Talk:Haunted house

Quotation marks

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)

I partially edited according to your suggestion. Please be aware when making such criticisms on the talk pages, that you can edit Wikipedia yourself. While you can make suggestions on talk pages in the case that the page is protected, semi-protected or you have been topic banned, in the case of a standard page where you have editing rights it is better to follow the Wikipedia standard of Bold Revert Discuss, which you can read about at wp:brdEdaham (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

"_______ 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)

The Nightstalker Murder (1986)

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

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?

It has been removed for WP:OR and other serious issues. It was previously removed for these same issues. It should not be added back without proper sources and with additional information on other explanations to provide proper weight to the article. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 21:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

There's a lot of explanations about why haunting occur. There is undue weight being given to carbon monoxide explanation. May I suggest reducing that section to a paragragh within a section that provides several considerations? — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 17:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do. I wrote the original CO explanatory paragraph. If you find another explanation for haunted houses with credible scientific support, go ahead and add it.Wachholder (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

these arebdfregh3kffgrtjkgrtghrg3h3rh43rt34hjtgk5tgk45ty5765ui86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.79.65.236 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Does anyone else think that this article should be moved to a more encompassing title, such as Haunting or Haunted places? Houses are not the only places reputed to be haunted, and it seems unnecessarily limiting to have this topic tied to a particular type of structure. And keeping the topic in a single article seems to make more sense than creating separate articles for haunted castles, haunted hotels, haunted theatres, haunted ships, etc. etc. etc.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NSF, pseudoscience, and ArbCom ruling

I have partially reverted, but also used, some of the newer version now contained in the following sentence:

• "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified ten subjects, including haunted houses, and considers that belief in those subjects is pseudoscientific.[4]"

The reason being that the NSF doesn't state that its view is the scientific consensus. That goes without saying by virtue of its name. That wording is also based on the ArbCom ruling, which recognizes that the published statements of national scientific bodies represent the existing scientific consensus, and the NSF certainly qualifies. The pseudoscience category is also applied on the basis of the Pseudoscience ArbCom ruling: Belief in haunted houses is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", so the article "may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, for a number of reasons, explained at talk:ghost and elsewhere, the NSF considered those subjects from a modern viewpoint in the context of pseudoscience, and made some misleading shortcuts in this paper, contradicted by the very definition they gave and plenty of RS. We on the other hand, as an encyclopedia, should maintain a neutral point of view, in historical and global perspective. We should not present objects of folklore and tradition as pseudoscientific. Cenarium (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That user had labeled and categorized several paranormal-related articles with "pseudoscience"; thank goodness an admin removed that content. --108.13.19.195 (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Films

The list of films (and that for books) in this article is getting way too long, and in my opinion should not be a list of every film everywhere that ever included a haunted house. If someone wants to create and maintain a separate page for lists of haunted house movies, go for it. I propose cutting the number of films down to only those that are "significant", and rewriting the "list" in narrative format. I realize significance is a subjective thing to measure, so are there any criteria we should consider to indicate "significance"? Eastcote (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Infrasound

Infrasound has been found to stimulate sensations and mental states associated with haunted places; why is there no mention of it in the article? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Theories

Gives a good overview of the theories of hauntingsLink, this one is funny:

(Gauld & Cornell, 1979, pp. 249-250) investigated a case in which the occupants of a house were disturbed by eerie thudding noises. It transpired that rats had come upon apples stored in the loft. ‘They would roll a small apple to the edge of the loft and push it down the hollow of a cavity wall. At the bottom they made off with it or disposed of it. The falling of the apples had produced the spooky sounds.’ Cornell, A. D. and Gauld, A. (1961) The geophysical theory of poltergeists. JSPR 41, 129-155.

I noticed the JSPR is "is an international and interdisciplinary peer reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research on social and personal relationships." So would this source be acceptable?

Update, wrong source sorry. The source for that appears to be Gauld, A. (1979) In A. Gauld & A. D. Cornell, Poltergeists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. This is obviously a book published by two parapsychologists, reliable source? GreenUniverse (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't consider it a RS. Parapsychology journals typically mix science with pseudoscience content. For example, in one section of the pdf provided, the author considers "psi-based" theories and takes into consideration "discarnate agents" (i.e. dead people) as a possible cause of hauntings. And in another section, he suggests researchers try to "haunt selected locations after their bodily death if they found themselves surviving". Not science. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with your opinion as to the pseudo-science involved. However, your opinion and my opinion do not count. Whether we personally agree with parapsychologists, or consider parapsychology journals to be reliable is really irrelevant. They are published journals, and their "findings" are thus put before the public so that other researchers can attempt replication. To be balanced, the article should contain arguments from both sides. One side should not be eliminated because we personally believe it to be flawed or false. The article should be written in such a way that other published findings that refute the parapsychologists are included where pertinent. So...I would consider the JSPR a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards. Fringe, perhaps, to be refuted. But not to be excluded. Eastcote (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

