join this discussion, it's an interesting one. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Roger Ebert explicitly uses zombie in his review, here I'd say that's more than good enough. He even notes it as a different presentation than the more traditional vampires from the novel it's based on, and that it represents a 'change in the nature of the creatures'.Number36 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Let's see if Teamcontra comes back within the next week or so and if not I'll just revert. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell cares what Ebert says? Did he write the book? No. They aren't zombies. They are vampires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.152.178 (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As with the above section, I didn't realize that such thorough discussions had already taken place. I'm going to revert now, and use the four references we've come up with. I think we can call that a consensus as well. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Carriers(2009)

I just removed "Carriers" (2009) from the list. Thinking it was a zombie flick, I just rented it last week and was quite disappointed to see that it had absolutely nothing to do with zombies. Instead, it had to do with a 100% fatal airborne virus and a handful of survivors trying to make it to the beach. Near the beginning of the film there is what looks like a dead body in a car, but then it opens its eyes. It looks at first glance like a zombie, but it was just someone in the final stages of the virus. The movie is 100% zombieless. Here is the removed entry: |- |Carriers || Alex Pastor / David Pastor || || 2009 || ~~

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.38.204 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2009‎ (UTC)

Well, zombies aren't necessarily the same-looking altered humans as in the popular zombie-movies. Rather it's humans who were altered from their original stand and who fed off normal humans. Pessimist2006 (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, this isn't the undead vs the contagiously violent argument, Carriers is an apocalypse film about a viral outbreak - people get infected and die horribly (think Andromeda Strain, Outbreak or Cabin Fever, not 29 Days Later). (Emperor (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC))

Please add Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2246549/ [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.14.218 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources necessary

I added a section on this back in November of last year, which has since been archived, but to re-state as per WP:RS/IMDB IMDB is not reliable source, this has also been previously discussed in the sections above. The criterion for addition that had been decided by consensus and in reference to policy in previous discussions, is that a reliable source that classifies the film in question as a Zombie film or otherwise explicitly makes reference to zombies in connection with the film should be provided, reviews from reliable sources would be a good example or possibly books on the genre. Primarily of course because of WP:RS and secondly to avoid all discussion here based on personal OR opinions of what constitutes a Zombie film or even zombies themselves (which have occurred in the past as nauseum and constitute WP:OR at best). I note someone had removed a good deal of thr cites that were there, which I have re-added, though they also very very usefully and correctly changed the imdb links from being references into the column for imdb links. The article has been tagged since August 2009 for its references not meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, that's three years ago, so I feel we should have a look at fixing this. Suggestions?Number36 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well no one seems much interested in this it seems, but I've just realised the reliable sources template was placed there because of the extensive use of imdb links being used as references. Thanks to the good work of Vanquisher.UA they no longer are being used as cites, but are simply present in their own column as extra information. This at least demonstrates the films exist (to a large degree anyway), even if not a WP:RS citation that they belong to the 'zombie film' genre. I'd also say films with 'Zombie' explicitly in the title are less urgent or requiring of a cite to confirm they are Zombie films. So as the issue is no longer the reliability of the links being used as cites, I'll remove the template. If there'd be any issue it would be that specific titles need citations, or more citations in general are needed, but this would apply as an issue more so to individual contentious additions imo, the prime examples of which have already been addressed and citations added.Number36 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think that all redlinks need removing unless they have a reliable source (at least with existing articles you can check to see if they are listed in the relevant category) - it isn't possible to have a comprehensive list of every single zombie film on here (there are 700-800, increasing by around one every few days at the moment), but we can get a solid list of the most notable examples (a lot of the recent surge are direct to video or even straight to YouTube - there are so many a lot of them are not often worth anyone covering it).

I have added four zombie movie guides to the references (using WP:CITESHORT to reduce duplication) and three of them have Google Book links where people can search for specific films, so it should be possible source most of the earlier ones using these as a basic requirement, and reliable sources should be able to cover anything more recent, so there should be no excuse for not being able to source a film. (Emperor (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

Boost that count to at least 2,000 (and those are jut the ones that have got an IMDB entry) if you include short films and the like. The list currently contains at least two shorts: Boot Hill Blind Dead and Bubba's Chili Parlor, neither of which are demonstrating notable but open the door to this list getting rapidly out of hand. (Emperor (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

Table

Why has the list of films table lost its sorting functions? It far less useful without it.122.149.119.4 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) OK now it's live again. Pardon me. 122.149.119.4 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dead Season

The link is to a 1960's Soviet spy film, not the 2012 zombie film. Also, the 2012 film has no page. Alockwood1 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

About proper consensus

One question: how many films did you see from that list of zombie movies?

