Talk:World War Z/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Restoration

It's a travesty what has happened over the last six months to this article. I'm obviously not blaming anyone specific, but this page went from having a detailed plot summary including the segments of the book in various parts of the world, including character background information, to nothing more than a simple advertisement. Even the background information about Solanum, and references to the survival guide (be it speculation or not) have been removed. What gives?

Perhaps the best suggestion would be to restore the long, detailed information, while citing page numbers for information. I can understand the complaints about original research, but it's not difficult to see that the survival guide, whether actually existing or not, could be seen as giving valuable background information. At worst, preface the section with a notice that there is no explicit connection, that the information comes from the same author, and "fits".

Further, there is never any reason to remove detailed information from an article. It in no way improves the article. If there are concerns about it being overly detailed, briefly summarize it in the introductory paragraph. The edit wars are childish.

Third, the character information needs to be restored. Simply put.

Due to concerns about the previous versions, I will NOT be reverting to previous versions. I will, however, when time permits, begin the sections outlined above to restore backgroun, plot, and character information. In order to avoid disagreement, I will cite any major statements with page numbers. I don't know much about formatting or special tags, but I will put down content to the best of my ability, and will appreciate any help one can offer. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. Since someone keeps undoing my changes without offering any alternatives, I'll just work on my own and post any completed sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.168.201.1 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Seriously, what happened here? This was a fantastic article once.Nijon (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

because most of the content was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.164.229 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Background

Okay, I've worked on some background information for the book. Although deletion is not necessary, I admit that it could definitely benefit from other edits. I've tried to remove any original research, and research that comes solely from the survival guide. However, the two books are so closely tied. I do believe that the survival guide should be mentioned, as it is not only a precursor, but the two books fit the same model of zombies and survival - though I do believe it is important not to present the link as concrete until evidence can be found. I will try to find some evidence for this though, as I strongly believe Brooks inteded the two books to be linked. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, found an interview that shows the link, though my wiki-fu isn't very good. Please help!

well given that the survival guide refers to a history of zombie outbreak its unlikely they exist in the same universe, its more likely he reused the same groundrules as the idea for the book was the global pandemic mentioned in the guide. as for the background i don't think it really necessary or appropriate since the purpose of an encyclopedia is to talk about the book as a real world artifact rather than comment on its fictional universe. so i feel that the opening summary is enough and this background section should be removed and you should focus on any real world influence the novel has had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.164.229 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If you read the source interview, Brooks states that all the laws set in the survival guide hold in this book. Although it is not explicitly stated that the guide referred to in this book was Brooks' previous survival guide, that fact that it's mentioned combined with the content of the interview is enough for any reasonable person to conclude it exists in that universe. At least that must should be mentioned, and any information gained from the zombie survival guide is relevant as background information.

As for the background information, the book itself is not written in a linear form. It describes a global situation and each interview shows the impact on the fictional world. Because of this, a separate section detailing what zombies are and what they do is necessary to the understanding of this book. Would you please elaborate on how this information is not appropriate or encyclopedic? I do agree with you that real-world influence this book had is important and should be added with appropriate sources. Would you be able to work on this? I don't think I can help until I do more work on the plot summary. The current description is less of a synopsis and more of something you read on amazon. I miss this page's former glory, and hope that this can be restored with proper sources and information. I further agree that substantial editing on existing sections is warranted. However, I respectfully ask that neither you nor anyone completely remove sections or information. This page needs new information and refining, not removal or withholding of information.136.168.160.11 (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any stated or implied rule that wikipedia should only focus on real-world information and avoid explaining the fictional universe - could you explain why this should be removed from this page and countless other wikipedia pages (star trek comes to mind)? IMHO, the goal of wikipedia is to provide as complete, uncensored information as possible about any subject that can be verified and actually contributes to the collection of knowledge about a topic. Because of this, I believe any information that would assist a user in understanding what happens in a book is not only appropriate, but needed for a complete wiki page - so long as the information is accurate, verifiable, and is not convoluted. Because real-world impact of this book would assist in that understanding, I encourage you to create and add to that section if you can. However, removing relevant background and plot information where it is either correct or can be improved is contrary to the goal of this website. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction), other crap exists is never a valid argument on wikipedia, plus any content you add cannot be plagaristic, please read the argument between Sherzo and Man in Black last year he recommended using [[1]] as an inspiration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.42.31 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite know what exactly you are saying. Although I agree that just because another page has a certain section doesn't mean that this page should, the fact that numerous pages across wikipedia about fictional universes expand on their universe does suggest that this page can do the same, as it has similar circumstances. I also agree that we should not plagiarize, but don't see how a correctly-written or detailed background would do so. The only concern we would have is copyright infringement, but - like the other argument - that just depends on summarizing the background, rather than giving out copies of the book. I couldn't find anything about Sherzo from your link - can you send it to my talk page? Further, could you expand on what types of content should or shouldn't be in the background so we can discuss it point-by-point? BigScaryGary (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to get full approval before adding something: go ahead and expand the section if you like, and if it's too long or detailed or in-universe it'll be reverted, pruned or edited accordingly. What precisely is acceptable varies from case to case, but it's certainly true that a great deal of articles take plot sections too far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I'm trying to plan out how I'll write the summary, and would like help from the other editors. I think the best way would be to summarize in chronological order only the important events. Any suggestions on what should be included/excluded? 75.80.82.112 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Character page