They are not reputable scientific journals and should not be confused with them. Balance does not mean including fringe theories into an article which is not dedicated to the fringe theory see WP:FRINGE. This isn't a topic on the beliefs of Parapsychologists and their "theories" have no due weight here. Being balanced does not mean showing both sides, we don't have to pretend their opinions are just as WP:VALID and give them due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thats very true, but there are no reputable scientific journals that have ever published on haunted houses or things like this, the article is strictly related to the field of parapsychology, you understand that the only people who actually investigate "haunted houses" are parapsychologists? So we can not include any of their theories at all? Mainstream science will not go near this stuff. I have never seen any peer reviewed journals etc on haunted houses or hauntings only those within parapsychology. I have looked there are none at all from mainstream journals, however I found once a psychology journal on haunted houses but can not find it at the moment. GreenUniverse (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I thought this article WAS dedicated to "fringe" belief/theory. What, are haunted houses mainstream belief accepted by science? It is perfectly appropriated to cite what the pseudos have to say, and then insert what science has to say. Eastcote (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources from objective third parties is best. "Magnetic Fields and Haunting Phenomena: A Basic Primer for Paranormal Enthusiasts" sourced to http://www.publicparapsychology.org is a WP:SELFPUB pdf document, apparently originally from a blog. No idea who "Bryan Williams" is, but positioning him as a "researcher" on Wikipedia is not appropriate. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - 13:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This gives a complete overview of the work of Persinger etc and many other parapsychologists, perhaps we can try and locate some secondary sources to back up some of these claims? Haunting & poltergeist-like episodes GreenUniverse (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the reference has been added from French, CC; Haque, U, Bunton-Stasyshyn. I think that has solved the problem. No complaints here. GreenUniverse (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in backing up or refuting Persinger's claims. His claims are there, and shouldn't be removed simply because a Wikipedia editor doesn't think Persinger is a reliable source. There are various papers that also published on studies that failed to replicate Persinger's findings. I'll add these when I dig them up. Eastcote (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The possible explanations heading seems a bit overweighted with charactorized opinions. Sources or not, should we really be including opinions that need to be qualified by words like "believes" and "speculates". If we have to qualify with this terms, the opinion prolly shouldn't be included in the article, even if there is a reliable source as to the person's speculation. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 03:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Explained in WP:YESPOV which notes that "articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects." - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't go far enough justify outright speculation. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 14:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• GreenUniverse is a blocked sockpuppet by the way. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Persinger and others on electromagnetic fields

This may be a suitable source:

French, C.C., Haque, U., Bunton-Stasyshyn, R., Davis, R.E. (2009). The “Haunt” Project: An attempt to build a “haunted” room by manipulating complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound. Cortex, 45, 619-629.

"Recent research has suggested that a number of environmental factors may be associated with a tendency for susceptible individuals to report mildly anomalous sensations typically associated with "haunted" locations, including a sense of presence, feeling dizzy, inexplicable smells, and so on. Factors that may be associated with such sensations include fluctuations in the electromagnetic field (EMF) and the presence of infrasound." Link

Also see Ghostly magnetism explained

"The study - in which hundreds of volunteers were taken around two allegedly haunted locations - found that people reported having more unusual experiences in the specific places at each location which are considered most haunted. The researchers think this can be explained by the way people react to environmental cues, such as subtle drafts, and in particular visual factors, like low lighting. The research also threw up evidence suggesting a link between magnetic fields and ghostly sightings." GreenUniverse (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The french source both sums up the parapsychologist perspective and has a study. I can have a look about this other study mentioned on the BBC later. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And Wired could be used as secondary coverage of French's opinions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Short Stories

The Haunted House (1859) Short Story by Charles Dickens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.130.134 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haunted house. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.steamfairground.co.uk/l3_haunted_house.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible major edit

Hello. I am looking into improving this article to reflect the recommendations listed. I have not yet decided if I am going to attempt to create a new article. I am doing preliminary reading/research. Any suggestions would be appreciated since I am fairly new to editing.Alhill42 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That depends a lot on what changes you're going to make. If you're going to write on the topic of a specific haunted house, then that should go into a new article. (Making sure that the house is WP:notable, of course.)