• more than 450 entries in current list --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

what does this have to do with anything? it seems to fail WP:TPG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. simply interesting as for me and for others (who read this page), and this request is not obligatory for answer per any who edit/read this page! --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCHAT - This is for discussing how to improve the article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! But I don't use that request as chat!! It's request about only who seen that films only!! No more!! In any case, if that request is prohibited - delete it FREELY which may be equivalent for WITHDRAWN by poster! --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

About using IMDb at that page

Bare-URL to IMDb used as external link and counter of entries. IMDb is not used as reference so if "References" field is empty then that means "film is unreferenced" and doesn't means "film referenced by IMDb only". --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian Zombie Movie 2013

The Saif Ali Khan film "Goa Going Gone", releasing May 2013 is the Indian film industry's first "zom-com" and should be included in the list of films.

If its like the Hindu movie already listed in this list, I disagree on including it. Indian film makers are like the Dollar General of films. They mass produce but lack quality. This is not my opinion. I studied cinema in Honors curriculum. The top film makes are USA and UK according to what I was taught. I have to say of Zombie films the best, in my opinion are USA, UK and the Spanish movie Rec series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Unreleased movies by their very definition are not well known or popular. Since May 2013 has passed, either the movie became notable, or it did not, and that is the criteria that should be used for inclusion. Certainly bollywood does produce a large amount of movies (many low quality or otherwise not-notable), but that is not prejudicial against any particular movie. Each shall be judged on its own merits.--Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2013

General cleanup

The article needs to be better written in proper English. Also, the criteria should be better presented - at the moment it reads like a list of instructions to editors, rather than from the readers point of view. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

agreed. this article is a mess. you can join the criteria discussion which is going on Talk:List_of_zombie_films#Inclusion_criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Franchise Mark" column should be removed.

The "Franchise Mark" column should be merged to the "Notes" section, and explained in prose if a film is a sequel or part of a franchise, rather than the clumsy and unencyclopedic qualifiers such as "28.. Later 1". Very unprofessional. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

agree that "Franchise Mark" needs to go. I am not a fan of "Notes" columns because they are a just a call for non encyclopedic content to be crammed into the article. Something like "Summary" would be better. "This film is part 42 of the X franchise. In it, ZOMBIE LORD eats the brains of more blondes before getting destroyed by HERO, this time by being pushed into a giant blender."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

remove redlink/imdb only

Per WP:RS (which IMDB fails) and the list criteria (where popular is specifically determined by a sufficient number of references) I plan on shortly deleting all of the redlink movies that have only IMDB listed as a source. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove. Will be better if you adds a lot of references and/or moves (not removes) some entries to proper place (List of zombie other films or List of zombie short films). Thanks. --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 17:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is inappropriate for this list it is inappropriate for this list. There is no requirement that it actually be moved. If you want to move them all go for it, but they are clutter here. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree it's clutter but moving more useful thing than removing (wikipedia is a work in progress). In any case, see my last edit where I've added a few refs for film Ada: Zombilerin Düğünü and after that was surprised by founding wiki-page for that entry is exist under title Island: Wedding of the Zombies. So as you can see red-link is not decision/reason for removing. Thanks. --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 18:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving may be useful, but wikipedia is a volunteer basis. One cannot require others to do work. There is no policy that says content must be moved, but there ARE policies that say content must be removed such as WP:RS WP:V WP:LISTCRUFT WP:GNG WP:LISTSEL etc. The film you found is frankly borderline, a 3/10 foreign language indy film frankly does not meet the "popular or widely known" or the "relatively high budget" criteria, and belongs in the "other" list as per the criteria of both lists. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right about rules. But I'm right about saving info. As I think all volunteers must do proper edits. About mentioned film: it's occasionally example of wrong red link and nothing more. Moreover, you are right again, it's entry needs to be moved (I'll do that very soon). --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 19:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding foreign films, on some article lists I have seen films cross-linked to their Wikipedia entry in their language. That would at least reduce some of the redlinking for those that have been regarded as notable in non-English Wikipedia. Similarly, some titles that do not have individual linked articles but have reliable source references can be converted to non-linked text. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

request for help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

can anyone tell me the name of a zombie movie I liked, it had like these midget wrestlers in it, and this group of people are suck on a rooftop when they decide to slingshot this one midget off the roof. then in one part they hear a baby crying, and this dude gets the baby out of this car, but the zombies are after him so he throws the baby up in the air and the baby starts smileing while in the air, until it hits the ground and gets bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.184.70 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

this page is for discussing how to improve this article, it is not a chat forum or help desk. You might want to try the reference desk. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion criteria

