Talk:Haunted house

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Paranormal Portal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

	Spirituality Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality. This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Do you think the 'Hauntings' subsection could 'use' any more 'quote marks'. Seriously it reminds me of one of those idiotic people who finger quote everything they say when they're talking. --||bass 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mergers 2 External Links practices 3 "_______ featuring haunted houses" 4 The Nightstalker Murder (1986) 5 Carbon Monoxide Theory 6 Awful Article 7 Profit motives

[edit] Mergers

I've suggested that we merge Dark attraction, Haunted attraction, and Haunted hayride into this article. All three of these are basically the same event under a different name, and the most common name for the three (at least in North America) is Haunted house. If nobody objects within five days, I'll just do the merger myself. --Wafulz 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am against merging those 3 articles into this one. I do agree that those 3 are more or less the same, with very subtle differences - 3 variations on the same theme, if you will. Therefore, I would support merging those 3 articles into one.
However, even though dark attractions are normally referred to in NA as "Haunted Houses", I don't agree that they should be merged straight into this article. I base this off of the fact that much more than just dark attractions are given the name "Haunted House" (I'll just call them HH from here on). Most of the HHs in NA are not commercially created as such. They don't sell tickets and have actors try and scare you; they are just normal buildings. Someone has reported seeing a ghost there, or the building has a tragic history, or it just looks creepy (abandoned, gothic, whatever). I think there's a huge difference between the dark attractions, which make a business out of scaring people, and a building that people are trying to conduct more traditional business out of, or perhaps live in. Occasionally, the two overlap (a local dark attraction years ago once claimed to operate out of an abandoned insane asylum - actually an old hospital, that did have stories around it, but...)
So, here's what I wuld like to see - a small subsection in this HH article summarizing what a dark attraction is, and a "Main Article" link back to a Dark Attraction (or whichever they get merged to) article. --Reverend Loki 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I could agree to that- basically you're suggesting we have one article for "real" haunted houses (IE ghosts and the like) and one article for "fake" haunted houses (which are the sort we associate with Halloween). Correct me if I'm wrong.--Wafulz 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. The one on "real" haunted houses (at article name: Haunted House (or Houses)) would include a small blurb on the "fake" ones, with a link to the "Main Article" on fake ones, while the Dark Attractions article (aka, the "fake" haunted houses) would include a link to the article on "real" ones, possible as a text link in the article overview, the first paragaraph. Or something like that. --Reverend Loki 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a difference between a haunted house and a haunted hayride, and they're not subtle at all. For one, a haunted house is a building that you walk through. A haunted hayride is a hay wagon that you sit in and it drives outdoors. They may both be Halloween events/attractions but they are not the same thing, hence the need for two terms to describe them "haunted house" and "haunted hayride". So I wouldn't support merging the articles, I just see no need or benefit. Now a dark attraction is considered more like a haunted house than anything. In actuality it shouldn't be called a dark attraction, rather a "Dark Ride" which is what people in the industry call it. They differ completely from both a haunted house and a haunted hayride because they are attractions where you sit in a car (motion sim) and the experience is mostly in the dark. A good example of this would be The Mummy ride at Universal Studios. It is neither a haunted house (you don't walk through it), nor is it a haunted hayride (there's no wagon or hay). So for all these reasons, I'd leave the articles alone and if anything just rename dark attraction to dark ride. --Znelson 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the right way to do this would be to split this into "Haunted Houses" - that is, places that are considered really haunted and "Haunted Attractions" - which would encompass haunted house amusements, haunted hayrides, dark rides, corn mazes and just about anything else that would full under entertainment. -- dwilliams666

I like this idea. I think we could apply it to have the following:

1. Haunted house, which deals with buildings that have had ghost sightings, etc
2. Haunted attraction, which contains haunted hayride, a brief mention of dark rides with a main article link to dark ride, and any other similar attractions. Within that article the subtle nuances between types of attractions can be explained.
3. Dark attraction would redirect to Haunted attraction, considering in the article it says it's the same thing as a haunted attraction) --Wafulz 22:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Halloween yard and Spooky walk should probably be folded into this as well, somewhere. --McGeddon 02:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links practices

