Implicating ghost → undead
Link to implication

Reason:

Ghosts are undead. Can anyone think of any instance where this wouldn't apply?

EDIT: The tag implication ghost -> undead (forum #233418) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

I do have a problem that may arise from this: do we have a tag for the bedsheet cutout ghost? I fret that someone may tag such a costume as ghost and costume, and the implication would make one more tag to remove 'cause said prior tag is incorrect.

Siral_Exan said:
I do have a problem that may arise from this: do we have a tag for the bedsheet cutout ghost? I fret that someone may tag such a costume as ghost and costume, and the implication would make one more tag to remove 'cause said prior tag is incorrect.

Genjar propoed an idea for that: bedsheet ghost.

Edit: That was actually a typo but I'll leave it be because pun

Furrin_Gok said:
Genjar propoed an idea for that: bedsheet ghost.

Well, +1 for the implication then.

Siral_Exan said:
Well, +1 for the implication then.

Should also imply bedsheet_ghost to ghost. While it will create some inconsistencies... We already get those considering we tag a statue or macaroni picture of something as the species anyways.

I just know there's going to be some anime or videogame canon that manages to break this somehow... And the canon would probably be valid, technically, since they're both species tags.

-

Should bedsheet_ghost imply bedding?

Ijerk said:
I just know there's going to be some anime or videogame canon that manages to break this somehow...

That's probably why I have a nagging feeling about this implication.
But since canon is outside information, anything that looks like a ghost should still count as undead by twys..

-1. Explanation below:

An undead is either:

I) a dead creature brought to life by supernatural forces, science or any other medium, in such a way it assumes a semi-live state.

II) a live creature transformed by supernatural forces, science or any other thing, in such way it assumes a semi-live state.

III) a undead creature that simply was born semi-live.

According those meanings a ghost wouldn't fit within that category, since it would be either: a "shadow" of the former existence of an individual left after it decease or a spirit that is no longer attached to the body which formerly encapsulated it.
In another words: a ghost would be an entity created through death, which inhabits a near, but still different, plane of existence (call it "limbo" if you prefer to) and sometimes can interact with this world. It would be much like any other kind of spirit, only differing in its origin, level of influence and purpose.

-1

There are too many ghost-like creatures that exist for this implication to work. For instance many ghost-type pokemon. Some have Pokedex entries explaining they used to be live pokemon who died, but others just seem to exist as-is. In that case they aren't undead, but going by TWYS they are still ghosts.

Dyrone said:
-1

There are too many ghost-like creatures that exist for this implication to work. For instance many ghost-type pokemon. Some have Pokedex entries explaining they used to be live pokemon who died, but others just seem to exist as-is. In that case they aren't undead, but going by TWYS they are still ghosts.

If they look like a ghost, they look like an undead spirit.

Dyrone said:
There are too many ghost-like creatures that exist for this implication to work. For instance many ghost-type pokemon. Some have Pokedex entries explaining they used to be live pokemon who died, but others just seem to exist as-is. In that case they aren't undead, but going by TWYS they are still ghosts.

That's outside information, which is not relevant to tagging. Pokemon should not be tagged as 'ghost' simply because they're ghost type. Note that there's already an implication to spirit, which makes no sense for the majority of ghost-type pokemon.

-1 um ghosts are not undead, they do not have a physical body that implies any form of life or death or anything in between. As such there is also no such thing as a undead spirit.

ghosts are a type of spirit that is confined to a certain area or structure because of a unresolved issue in that place. They do not always have to be spirits originating from someone that has once lived.

Ruku said:
-1 um ghosts are not undead, they do not have a physical body that implies any form of life or death or anything in between. As such there is also no such thing as a undead spirit.

ghosts are a type of spirit that is confined to a certain area or structure because of a unresolved issue in that place. They do not always have to be spirits originating from someone that has once lived.

Exactly! Well... More or less; theoretically a ghost could be attached to a person, object or even to a feeling ...but it still not an undead.

Ruku said:
-1 um ghosts are not undead, they do not have a physical body that implies any form of life or death or anything in between. As such there is also no such thing as a undead spirit.

ghosts are a type of spirit that is confined to a certain area or structure because of a unresolved issue in that place. They do not always have to be spirits originating from someone that has once lived.

If you're dead, but still able to move around, you're undead. It does not matter if you're ethereal or coporeal.

Can a recently-killed person become a zombie after their ghost has left them? If yes, does that mean you have 2 undead beings from the same previously living one?

To me, the answer is no. With or without a body, the ghost is about as alive as it's always been and ever will be, and is either never alive or never dead.