This list's inclusion criteria are so vague they're useless. What is a "reasonably high budget"? Ten million dollars? One million? A hundred thousand? For those films which only have an IMDb entry as a source, how can we tell whether they satisfy this criterion? The same for "have a lot of popularity". I even found a 10-minute short on the list, so we should re-check the rather clear-cut "feature length" criterion for all the entries too. My suggestion would be to abandon the rather vague "high budget" and "popularity" criteria and instead to only list films that have articles of their own. Huon (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The criterion shouldnt' be IMDb per WP:RS/IMDb. IMDb is not considered a valid source and since anyone can add anything to that database, it's not valid. Find more proper secondary sources I'd say. To be fair, this zombie list doesn't help many people out. Sure this is a list of zombie films, but it doesn't give anyone historical context, how the genre changed or evolved or trends that took place within it. It needs a clean-up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

List is too huge! Should be split and Should be referenced per each entry and Should be clean-uped from low-budget entries!! --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 21:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. Why are you adding items back to the list that don't qualify, instead of moving them? —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Because I'm try to find references for other low-budget ones. Delete is simply, moving to proper page is hard!! --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Please DO NOT REMOVE WHAT I POST HERE as I want it to be considered. It is my right to post here too.

My problem is not just low budget. You have movies that center on sex here like the Porno movies that have a stupid plot just to deviate from no plot straight porn. One movie, that I rented, thanks so much, is called "Bloodlust Zombies". I did research on it after wanting to throw up because it not only has gross sexual situations but they throw some necrophilia into it. I'm not going to sue you but someone else might. It might be a good thing to take what I am saying seriously.

I studied Psychology in college. I will never forget that we had a special seminar where they were showing naked dead bodies on film in black and white. One of the students brought her kids. They kicked her out. One of the kids was 17. He asked to stay and showed his Drivers license. They kicked him out too. They said they had a student who was 17, early college entry, that was traumatized by seeing these naked dead bodies and the parents had sued them.

There is a space to put adult movie or sex explicit after the year as someone has about the Gay movie there. Are Gays any different than heteros to Wiki?? Personal views do not matter here. Yet when I put in the space sex explicit for the hetero movies my warning was removed. Please don't try to tell me there was some logical reason that doesnt make sense.

One of you tried to tell me that putting "there are low budget and sex explicit movies listed here" is my opinion but when I went to remove where it says ...the movies are of a high budget and popular, he put that back. Please take that down or let me correct them. You want them moved? I vote for then that we make a "Sex Explicit Zombie Movie list" so the normal people and women don't have to be grossed out or have their kids molested by accidental viewings.

You could make a low budget horror movie page. Low budget is not an opinion. When you are watching a Latino movie that shows 5 minutes of Zombie action (like Zombie Farm) or where the actors are overdramatic or boring and make up and props suck, these are some really good ways to spot a low budget. One movie I watched, you could see the ketchup line sticking out of the zombie bit guys collar and the blood was spurting out like the Merlot from the wine fountain at the last wedding I attended. Usually low budgets either have no recognizable actors or just one that you haven't seen for a decade.

Good budgeted Movies are 28 Days, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, Return of the Night of the Living Dead and even Flight of the Dead. And you have movies that are deviant from Zombie movies. Mortuary is not a Zombie movie. Thats Sci Fi not Horror. The Stuff, Invasion of Body Snatchers, nice movies but not Zombie. Black Sheep...which I tried to put "Zombie Sheep" beside was low budget, dumb and not Zombie but I was being kind with the "Zombie Sheep" thing. People turning into sheep are NOT ZOMBIES.