If you're going to write about the general topic of haunted houses, that content belongs in this article.

If it's a major change that you think is going to be controversial, it might make sense to make a draft article first.

Whenever possible it's better to make smaller incremental changes to articles so other editors can see what you're doing, but I understand that's not always possible.

May I ask what kind of changes you're planning on making? ApLundell (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Might review WP:RS. There are a lot of hyperbolic, WP:SENSATIONAL sources out there [1]]. I would advise using WP:FRIND sources, i.e. objective secondary sources that have no connection to supernatural haunting beliefs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. They are very helpful. I wanted mostly to address the comments and concerns. Add more international examples since hauntings seem to be pretty much universal, plus adding to the possible causes section. I am trying to be careful with the sources and am using Wikipedia's guides. I like your idea of a draft. Again, thank you for your comments.Alhill42 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have finished the rewrite. I tried my best to address all the concerns in the talk pages. I had difficulty finding up to date stats on belief in hauntings so would like to see them added if more surveys are completed. Particularly for other countries around the world.Alhill42 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick read through and it looks good. Darn good. Thanks for your effort. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! It means a lot.Alhill42 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page activity tends to occur only when there are problems. If an article is substantially improved, often there will be no feedback or comment at all. Strange, but unfortunately, that's the way it is on Wikipedia, but again, thanks for your work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per long-term significance (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• Haunted house → Haunted house (paranormal)
• Haunted attraction (simulated) → Haunted house (attraction)
• Haunted house (disambiguation) → Haunted house

– There's no evidence that when someone searches for "haunted house", they obviously want the paranormal version and not the theme park or tourist attraction version. I think they can be viable separate topics, so this move attempts to standardize their naming. It's also clear from the sources that while there are other types of theme park attractions that can be haunted, like jails, castles, etc., they are still called "haunted houses" as the WP:COMMONNAME of the type of attraction.

Could also move the 2nd page to simply haunted attraction or haunted house attraction and go ahead with the 3 moves that way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not convinced that these are the best final names for these two distinct articles, but something must be done so we can clean up Special:Whatlinkshere/Haunted house and avoid future mislinking. I also want to see the Haunted house (disambiguation) page moved to Haunted House (per WP:DABNAME - the majority of topics using that spelling), and the leftover haunted house redirect to be made to point to the disambiguation page. -- Netoholic @ 14:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name and long-term historical significance. A haunted house defines the term, while tourist attractions simulate aspects of the perceived experience but do so in such an outlandish way as to include monsters, goblins, and whatever else can jump out of a closet to scare people - none of which has anything to do with the original and common meaning of haunted houses. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: The attraction is precisely how the traditional haunted house is defined - a location with paranormal entities inside it. Sure, they might be more overt in a haunted house attraction rather than just rumored to be there, but paranormal haunted houses tend to be depicted with "monsters that go boo" in works of fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Zxcvbnm, you're probably thinking of movies and Disneyworld, Stephen King and the Halloween image of what a real haunted house is. This page is about real haunted houses. Pray you never encounter one. lol (note, I only write lol when I'm lol). But seriously, the topic "Haunted house" and the commercialized attractions you're thinking of are worlds apart (literally). Also the haunted attraction page has many more attractions than just houses, hence the name. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Haunted House" has been understood for centuries to mean, a house inhabited by spirits. I believe that's by far the most common meaning. (And the meaning that all other meanings are based upon.) When you search for "Pirate ship", it takes you to an article about actual pirates, not the common carnival attraction. And that seems like the correct way to handle that. There are a bunch of other articles where there's a "Thing" and then either "Simulated Thing" or "Thing (Simulation)", so it seems like a common pattern to me that isn't going to confuse anybody. ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  @ApLundell: If things "understood for centuries to mean" something always took precedence, then Nike (goddess) would be primary topic over the company of the same name, and Windows would go to the glass covering a hole, not to the computer operating system. The point is that sometimes a recent creation can have equal significance with a longterm concept. I would never suggest the attraction be a primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  • There's a strong evidence for that Nike change. The evidence for this change is just one editor's opinion that two topics of are similar notability. I say they're not even close. ApLundell (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Evidence for or against the assertions made in this discussion may be helpful in determining consensus BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• An 'Oppose' consensus seems to have been attained already, relisting seems to be to figure out if a haunted house is either a haunted house or something other than a haunted house. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2023 (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.