Talk:Pet Sematary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Edited the plot on the page towards the end, but I need to check the book for any other whomever wrote out the plot guidelines last made them for the FILM, not for the book, which is what this section is obviously for. (see "history" for evidence of this). Any additional help in reverting the plot section from movie to book would be appreciated! JadeGryphon (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 29 October 2008

The plot summary seems a bit long, no? Would anyone object to shortening it? Roseclearfield (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying (very hard) to walk the fine line between 'literary detail' and 'original research' -- specifically, the heavy intimation that the pet sematary has its own semi-conscious "volition," not just a power, but seemingly its own desires, methods, and end-goals, even if only just corruption and/or destruction. The book returns to this theme on at least three separate occasions: Jud's influence via show-off mania (and, later, sleepiness), Rachel's constant travel delays, Louis' own grave-robber compulsion (and later break from sanity(?)). I do want to keep the references to 'guilt and grief' as motivations, but also reference "the place." Anyone have any suggestions here? Sskoog (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find it best to limit plot summaries to what actually happens rather than to speculate on motivations and such. For instance, saying Louis does something because he feels guilt is fine if the text says he feels guilt, but saying why he feels guilt would seem to me to be a no-no unless the book clearly indicated what the contributing factors were. Just my thoughts. DonIago (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Indian is NOT what the burial grounds are; unless the book explicatly says/means that Indians made those burial grounds, then I'd accept that term, but I have never heard of people from India making burial grounds on the EAST coast of North America. Also, Indian should not follow Micmac; you don't say Chinese Orientals, do you? 08 May 2006

Uh....the indians in the story are red indians or the meso-americans, not the indians of asia. If you need to be a purist in wordplay, the indians of asia should be known as bharatis and not "indians" per se.
Bold text.165.213]] 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you a supporter of the caste system of India???????????????100110100 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that means that
should be
. 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding, 'Also, Indian should not follow Micmac; you don't say Chinese Orientals, do you?' I'm going to put parenthesis. I don't think I have to explain why........ 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry I don't know the exact place, but somewhere in the book it says that the burial grounds were there before the Micmacs came and found them. they didn't make the place what it was; it was already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No one likes an elitist asshat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, the reasoning behind it isn't 'oooh, the natives are restless,' it's because there's a wendigo lairing there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Zelda flashbacks?[edit]

I deleted from the plot summary line about Zelda:

— an issue which is brought up several times in flashbacks.)

The novel is told mostly from Louis's POV: there aren't any "flashback"s in the narrative sense, although Rachel tells the story of Zelda's death to Louis and then imagines that she sees Zelda when she's actually seeing the Gage-zombie. Thus reference to flashbacks in the novel plot-summary is inaccurate. The movie does use flashbacks to depict Zelda. Ellsworth 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


The intro to this article I think should not contain any reference to the monkey's paw - this should go into a different section. And it certainly should not assume knowledge about the story (some people may not know what "the second wish" was). Satchfan 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Other treatments[edit]

The film Pet Sematary 2 was, according to IMDb, less of a money-maker, but, in fairness, it was made on a smaller budget. Since the "secret" of the cemetery was already known from the first film, the only draw, perhaps, was what other craziness would result from reanimating other deceased. IMDb also indicates (but, in early July 2009, without any details at all) that another film named Pet Sematary is in the works for 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

References to other King Works[edit]

Is "The name on one of the graves is Pennywise, the demonic clown from It." from the book, or the movie? I can't find a reference to Pennywise in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwafl42 (talkcontribs) 05:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I just finished reading the book a moment ago, and I can assure you that it made no reference to Pennywise (although there were a couple mentions of Derry, Maine, the setting of It). I picked up on several of the allusions to King's other writings, and such a reference as that would have been jarringly obvious. As to whether Pennywise is mentioned in the film I cannot say, as I have yet to see it. —MearsMan talk 12:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned that the Kenduskeag River as well as Derry were mentioned by Jud. Both places were in the novel "It".