Genjar said:
That's outside information, which is not relevant to tagging. Pokemon should not be tagged as 'ghost' simply because they're ghost type. Note that there's already an implication to spirit, which makes no sense for the majority of ghost-type pokemon.

Nice strawman fallacy...it's not outside information...it's TWYS because most ghost-type pokemon look, well, ghostly.

Furthermore...I thought there were special rules when it comes to species that we could use outside information. Considering the character Shantae gets to have the "genie" tag despite only having pointy ears and some vaguely Arabian garb...seems like we're using TWYK on that character because we KNOW she's a half-genie and thus she gets that tag.

So I guess my point is basically if I search "pokemon ghost" I fully EXPECT to get ALL the ghost-types...not just the ones you deem to be "ghostly" enough. I mean freaking Gengar has FEET and not the typical ghostly tail...you could argue that it isn't ghostly enough to be classified as such, but it's one of the most recognizable and popular of all the ghost pokemon. It would be weird AF to search "pokemon ghost" and not see Gengar pop up at all.

Furrin_Gok said:
If you're dead, but still able to move around, you're undead. It does not matter if you're ethereal or coporeal.

Doesn't matter how it was created, an undead needs to be semi-live ("alive", but with features strongly attributed to the dead). Unless you consider draining energy from the surroundings, intangibility, invisibility/translucency etc. features attributable to corpses, there is no sense in claiming that ghosts are undead.
As I said, a ghost is an entity generated through death, however this alone doesn't make it an undead.

BlueDingo said:
Can a recently-killed person become a zombie after their ghost has left them? If yes, does that mean you have 2 undead beings from the same previously living one?

Yes, the zombie would simply be the reanimated corpse.
No, because ghosts aren't undead.

Dyrone said:
Nice strawman fallacy...it's not outside information...it's TWYS because most ghost-type pokemon look, well, ghostly.

*raises eyebrow*

With "most" do you want to say ¼?

O16 said:
Doesn't matter how it was created, an undead needs to be semi-live ("alive", but with features strongly attributed to the dead). Unless you consider draining energy from the surroundings, intangibility, invisibility/translucency etc. features attributable to corpses, there is no sense in claiming that ghosts are undead.
As I said, a ghost is an entity generated through death, however this alone doesn't make it an undead.

Yes, the zombie would simply be the reanimated corpse.
No, because ghosts aren't undead.

Ghosts often have the appearance of something alive--Whether forming a sillhouette of some animal or having a face. By TWYS, this counts.

Will-o-Wisps are the exception, but those shouldn't be tagged as ghosts anyways. They're just floating balls of fire anchored to a location. That seems to be the "exception" you're thinking of, which is why it's got a different tag for it.

O16 said:
*raises eyebrow*

With "most" do you want to say ¼?

If it doesn't look like a ghost, you're not following the rules by tagging it as one. For example, a Litwick is an animate_inanimate, not a ghost.

Dyrone said:
I thought there were special rules when it comes to species that we could use outside information.

I don't know who keeps making up such rules, but...

YOU CAN NOT USE EXTERNAL INFORMATION TO TAG GENDER, SPECIES, OR VIRTUALLY ANYTHING ELSE.

That's literally bolded and capped in the actual rules.

Anyway, both Wikipedia and TV Tropes classify ghosts as undead. And while neither is any kind of ultimate authority, they tend to be good indicators of how something's viewed in the popular culture. Ghosts are neither dead nor alive, therefore undead.

The one instance where this wouldn't work is someone dressed as a bedsheet ghost

kamimatsu said:
The one instance where this wouldn't work is someone dressed as a bedsheet ghost

Somebody wearing a owl mask gets tagged as an owl.
post #943601

As such, this wouldn't be the first time such a thing happens, and if it hasn't stopped implications before why would it now?

Ratte said:
Lore is irrelevant for tagging purposes outside of name and (usually) species. What things look like is which tags they receive.

I'm really getting mixed messages here unless this has been overruled since it was posted

Having species be twyk seems more useful in the vast majority of cases(meaning... to me, *personally*, it would be more useful /opinion).
Also, ghost shouldn't technically be a species in most cases you'd encounter on this site. It's more of a modifier to an existing species than one in itself. Zombie is also an example of this.

Furrin_Gok said:
Somebody wearing a owl mask gets tagged as an owl.
post #943601

As such, this wouldn't be the first time such a thing happens, and if it hasn't stopped implications before why would it now?

Because owls don't implicate anything an owl mask wouldn't anyway. A person wearing a bedsheet with holes doesn't even resemble undead in the loosest sense.