Opinions?????Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

zombie sex movies are zombie movies, too. the list is not Zombie movies (except for zombie sex movies). However, I do agree that the current inclusion criteria are laughably vague and fail Wikipedia:LIST#Lead_section_or_paragraph and there is no evidence that most of the current entries even meet those vague criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the "other" lists are small enough they could be merged here and merely say that every entry must reliably sourced, and that the reliable sources talk about zombies. The genre as a whole is notoriously (and in many cases intentionally) B-Movie (or worse!) so making some sort of WP:OR quality judgement to sort them seems counterproductive. While WP:N is much lower for individual list items, it is not a non-requirement, and everything should have at least one real review. (No database or release announcements count imo) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I's support a merge, the "low budget" films do not need a list of their own. As you say, some of the more "popular" zombie films are b-movies, so if we have them all in one list, we solve the problem as to which list they belong to. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, but at least allow then, me to contribute (as others already were allowed to do) by noting 'sex explicit' in the same area another person was allowed to put 'adult film' for the Gay Zombie movie. Where others were allowed to expand and put 'vampire like zombies' etc. Why do the editors erase me putting "zombie sheep"? If you want to include everything at least giving a little heads up on what to expect would be good. If I am not signing right or pasting opinion request its because I don't know where you find those links as we had Power tools on AOL, html wasn't necessary. Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Library777 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You will need to go to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and bring up a proposal to modify or remove WP:NOTCENSORED. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not this annotation belongs in the article, where does "not censored" forbid noting that something contains adult content? It seems to me that "not censored" is about not removing information; it's an extremely odd application to cite it to forbid adding some. :/ If "not censored" forbid noting that something was adult in nature, wouldn't we have to remove the label "pornographic" from films like Debbie Does Dallas?

There is no policy that forbids adding this information. It's all about what reliable sources say - if there are reliable sources that note that these films are "sexually explicit", then it is an editorial decision merely to include it or not include it. Including the information is not an act of censorship. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

while not explicitly stated in NOTCENSORED and not a "policy" we do have the guideline: Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. So, yes, if the sources used for the description provide a valid commentary noting the sex or graphic-ness, editors might choose to include such in the description of a particular film, but we should not be going out of our way to make such commentary where the sources do not and "require" such disclaimers in the descriptions-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Disclaimer" guidelines don't apply, obviously, since this is a reference to disclaimers about our own content - examples given include "This article contains profanity", "This article is not suitable for children" and "Spoiler ahead". "Undue" is not really so much about "going out of our way to make such commentary where the sources do not" - that would be more a matter of WP:NOR. It's really to do with focusing too much on one aspect of something or giving improper attention to a specific viewpoint. We should avoid that, of course. Frankly, I'm not sure a "sexually explicit" label is appropriate for articles in this list for a number of reasons, including that if we do have one, people are likely to trust it...and we can't know if every "sexually explicit" article added to the list will include the label. It's just the point that it's an editorial decision, a matter of simple consensus here, with no policy-change required. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anywhere that policies our guidelines suggest that we can or should identify a certain genre of films and apply a tag of "caution adult content" tag to them. and I see lots of places that suggest such actions are not within the community approved set of actions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this issue could be solved simply if the movies had their rating posted. If someone wants to watch a film and it's R-rated, they can't say they weren't warned that the movie contains violence and sex. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

i can support this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, like a zombie movie needs a rating warning for violence! There are zombie movies that might have been R-rated but have since been released on video with MPAA unrated versions. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

because seeing naked people is dangerous, but seeing people have their brains eaten is just good clean wholesome family entertainment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

the notable version(s) is what we should list. If it was notable in the theatre, with the reviews etc talking about the release, then use the MPAA rating. If it only became notable later, with the sources specifically referring to the unrated version then we can also list an unrated version in the rating column (R/Unrated) etc. Unrated DVD of a previously released movie is generally known as more violence or sex, so there should be no confusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

