Category talk:Undead

Rework this Category?
I plan to be adding to this category, but I have a question. There's a subcategory, "fictional undead." Very very few undead (namely ghosts) have any hint of possible merit to their existence, and even that is ignored by most of the scientific community. Thus, I propose this section be rethought.

Perhaps categories such as Spirits (ghosts, poltergeists), Reanimated Corpses (zombies, mummies, skeletons), and Other (undead constructs, etc).

Input? --Fourthgeek 22:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Fictional undead" refers to undead that were created for works of fiction, as opposed to the other contents of the category, which refer to undead beings that have been believed or alleged to exist at some point. Some people believe that vampires are real, but nobody (sane) believes that Lestat or Dracula are real.  The other "Fictional [whatever]" categories follow similar guidelines (for example, Category:Fictional ghosts versus Category:Ghosts, or Category:Fictional magicians versus Category:Occultists and Category:Magicians).  I think the subdivisions you've suggested basically boil down to "ghosts" and "not ghosts"; as I see it, non-corporeal spirits should go into Category:Ghosts, and the others should go into this category or a more appropriate subcategory.  -Sean Curtin 06:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, good. Thanks for that. And yes, after looking over the undead page, it seems that they've already organized them by corporeal and incorporeal, so it's good to stick with that theme. Whether or not to make the incorporeal types under the "ghost" category is a bit ambiguous, because many ghosts and spirits are not neccessarily undead, many are purported to be manifestations of living beings, or many other things. I think it probably best to keep it simple though, and list non-corporeals under Ghosts, and let the individual pages sort out any discrepancies. Oftentimes the parapsychologists dispute over such points anyways. --Fourthgeek 07:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)