Why was that deleted? Kuralyov (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Unknown, as I wasn't here when it was. My guess is that sometimes editors will, upon seeing a section that needs serious work, will choose to completely delete it rather than improve it. Using that and the fact that the most heated debates revolved around the use of original research in the past, I would guess that. I encourage you to add that if you can, but ask that you make sure everything you put down is verifiable. Personally, I won't outright delete a section unless it's vandalism, but I don't own the page.75.80.82.112 (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I get it back? I would like to find and revert the Characters page as I think it contributes to understanding the work. Essentially the work _is_ the characters. Much of the satire element is found in the characterization.Stewart king (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Click the "history" tab at the top of the page, and go through the diffs or old page versions. You can click on the date links to see what the page looked like at that particular time. I don't think there's any simpler way to find past versions than searching manually, but eventually you'll get far back enough to find the character summaries, if you skip around. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

it failed an AFD, probably on notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.90.198 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, person without a signature. You are using jargon so us Muggles obviously are expected to think you know what you are talking about. But since my Mama raised me to have a critical mind, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what an "AFD" is and what "notability" is and why it is bad. I repeat, I liked the characters page -- which was a separate page, though linked to this one -- and I want it back. How do I go about doing that? Or is it lost forever? -- Stewart king (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD is articles for deletion, so the nameless one probably meant that it was judged not notable enough to keep. Could someone more in the know please intervene here and tell us how to restore a deleted article?Westrim (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD is indid Article for deletion the deletion Log will give the reason why. You can appeal such decisions but in this case i doubt you achieve much success as the characters would fail to meet the criteria for notability. I have no idea what a "muggle" but these are common terms on wiki and i didn't use them with the intent to confuse you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.235.17 (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Muggle" is from the Harry Potter series, meaning "non-magical person". I withdraw the suggestion that you were deliberately trying to mystify me, and apologize. My edits to the characters page were an attempt to make them "notable" by pointing out the satire element. -- Stewart king (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Headlines for film in development

• WonderCon: Spotlight on Straczynski
• JMS to Dive Headfirst into DC Universe
• ECCC 2008: Straczynski Reveals Wealth of New Projects