Ijerk said:
I'm really getting mixed messages here unless this has been overruled since it was posted

Checking the source is pretty much required for 'original species' and such, because otherwise we couldn't tag them as anything other than unknown_species.

But it doesn't override twys. Such as the aforementioned Shantae: if she looks like a normal human, she gets tagged as a human. Not as a genie.

Basically:
post #716418
"I don't remember what this thing is called, I'll have to check the source.": GOOD
"The source says that it's actually a ditto, so I'm gonna tag it as one.": BAD

Ijerk said:
Also, ghost shouldn't technically be a species in most cases you'd encounter on this site. It's more of a modifier to an existing species than one in itself. Zombie is also an example of this.

True. Those are just lumped into species tags because it's a better fit than in the other categories.

kamimatsu said:
Because owls don't implicate anything an owl mask wouldn't anyway. A person wearing a bedsheet with holes doesn't even resemble undead in the loosest sense.

Could just tag those as ghost_costume. They're probably common enough to warrant such tag. ...or if not common enough, just lump them into the existing halloween_costume tag?

Furrin_Gok said:
If it doesn't look like a ghost, you're not following the rules by tagging it as one. For example, a Litwick is an animate_inanimate, not a ghost.

I know it, what are you saying this to me?
I am questioning Dyrone's afirmation ("most ghost-type pokemon look, well, ghostly") for this exact reason; most ghost-type pokémon look like objects (e.g. aegislash) or creatures that clearly aren't actual ghosts (e.g. sableye).

Genjar said:

Anyway, both Wikipedia and TV Tropes classify ghosts as undead. And while neither is any kind of ultimate authority, they tend to be good indicators of how something's viewed in the popular culture. Ghosts are neither dead nor alive, therefore undead.

I) The same is true to vampires. they are commonly said as undead, but I doubt they should be tagged as such.

II) An undead is in an intermediary state between live and dead, a ghost is neither live nor dead. If you say "kill a vampire" or "kill a zombie" it is acceptable because they are considered to be alive to certain point; but if you say "kill a ghost" people will, at minimum, get confused.

O16 said:
II) An undead is in an intermediary state between live and dead, a ghost is neither live nor dead. If you say "kill a vampire" or "kill a zombie" it is acceptable because they are considered to be alive to certain point; but if you say "kill a ghost" people will, at minimum, get confused.

Not really. Like vampires and zombies, people will just assume "kill" means "do something that directly leads to it being completely dead". The meaning doesn't change. The status changes to "dead". It just stops being undead instead of alive.

kamimatsu said:
Not really. Like vampires and zombies, people will just assume "kill" means "do something that directly leads to it being completely dead". The meaning doesn't change. The status changes to "dead". It just stops being undead instead of alive.

Sorry, I guess that don't expressed myself properly.

By "get confused" I didn't meant people wouldn't understand that what the speaker originally meant was 'eliminate'; what I attempted to state was the fact of such construction generating a sensation of weirdness, due to the contradiction within the idea of "killing a ghost".

Genjar said:
Checking the source is pretty much required for 'original species' and such, because otherwise we couldn't tag them as anything other than unknown_species.

But it doesn't override twys. Such as the aforementioned Shantae: if she looks like a normal human, she gets tagged as a human. Not as a genie.

Tell that the every person who has tagged Shantae as a genie, but you are definitely over-simplifying her to fit the needs of your argument. Shantae has pointy ears...so by that virtue alone she is more elf-like than human-like. However, she doesn't have traditional elf features in the body or the face, so calling her an elf would be an oversimplification (and factually WRONG). So, by your own logic, we'd have to consider her an "original species" as you call it, warranting us to look up what she actually is...which is a genie.

O16 said:
I am questioning Dyrone's afirmation ("most ghost-type pokemon look, well, ghostly") for this exact reason; most ghost-type pokémon look like objects (e.g. aegislash) or creatures that clearly aren't actual ghosts (e.g. sableye).

Most objects don't FLOAT. A floating sword with an eye could certainly be considered to be possessed by a ghost, or at least a spirit. I will give you that Sableye doesn't much look like a ghost though.

I think this implication would actually be AGAINST TWYS because automatically you're assuming everything that LOOKS like a ghost is undead when in reality it isn't that simple. With zombies it's usually perfectly clear due to the stitches, the wounds, the rotting flesh, etc, but as with my Pokemon example...you're ascribing more information to the subject than you actually have. You're saying "ah, this thing is not only ghost-like, but it was actually alive at one time and now it's dead." THAT information lies outside of TWYS imo.