Derry was also in "Insomnia." (Aneil4lom (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC))

When Jud is first talking about the pets that are buried in the "Pet Sematary", he talks about no longer being able to keep raccoons as pets, due to rabies, and then segues to "a big old St Bernard [that] went rabid downstate a couple of years ago and killed four people", an obvious reference to Cujo, but I haven't seen any references to Pennywise, other than the mentioned references to Derry. Aericanwizard (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On her return to Maine from Chicago, Rachel passes a place called "Jerusalem's Lot"

In "It" when Richie Tozier pulls over the side of the highway on his way to Derry, an Orinco truck passes by him. (Aneil4lom (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC))

How could there be any reference to a book he had not even written yet?Hellblazer1138 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be "Links to other King works" like on the page for "It" as opposed to references. (Aneil4lom (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC))

Writing Process[edit]

I think it would be wise to put a section in about the writing process of this novel, with details of the trouble he had writing it. --BuddyOfHolly (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Ramones[edit]

would it be worth mentioning the ramones references in the book, in this article? such as louis on several times thinking hey-ho, let's go to himself. and that he books the motel room in the name "dee dee ramone". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrox (talkcontribs) 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Louis also listens to "Rockaway Beach" on his drive to the University for the first day of his job.(Aneil4lom (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC))

I don't believe such things are generally appropriate for inclusion unless third-party sources have taken note of them in some manner. Doniago (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Section on film adaptation too detailed?[edit]

The Film, TV or theatrical adaptations section gets into too much detail, IMO. Do we need to know that a man was cast for the character of Zelda? What about the Ramones' contributions and Maine filming locations? All of these would be better off in the Pet Sematary film article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charger2 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