We cannot have an MPAA rating column, as this is an international encyclopedia, and that puts a US bias on the article. As Wikipedia is not censored, we shouldn't even be having this discussion. If it's a notable zombie film, it should be in the list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

we dont need to label it MPAA. Many countries have movie ratings and if the film is initially released in a country that doesn't rate films, we leave it blank. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No. We do not and should not have movie certificates in lists. These are not defining characteristics of films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Where the rating is specifically mentioned in reviews or other critiques it is a notable characteristic of the film,\ but only if its something specifically mentioned, and not done in an infobox style. This would probably satisfy the purpose in any case, as those with over the top sex and violence are more likely to have the rating mentioned. Most of the movies probably couldn't have a rating listed anyway due to WP:V/WP:RS and IMDB not being reliable (although this is a place where WP:PRIMARY looking at the CD probably does apply. My suggestion just previous is coincidentally quite in alignment with Wikipedia:FILMRATING Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As WP:FILMRATING states: "avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings". To show them in list form is indiscriminate. They should only be discussed in film articles, and only then when the information is pertinent. These lists need to be tidied and streamlined, not made more of a mess. The IMDB column needs to go too. We should be aiming for something more like Vampire film than the mess we have here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Library777- 1.Why did you allow "ADULT FILM" for the Gay Zombie Movie? 2.Why when I made the same reference for other movies you removed mine? Such an act denotes Bias and that's not permitted here.

3. Why do ANY of you object to putting in information that large amounts of people want to know? 4. Its not just me that wants to know if a movie is sexually explicit, a cartoon or a trilogy of short stories and by not allowing this, you are censoring for your own ideals. By letting someone have information you are NOT censoring. You ARE censoring by suppressing it. Like it says above..there is no policy against adding these things and by doing so you give a choice to the viewer.

If they are a Perv they will be happy to know the movie is mostly Porn and if they are a Mother, like me, they don't have to worry about their little toddler seeing it and getting groomed to be molested. There is a reason why we have age of consent. There is also an age where people become adult enough to realize why there are age limits and help society to have structure vs. chaos. Wikipedia is not a playground or a college dorm. There are many group demographics that will come here and all should feel comfortable using the site.

If you want anyone to take this website seriously, than this issue should be taken just as seriously.Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Library777-Also I still do not understand the inclusion of a Horror movie review movie with a 90% review of other Horror Movies and 4 part movies where just one fourth is a Zombie short story. Is the 59 minutes, 59 minutes of Zombie film content? There are animated Zombie films on this list too.Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the MPAA rating should not be used per WP:FILMRATING, and I would go a step further to say that having separate lists based on budget or sexual content is complete original research. Those lists should be merged into this one, and the entire page could be trimmed down, by removing those films that are redlinked and unreferenced, as suggested by the RFC section below. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Library777-No one is addressing my question about the Gay Movie saying "adult film" and no other films being allowed to say that. This makes Wikipedia appear Homophobic. Also, I want to mention that this is not my personal view as I may or may not agree with alternative lifestyle and choose not to disclose my views.

I am not talking about film rating either. I am talking about adding some points of reference to this list such as:

1.sex explicit or adult film (personally to me saying the later just makes me think its gory. 2. Animation 3. Short story film 4. The type of Zombie (as someone was allowed to write VAMPIRE ZOMBIE, let others write Sheep zombies, cow zombies

Otherwise this list is not valuable for someone wanting to watch say all the Zombie animation movies, or if they are into necrophiliac..all the sex explicit etc. I have several friends who went to this list, like me and are unhappy but won't take time to debate with you.

Who do I go to to ask for a decision?, because none of you or me are going to agree. There has to be a leader who has been chosen to decide, so who is that leader? All of this is wasting time and I just came here so I could find Zombie movies to watch. None of the movies have any description, and most have no links leading to valid descriptions.

How about we make a page for each movie on the list that has a large description and have a link from this list to those pages? I see also there were some movies having this description and many of the descriptions were deleted by you editors. I agree that the IMDB site is not a good reference.

To be honest though, for me and my friends who just wanted a quick way of finding movies we like to watch, this Zombie list that everyone here just talks about, has failed us and we now all think Wikipedia is terrible and are passing that view around (am I going to get banned for saying that? because its called Freedom of Speech).

Wikipedia is biased and allows certain people to edit while banning others from it. Its not credible because it refuses to allow a complete reference. It is chaotic and in this state, we will all censor our children from it on our computers.