Dyrone said:
Tell that the every person who has tagged Shantae as a genie, but you are definitely over-simplifying her to fit the needs of your argument. Shantae has pointy ears...so by that virtue alone she is more elf-like than human-like. However, she doesn't have traditional elf features in the body or the face, so calling her an elf would be an oversimplification (and factually WRONG). So, by your own logic, we'd have to consider her an "original species" as you call it, warranting us to look up what she actually is...which is a genie.

Nice strawman. I did not claim that she should always be tagged as a human.

The ears plus the traditional attire are usually enough to mark her as a genie. If those aren't visible and she looks like a human, then she gets tagged as human (and is usually deleted as irrelevant ). You can argue against the site standards all you want, but ignoring them when tagging is not advisable.

Dyrone said:
Snip

A floating object that doesn't normally float, possessed or not, is animate_inanimate. The object being possessed is twyk information. It's definitely moving on its own, but whether that's by manipulation by a ghost is unknown. There are plenty of things that can move inanimate objects to appear as if it was doing it on its own, from telekinesis, to magnetism, to remote controls, to being a species that just looks like an inanimate object, such as a mimic. All of these would be twyk, and possession by a ghost is no different.

Genjar said:
Nice strawman. I did not claim that she should always be tagged as a human.

Wasn't trying to strawman...I literally thought you were trying to argue that Shantae should be tagged as human, and I was trying to explain why she isn't just a "normal human".

kamimatsu said:
A floating object that doesn't normally float, possessed or not, is animate_inanimate.

Wait...so by your logic any floating object is an animate_inanimate? that's...not true at all...an object has to "display signs of life" in order to use that tag. If there's just a like...an ordinary stapler floating through the air that's not a case of animate_inanimate, more than likely it's just an object that's being moved by an invisible force.

THIS is an animate inanimate...THIS is just a toaster that's floating above the ground...likely for stylistic reasons...not because it's "alive" in any way.

Dyrone said:
Wait...so by your logic any floating object is an animate_inanimate?

If you're going to claim you're not trying to strawman, try not immediately creating a strawman after that.

kamimatsu said:
If you're going to claim you're not trying to strawman, try not immediately creating a strawman after that.

Explain exactly how I was strawmanning...I'm curious.

Dyrone said:
Explain exactly how I was strawmanning...I'm curious.

Because you left out the part where I said it was an object that does not normally float. A toaster jumping into the air immediately after toast come out is not floating. It's at best a still image of toast having come out of it before it landed. While not scientifically accurate, it's not floating anymore than a pinball floats.

kamimatsu said:
Because you left out the part where I said it was an object that does not normally float.

No...I didn't. I quoted you and in that quote it says "A floating object that doesn't normally float"...in other words it's in there. Sorry you can't be bothered to read my post completely.

kamimatsu said:
A toaster jumping into the air immediately after toast come out is not floating. It's at best a still image of toast having come out of it before it landed. While not scientifically accurate, it's not floating anymore than a pinball floats.

So I guess it's pretty damn easy to confuse floating, jumping, or being thrown through the air? Just shows why your idea that any floating object is an animate_inanimate is a pretty stupid rule to make up.

Dyrone said:
No...I didn't. I quoted you and in that quote it says "A floating object that doesn't normally float"...in other words it's in there. Sorry you can't be bothered to read my post completely.

So I guess it's pretty damn easy to confuse floating, jumping, or being thrown through the air? Just shows why your idea that any floating object is an animate_inanimate is a pretty stupid rule to make up.

And then you IMMEDIATELY said ANY floating object is what I meant. The quote means nothing if you're just going to deliberately misinterpret it anyway, just like saying you aren't making a strawman means nothing when it's immediately followed by making a strawman.

Like the one you just made about me apparently saying they are easily confused. I didn't say it was POSSIBLY not floating. At best doesn't mean maybe. It means that's the closest it is physically possible to be to what you said without the usual context enhancement you love to use.

kamimatsu said:
And then you IMMEDIATELY said ANY floating object is what I meant. The quote means nothing if you're just going to deliberately misinterpret it anyway, just like saying you aren't making a strawman means nothing when it's immediately followed by making a strawman.

I think it's implied that I meant any object that doesn't usually float. Objects that naturally float are so few and far between I didn't think I needed to be more specific. Notice my example I used is a toaster...a decidedly non-floating object...not something like a balloon. You're just nitpicking, probably because you know your statement was wrong and you have no further to go down that avenue. You can either admit that floating alone is no evidence of an animate_inanimate -> !!!! FOR OBJECTS THAT DON'T NORMALLY FLOAT !!! <- or you can just stop talking.

