This template is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Parapsychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template only links to around 20 articles. I think, after expansion, it could go into lots of articles, and visitors would really find it helpful. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
No objection, but what were you thinking of adding? The problem with sections on books, movies, reported ghost sightings and haunted places is that there would be hundreds of entries - too many to be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's where I get stuck too. Topics and cats, while avoiding individual articles, is my guess. The rough notes for the shortlist is:
There is clearly high interest in the subject, given the amount of vandalism on the main Ghost article, so I am sure an expanded template would be used. I can't see anyone objecting, so I say go ahead. I suppose if you start by checking category:Ghost that will give ideas. Lists would work. I just can't see individual books, places etc. Indian ghost movie clearly belongs in the template, a fascinating article. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. I'll dump a nasty mockup here really soon. Perhaps editors will help cobble it together. The cats are so tricky here with the overlap, etc. I don't want to see the navbox to become a glorified cat page.
By the way, do you think the move (thread above) is reasonable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Move to where? I think you forgot to say. Template:Ghost seems reasonable. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
We need a clever trick to dump individual ghosts into a subcat. If we rename the cat "Fictional ghosts" to "Individual ghosts" or the like, we could dump most of the main Ghost cat in there. Trouble is, cat Ghost stories is sort of an overlap. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In some cultures the distinction between an individual ghost and a class of ghost may be a bit blurred, as with Penanggalan. I don't think I am going to be much help on this. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely Category:Ghosts is the catch-all? Perhaps this main category should have no articles, only sub-categories. A clean-up effort might suggest ways this template could be improved - more subcategories. White Lady (ghost) and vanishing hitchhiker seem to be types of ghost rather than specific ghosts, as is hungry ghost. I like what you have done. I am sure this template will go through a lot more changes, because the new structure invites them. That is excellent. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I'm pleased that you like it.
Ghosts as a category might have to remain home to individual ghosts. Editors can use the obvious argument. Plus it kind of makes sense. Cat Ghost = a ghost itself. But, we could ship out everything else. I don't know what exact cat names because I'm new with cats, but I sort of know the groups:
Types of ghosts (non person)
Ghosts by culture
Ghosts in some region or area
Ghost locations like "haunted locations" (specific sites)
Ghost organizations maybe including Ghost TV shows or Media coverage of ghosts or something like that.
It would actually be nice to ship out all individual ghosts to a specific cat. That would be nice and clean. But if there's not automated recat system, that's a lot of manual recatting.
What do you think? And, what happens to all the cats in articles? Does someone need to go and change them all? Is there an automated way? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not expert on categories at all, and know that some people get very concerned about subtleties in the wording. To me "ghost" is a concept, as are "location" and "film", "ghost location", "ghost film" and maybe even "ghost location film" (documentaries about haunted places). "Types of ghost", "fictional ghosts", "famous ghosts", "cartoon ghosts" would be o.k. "Real ghosts" could start an edit war though. Someone who does a whole lot of categorization and may have advice on structure and tools is User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The entire "ghosts" topic is in a pitiful state.
That's because too many people take the angle of "paranormal" and think there is a "controversy".
Instead, this should be treated as just another angle of human culture, to be documented encyclopedically.
Coverage should be by era and by culture.
"Ghosts in English-speaking cultures" was an attempt in the right direction, but conflating the English Middle Ages with modern comics isn't going to be helpful.
We need a "modern history of ghosts", of about the 18th century to present in "modern era" Western culture, then we need ghosts in European folklore" (as in European witchcraft), and "ghosts in the (Christian) Middle Ages".
As long as the division of the topic into clean sub-topics hasn't been fixed, it is futile to try and produce a useful navbox: you cannot navigate something that isn't there.
The entire Ghost hunting / paranormal / Marvel comics / Harry Potter range of topics should just be summarized under "modern era", so the pop culture red herrings will be kept from spamming this topic. --dab(𒁳) 08:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"Spanish", when not applied to the language, means "of or relating to or characteristic of Spain or the people of Spain" -the culture and people of the southwestern European country-. The article linked in the template seems to be about ghosts lore in Spanish-speaking countries. Think of the francophonie for example, a similar case of an ex-colonial country spreading its language and some of its culture: would an article named "ghosts in French culture" be about ghosts in France, or all French-speaking areas? And I know that specially in the US many people call "Spanish" to everything -people,culture- south of their border, but shouldn't wikipedia be a bit above popular misconceptions? --188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)