Editor immediately prior has cleaned out the External Links section to get rid of commercial links, unreferenced news articles, and convention links. I put the one convention/tradeshow link in the list back in. Of course, Wikipedia Is Not A Directory, but it's nice to have one or two links to major annual events important to the industry built around the focus of the article should be fine. The fact that it is a convention/tradeshow should not come into play - else, Wikipedia would never contain a link to ComicCon, DragonCon, PAX, CES, TGS, etc. A cursory glance at the linked site looks OK. If you have a better example to replace it with, that's OK as well, but there's no reason to just remove it.
By the way, I think we are agreed that we don't need to link every commercial haunted house here. In fact, pretty much any such link is inappropriate. However, a link to a site that is an impartial directory of such attractions would fit. --Reverend Loki 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's my line of reasoing:

1. The link does not offer any information on the topic at hand (arguably this would be more appropriate in Haunted attraction)
2. It's not possible to determine which conventions deserve a link on the article and which ones don't, especially since they don't have articles to begin with.
3. How do we draw the line between "enough" and "too many" conventions being listed?

I'd like to point out other, more developed articles such as Cosplay and Anime don't have any links to conventions- they have an article on List of ______ conventions instead, which only works when conventions have articles. Anyway, my strongest reasoning lies in that the link does not improve the article in any way. It might be nice for someone looking for a haunting convention, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. --Wafulz 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I did make the mistake of forgetting which article I was looking at, house vs attractions. For that reason alone, I've removed the link (again) from this article. Of course, I've also added it to the Haunted Attractions page, and if we want to discuss whether or not it belongs there, well, that article has it's own talk page. As for which ones deserve a link and which don't, we can discuss those merits when we have more than one or two to deal with. If need be, we can even come up with objective qualifications with which to measure such (attendance, % of businesses represented, etc), but I'm not going to delve into it until the need arises. --Reverend Loki 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "_______ featuring haunted houses"

These lists are rather unmaintable and vague, and they don't add much to the value of this article. I'm up for removing them. --Wafulz 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

no! i'm currently working on a level for a computer game and this is a really helpful ressource for inspiration. -- Hahih 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Nightstalker Murder (1986)

haven't found that one on imdb.com . -- Hahih 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Monoxide Theory

I don't think the carbon monoxide theory stuff should be at the top of the piece. I lived in a haunted house for many years, during the summer there were no sources of carbon monoxide in the house, yet the hauntings continued. Okay, it's a P.O., but I'm sure enough instances of hauntings could be found where carbon monoxide could not have been present to cast doubt about the theory.

I have no objection to it as a theory, it's as good as any other given that there's no proof either way, but I'd rather it wasn't given so much prominence in the article. I'd like to move it nearer the end. May I?

[edit] Awful Article

There are so many things wrong with this article, but most insane is the "Carbon monoxide" jazz being at the top of the article like its fact. It's just a unfounded theory offering some lame explanation. Why doesn't someone put some instances of a haunting in the article at the top and then put this stuff at the bottom where it belongs, under a possible explanations header. Or just let the readers decide. This is an article about Haunted Houses, not the health effects of Carbon Monoxide poisoning.

This thing reads like a two year old wrote it.

--Vehgah (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is pretty awful, but "instances of haunting" is a bad idea considering you can't empirically prove that a house is haunted.-Wafulz (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Profit motives

I think something substantial needs to be added about local business owners inventing haunted house legends to prop up the tourist trade. It's gotten way out of hand in some parts of the U.S. and I really don't believe anything I read anymore, as usually it's some B&B owner or restauranteur telling the tale. I don't know what sources to consult for an angle on this, so I can't write anything encyclopedic, but I think it's an angle that is important. -Rolypolyman (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)