Levitation, telekinesis, magnetism.

How long is this sidetrack gonna last?

Dyrone said:
I think it's implied that I meant any object that doesn't usually float. Objects that naturally float are so few and far between I didn't think I needed to be more specific. Notice my example I used is a toaster...a decidedly non-floating object...not something like a balloon. You're just nitpicking, probably because you know your statement was wrong and you have no further to go down that avenue. You can either admit that floating alone is no evidence of an animate_inanimate -> !!!! FOR OBJECTS THAT DON'T NORMALLY FLOAT !!! <- or you can just stop talking.

A toaster that could not possinly have been floating even in the image.

To kamimatsu (IV) and Dyrone (I, II and III):

I) In fiction isn't uncommon for objects to have "live features" or even float, and that may have multiple reasons aside of ghostly possession.

II) following that logic, various pokémon would be "ghosts" as well, for example: klang (gears), vanilluxe (ice cream), claydol (argil sculpture), geodude (rock), bronzong (bell), carbink (gem), magnemite (magnets), klefki (key ring) etc.

III) if a ghost posses an object giving it mobility and "live features" then, in that form, it would be much more like an animate inanimate than an object or ghost.

IV) Seeing an object, which normally doesn't float, floating may be strange, but this mere fact isn't enough to instantly assume it is alive. There are various reasons for this to happen (or appear to be happening) in real life and many more in fiction (as BlueDingo exemplified).

This is actually really simple: By site tagging standards, ghosts ARE undead. End of story.

Direct from the undead tag's wiki:

When something is not dead, but not really living either.

This includes zombies, ghouls, ghosts, and other things that roam about but don't exactly live.

Emphasis added by me. So, use whatever moon logic you want, to justify them not counting as undead to you, but it all becomes meaningless to tagging, when the wiki explicitly states that they are.

jacob said:
This is actually really simple: By site tagging standards, ghosts ARE undead. End of story.
...
Emphasis added by me. So, use whatever moon logic you want, to justify them not counting as undead to you, but it all becomes meaningless to tagging, when the wiki explicitly states that they are.

It somehow seems appropriate that a thread about ghosts and the undead should suffer necromancy.

Regardless, the wiki is useful as a reference, but it can't be considered the end-all be-all of things as it can be in error, especially since anyone with an account can edit it. It can certainly serve as a starting point for discussion, such as to decide if "ghosts" need to be edited out of this particular entry. And if the wiki is in error, it should be corrected, but only once the error has been detected, as Jacob has done, and agreed upon that it is indeed an error and can thus be fixed.

As for the implication itself, no, I don't think ghosts should implicate undead, with the wiki updated to reflect that. Undead are those caught in that twilight state between fully living and deceased. That includes things like shambling corpses afflicted with insomnia and various sorts of vampiric beings. But according to legend and stories, ghosts themselves are specifically spirits of the dead. They are explicitly deceased, either the nonphysical aspects of a living being still on this side of the veil or some sort of emotional or psychic imprint of the deceased person. They don't have a semblance of life. They have no life at all.

If a soul/spirit belonged to somebody who is now fully, truly dead, it won't be present in the physical world. By still being around, a ghost is still clinging to some semblance of life. Hence, undead.

Hypothetical story to illustrate my point, stolen from a visual novel (spoiler: purrfect_apawcalypse)

• A and B are both alive and well -> A is alive, B is alive

• A kills B -> A is alive, B is dead

• B's soul goes to purgatory -> A is alive, B is dead

• B's soul is taken out of purgatory through magic, B is now a ghost -> A is alive, B is undead

• B possesses A's body in revenge, A and B now share A's body -> A is alive, B is alive (body swapped)

• A's soul is sent to hell -> A is dead, B is alive (body swapped)

• A's soul is taken out of hell through magic, A is now a ghost -> A is undead, B is alive (body swapped)

• A possesses B's corpse, A is now a zombie -> A is undead (body swapped), B is alive (body swapped)

My point is that the body (or lack thereof) does not define undeath. Most of the people who disagree with the implication above have argued that ghosts are a kind of spirit and spirits cannot be living or dead, but that requires outside information. It is a feature of ghosts in the folklore and media that you grew up knowing, not of ghosts in general. In the canon of the story above, ghosts are always an undead person because if they were truly dead they would be somewhere else, and who a person IS is defined solely by their mind, which is why someone can be alive even if their body is not and vice versa.

The tag implication ghost -> undead (forum #233418) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.