You talk about no censorship but that would mean no banning of valuable information or members for what they say and you do prevent information to be added and you do ban members for what they say. You are biased, because no one here did anything about the other comments allowed when mine were not. No one removed them, no one added mine, and no one even talked about the issue. Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Zombies are distinct from ghosts, ghouls, mummies, or vampires, so this list does not include films devoted to these types of undead. OK you have movies like "The Dead Undead" and "Blacksheep" the sheep bite people and they turn into sheep-humans that eat flesh.Library777 (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If the reliable sources call it a zombie movie, we call it a zombie movie. This article however is in such a poor state that I don't think anyone here will vouch for any of the content or why any content may (or may not be) presently included. . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and another thing is some of these are not in English and you don't allow any reference to that.Library777 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to, but 1) this is not English Wikipedia about only English Language Subjects, it is the English language Wikipedia which covers all topics with the articles written in English. and 2) WP:NOENG, yes, sources that are not in English are perfectly acceptable. (although if a similar quality source is available in English, that should also be included.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think inclusion criteria should be based on the budgets, not least because it has little bearing on notability. Huon's suggestion of limiting the list to films we have Wikipedia articles about is a sensible one, and I don't think films should be excluded because they are merely pornographic. To that end it's not really the purpose of the list to present a viewer's guide; readers should check with their local film ratings ratings board i.e. MPAA/BBFC etc for things like that. Betty Logan (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

--Andys'edtits 08:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "Cause" a possible criteria. I think focus on the Cause maybe useful. Depending on the issues being explored in the storyline, different causes are required to become a zombie. Some stories examine big picture social implications, of survival, group dynamics and psychological effects of a catastrophic event. Others focus on smaller group, showing how individuals face having family affected. Going chronologically, it would be causes in categories like

• Voodoo via culture potions and rituals.
• Demonic Force or Menacing Spirits
• General Zombie Mythology of Re-animated bodies – rising corpses (no particular cause given)
• Alien threat invade humans as a host or Duplicate humans Eg. ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ and ‘The Children’ (2008 latest version)
• Infected Biological Cause – epidemic / Toxin exposure or Infectious Disease / Science gone astray/
• Military experiments or development of Chemical Weapon
• Zombie Comedy

• Second genre or subplot - sci fi/ appocolyptic/western/Gay/WW/historical/series or remake

I also agree on inclusion of information 1. Violence should be indicated. (general violence/ graphic/sadistic or extreme /compared to older -thriller style/) 2. Nudity. In general a stand alone zombie story doesn’t require nudity, so it’s been added for reasons. I agree it is not censorship, but part of providing information about the movie and an indication of story content. Describing minor nudity/ gratuitous/ specific other types, lets wiki users (all ages) know more rather than less about the movie. In My Humble Opinion --Andys'edtits 08:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC) --Andys'edtits 08:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)--Andys'edtits 08:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a list article. This kind of information would be included at the individual article page if it is appropriate to do so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

From a perspective of encyclopaedic resource , the contents of the list would be different than what a user may want to find here. Is this site not supposed to be a modernised source of information? To that point I suggest Perhaps in 'notes' column a few words would be possible, and Helpful to user. Fleshing out the introduction with a few more sentences to refer to the notes column could be a way to centralise some information. Issues like gay or sex content could be mentioned.? e.g. Notes in top two entries are long enough. If there isn't a little more added through consensus here, then the www power that 'anyone can edit anything on wiki', that I hear so often, could make this page not very often frequented, With movie like WWZ out,( Pitt drawing the crowds), I'd want to be proud of a good zombie page when people see it for the first time. then they'd come back. That is incentive enough for me to help on the project - I love the genre and want to convert more people to recognise it as legitimate good genre.--Andys'edtits (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thought I saw a fleshed out 'comment' column when changing pages -it looked very good with note and link. Maybe too much caffeine?--Andys'edtits (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)--Andys'edtits (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to aim for a good article, we should be modelling this on Vampire film or similar, not an WP:INDISCRIMINATEly long table. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% on that. Willing to put my time where my mouth is.--Andys'edtits (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hw long would you think it would take to do? Being new here, i don'y know much. Is there a way to transfer the information from table to text? Then would you want to see Director and a brief note on context? If it needed a few people hours, I'll help, but on any 'how to' I'd need to follow directions. --Andrea edits (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Quite a few points have been covered, so to try and focus the discussion, this is what we have:

1. Scrap budget as the inclusion criteria: User:Huon, User:Robsinden, User:Betty Logan
2. Set inclusion criteria to films with articles: User:Huon, User:Betty Logan
3. Merge the other zombie film lists into this list: User:Gaijin42, User:Robsinden, User:Betty Logan

Betty Logan (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. I agree with each of the above points. I think we have emerging consensus here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)