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia

I want to build consensus around what should be in the list within the "Description" section, because the little revert skirmish we're having is getting ridiculous. I think that "Russia becomes a religious theocracy" should be included within the list (which already mentions Great Britain, Cuba, and Tibet). Now, all the others aside, I don't see how this could be objectionable. 82.27.254.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made the following arguments in edit summaries: "i'm not removing the russia thing because it is untrue it just doesn't fit in a sentence about juxtaposition" and "really have you been to russia recently? its the most religious country in europe the orthodox church is extremely powerful". My argument is that, since Russia is not currently a religious theocracy, this makes for a striking juxtaposition, and so it fits well within the list. Even if we concede the extreme power of the orthodox church, that doesn't mean the church runs the government, or that the government is built around religion. Does anyone agree that we should include the above statement, or am I going crazy? -FrankTobia (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to set off an edit war here (I signed up after making the original change as IP 71.177.159.72) I removed the British oil note (and will again) because it is not supported by the book (only a small comment on page 192 of the paperback about drilling under Windsor castle ) and because it already is a producer of fossil fuels. The switch to a theocracy in Russia, however, was a key point in at least two interviews. According to the CIA world factbook, only 20 percent of Russia is Russian orthodox. The strength of the church is immaterial- no one would call Italy a theocracy- as is the percentage of the population that is religious compared to the rest of Europe. Otherwise, America would also be a theocracy. Westrim (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read that part in the book a long time, but I do believe that it stated that Britain discovered oil under Windsor castle, which significantly boosted their economy. If that is true, then it does need to be included. Remember to be bold - anything in the book is supported by the book and should be included if notable enough. I believe it would be more appropriate if we moved all those things to a section called "Aftermath" which explains how each country changed as a result of the war. The parts about Britain, Russia, Cuba, Mexico and more are extremely relevant to the plot. BigScaryGary (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Westrim, I would like to leave the article with the statements about both Russia and Britain in tact until consensus is reached. I assure you that this is not saying the page is endorsing those statements, but simply holding them until we can determine whether they are supported. The alternative to this would be to remove both. I do not believe it would be wise to have one but not the other and ask you to revert your edit removing the statements. BigScaryGary (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your actions show a desire to actually improve the page and collaborate with others who want the same goal.BigScaryGary (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it alone until next Saturday. If someone can give a concrete reason to keep the Britain segment, I will. I'll also be adding a bit about the change in American culture. So you know, I am very much an inclusionist, but the Britain bit seems to have little support.Westrim (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank Westrim and BigScaryGuy for getting involved this time around. Westrim, you didn't set off an edit war, so don't feel guilty or anything. Check out this thread to see me getting pretty frustrated about this content issue, which has been ongoing. Again I'm going to thank you two for being incredibly reasonable. For the record, I support keeping the Russia fact, but I think the Britain fact should be modified at the very least, because "Great Britain becomes a major producer of oil" is not supported in the book. The only relevant section I could find is on pg. 192, I believe. Anyway, I'm looking forward to settling this issue. Thanks again. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

first the CIA world fact book isn't a reliable source, second if you been to russia or read about it you know it has a growing conservative motive that wants a strong and moral russia and that the country's leader Putin is a virtual king so it going down a religious theocracy route isn't that striking particularly since in the book its not like the people become zealous religious. as for UK oil, well it does say that at the conference one of the issue was the UK armoured Motorways and it supplying oil in international trade. but to be honest i don't care a great deal its the style not the content that bothers me you should always give 3 examples not 4, it reads better, second the russia thing isn't a juxtaposition as its not the opposite of the present situation. also i think you should try to expand the elements that discuss the book in the real world like Simon Pegg's glowing endorsement rather than get dragged down into the in-universe stuff if you want to do that create a World War Z wiki.