Why is cemetery spelt wrongly in the title? Or is that how Americans spell 'cemetery'? VenomousConcept (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is how the author spells it. It's because the pet cemetery was created by children who did not know how to spell. Charger2 (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to answer this question in this edit but it was reverted as unsourced and not belonging in the plot summary. I found it on IMDB and Yahoo Answers, both not reputable sources, but referencing the introduction in the book itself. I do not have the book to look at the introduction and provide a citation for the explanation. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If you can accurately source it to the book that is fine. But it doesn't belong in the plot summary because that is not part of the plot. I think it might fit in the "Origin and inspiration section". Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pet Sematary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Gage Creed merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge on the grounds of no consensus to merge in the face of arguments of independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I propose merging Gage Creed into this article. Generally, the reasons are those raised at the recent AfD (see also the DRV) of Gage Creed (which, at the time of those discussions, was at Gage Creed (character)). In sum, notability is questionable, as there do not appear to be WP:THREE, or even two, WP:GNG-satisfying sources. Additionally, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the existing content in both articles is short enough that there isn't a need to split them, and reader understanding of the character Gage Creed will be better served in the context of an article about Pet Sematary. Levivich 00:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Reasonable editors disagree as to the RS. No-consensus is how i imagine this discussion. WP:NORUSH I was hoping we could all take a breath before more of the same regarding this article. Lightburst (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Merge There is a complete lack of sources substantively focusing on this character. He has no notability independently of this work, and all content would fit perfectly fine within this article (or the movie where relevant), which keeps related content together rather than unnecessarily spread across multiple pages. Reywas92Talk 03:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:THREE is an essay, just an opinion, which actually goes against the general notability guidelines which clearly state it needs multiple, defined as more than one(that means two), to be notable. Inverse (website) and both list this on their top ten list of scariest Steven King villains, and give significant coverage of the character. Dream Focus 06:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support merge Per reasons I gave in the AFD in favour of redirecting. It should be noted that this is the third time a discussion related to the Creed article has been canvassed on WP:ARS, despite this discussion having nothing to do with article deletion or the need to "rescue" article content. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose To much content to merge creating weight issues at Pet Sematary. If all the content was retained it would make sense to begin a new discussion to split it off to a separate article. See WP:PRESERVE (policy). -- GreenC 02:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenC: How so? Disregarding the plot information (which if it is relevant should already be here), there's only a few sentences. Most GA- and FA-class articles on fictional properties include a lot more than that on each of their major characters, especially if Creed is as important a character as has been asserted. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
It is more than "plot information" and writing about a character is different from writing about a work as a whole even when there is some natural overlap. -- GreenC 04:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but how much of the former really needs to be WP:PRESERVEd in this case? Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Enough that a merge doesn't make sense. Why I !voted Oppose. -- GreenC 04:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is very short; even if every single character named in the plot summary got two more solid paragraphs worth of material about them (not what this is proposing -- and probably not even that much would need to be merged from the Gage article) the article would still be quite short. Furthermore, if it would be giving undue weight to Gage to include more content on him in this article, then it's certainly undue weight for him to be the only character whose name is linked to a separate article devoted to him. Most of the information in that article actually isn't even specifically about the character but about the inspiration and adaptations of the work as a whole, with some of it already being included in this article (or sorely missing from this article).
Plus, it honestly looks a lot more like the reason Why I !voted Oppose was not because of a sincere belief that this article would not be improved by having the content of the Gage Creed article merged into it, but rather because I mentioned ARS exceeding its normal mandate and behaving disruptively -- you habitually show up almost every time I make such comments, and in this case you even cited WP:PRESERVE (a policy that can't possibly be used to justify not moving content from one part of the encyclopedia to the other) despite having failed to do so in either the AFD or the DRV...
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is like a Stephen King story: the discussion that will not die and keeps resurrecting to enthrall and torment its victims. It's time to put it to sleep – "no fair, no fair, no fair...". The nomination above is based upon WP:THREE but that's an essay and is inflationary – the traditional measure for notability has been two and, in any case, the topic easily passes both numbers as I had no trouble listing a dozen sources and I know that such sources are adequate for expanding and supporting the topic because I've actually worked on the article. The nomination proposes merger into the novel but much of the content relates to the movies as they generate lots of production detail – the actors, doubles, props, reception, &c. – and the plots of the movies are different. The key policy here is WP:NOTPAPER and we're proving it by starting numerous additional pages for these discussions. The page is fine as it is so if it works don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Andrew, if you don't think it's a good idea to have information spread across multiple pages that would be better incorporated into a single article of reasonable length, as your last sentence implies, then why are you opposed to this merge? Anyway, can you give me an example of a piece of valuable, encyclopedic information that is currently in the Gage article that couldn't be merged into this one? Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it would be better if everyone who had participated in the AFD/DRV and/or came here because of the canvassing message on ARS struck or collapsed our !votes and let uninvolved parties come here and judge for themselves whether this article would be better served with the material from the Gage article incorporated into it? Thus far virtually all comments (particularly from the oppose "side" -- I would like to claim that I looked at the content of both articles and carefully assessed whether they would be better as a single article) is from an involved editor repeating some variation on what had already been said. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how many editors are watchlisting this page or Pet Sematary. What do you think about going in the other direction, and pinging everyone who participated in the AfD/DRV? I count 30 editors who commented at one or the other (28 if you take out the closers), each of whom is at least somewhat familiar with the subject matter due to their prior involvement. Levivich 03:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that is that, if the current sample is anything to go on (mostly, I'll admit, rabid "keepist" editors who will oppose anything that looks like them not being allowed to get "their way"), they'll mostly just show up and !vote the same way they already did (keep/endorse → oppose merge, delete-redirect/overturn → support merge) and we'll be left with "no consensus". I think a better solution would be to use Talk:Pet Sematary/merge draft to create a sample of what the merged article would look like first. I'm 99% certain that, if done carefully, it would prove a drastic improvement on what we have here, and that would probably go a long way in convincing the good-faith "endorse" !voters (not including the ones who just don't want to "lose") that the proposal has merit. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and relatively strongly - all of the sources in the article are about the book anyways, and the information's inclusion in the Pet Sematary article will both help lengthen it and improve it, as opposed to having two separate sources of very similar information. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, as the nom in the recent AfD, the character is notable within that universe, but doesn't pass real world notability criteria.Onel5969 TT me 15:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this nomination is a blatant failure of WP:DELAFD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:JDL. This is the second time after an AfD that this article has been nominated to try and achieve a new outcome. It’s just ridiculous at this point. It’s obvious the article needs improvement. So rather than constantly trying to delete the article in hopes of a new result, might I suggest assisting in bettering the article? - SeanTheYeti452
  • That's now two oppose votes citing WP:PRESERVE, which specifically mentions merging as a way of maintaining content in the face of deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 05:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons cited above. That you couldn't get the article deleted (twice) within the last two weeks should govern the outcome here. 7&6=thirteen () 13:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The character is not notable separately from the book and does not need a separate article to give information that relates to Pet Sematery. Unclear how this can be a "blatant failure of WP:PRESERVE" when that specifically gives merging as an acceptable way to preserve content. Reywas92Talk 21:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis that the character isn't really notable outside of the book. Any information about the character could appear in the book article, or one of the films, and indeed all the relevant information does. Slac speak up! 20:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per discussion. This is an adequate page for a Stephen King character who has appeared across multiple projects. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The character was considered notable among Stephen King's characters in the book. It would be better to leave it a separate article of solely Gage Creed. User: NelsonLee20042020
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.