CIA fact book is a reliable source. It is published material from a reputable agency and is far more appropriate than the original research you've presented as a counter-argument, but that's not as important as how the Russia changes in the book. The Juxtaposition argument may be valid, but as you can tell, that might be moved to an aftermath section. If Britain's change and Russia's change are significant with regards to the fictional universe created in the book, then their presence is warranted. The only debate between editors on this issue is whether those subjects are supported in the book and if they are significant. BigScaryGary (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA is far from a reputable agency as it often present political eschewed research the UN or OSCE are far better. I don't really consider it a counter argument because i don't care, but here are some reports you might find informative,[2], [3] and [4]. As for "the Aftermath section" i doubt any further analysis of the universe is really appropriate without some justification of real world notability for those plot points. Please consult both the archive and previous incarnations of the page and why they were removed, you certainly don't want it returning to this again. Or that bloody stupid picture coming back!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.117.142 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you're so opposed to expanding on the fictional universe of various topics. It happens on numerous wikipedia pages and is acceptable. Although the page you showed me does have a bit too much information, I see nothing wrong with including information from the plot, and will begin working on an aftermath section as well as information on the Redeker Plan. If you feel this does not belong, please explain exactly why, rather than talking about notoriety. Consensus seems to be reached on this with the other editors. Also, please begin signing your comments. BigScaryGary (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BigScaryGary and his assessment above. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever "political eschewed research" means. The CIA World Fact Book is basic information and research and public information about countries and governments around the world, there's practically no interpretation made on their part; they just collect the information and publish it. I don't even see how you can even draw and opinion of the CIA from the WFB, it's just collecting information that's already out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.19.99.1 (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has presented a concrete reason to keep the Britain segment , I'm going to delete it. There is no evidence that the exploitation of oil under Windsor Castle translated into major market share production of oil, and Britain was only mentioned in passing a couple times for the rest of the book. As for whether the Russia segment is valid, that seems to have to devolved into a back and forth on the reliability of the CIA. I looked at some other sources, including the U.S. State Department, Wikipedia, National Geographic, and Encyclopedia Britannica, which all concurred with the CIA the Russia is NOT a theocracy, and that religion, while important, is not a major factor in that nations politics. It's even less of a theocracy than the U.S. is. Conservative does not equal religious.Westrim (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I support the actions Westrim describes. It's about time we got consensus for this. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I support it too. I apologize that I haven't done much research on this - I've had final exams (but I now have a bachelor's degree in computer science!!!). Hopefully sometime next week, I'll try and do some constructive edits. However, I will honor consensus regarding the Brittain issue. BigScaryGary (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Redeker Plan

Given that this is a major part of the book, I'm going to go ahead and include it - though I might not have time to do so for about a week. I was thinking it would best be explained in its own section. Any thoughts? BigScaryGary (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but bring back part of one of the earlier article versions that was divided by the time periods while you're at it, and integrate it into that. I was surprised to see that that had been removed.Westrim (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

you should avoid talking in detail about the plot to much instead focus on it as a real world artifact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.197.141 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality

yet again this article has descend to a much poorer quality. i recommend people read this conversation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_Z/Archive_3#Notability

I'm all for expanding the article, but not the plot summary, that should summarize the book and no matter how complicated the plot maybe its still possible to summarize it. Instead why not create a Literary citicism and Major theme section supported by reputable sources? There are plenty out there, a search on Google can prove that. I'll start working on that this Friday. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of sources I plan to use. There are a lot so anyone can feel free to start with what I was able to find. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I created the new sections with the sources and expanded other ones, comments? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it needs more work of course, but it's a good start. Westrim (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anything in particular that needs cleanup/expansion/better sources/etc? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I've always thought that the old format for the plot summary of dividing the war into its time periods should be brought back. It really helps keep it organized and makes it clear what happens when. It will make it a bit longer, but as long as the article doesn't go over 30KB it shouldn't be a problem (as that includes the refining of other sections and adding references). The other sections mostly need cleanup, although we might want more specific page cites in the background section. Westrim (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

zombie hunter smurf you have done a fine job, your a credit to wikipedia though the plot summary could steal use some culling its far to long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.191.227 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Major themes

I think the major theme section needs to be reworked. There are a couple bits that belong in the Literary significance and reception section, and the part about being against bureaucracy is at odds with materiel later in the story, like the DeStRes head interview. Westrim (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the stuff about the bureaucracy can be kept as long as we add a line about the interview. Its possible Brooks meant that interview to highlight what he thought was an example of ideal bureaucrat. But what needs to be added specifically to the literary section? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

Obviously there is some disagreement about the length of the current plot summary. Both sides arguments have merit. While a complex plot might require a complex plot summary we also do not want to have an "info dump." So instead lets take a chance to compromise and discuss what the summary should contain. Thoughts/comments? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not an info dump. Dismissals by proxy -"its no war and peace"- are irrelevant, and accusations of plagiarism ore misleading at best- otherwise every episode list and certainly every episode article in the TV portal would be plagiarism, as would be 90% of the HP articles. There may be disagreement, but there is no debate or merit. Westrim (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets try to focus on how the plot summary should be organized and what information needs to go in and needs to stay out. Once we have an outline going we can update the section. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you opened this section with the disagreement about length, so I was answering that. On organization, I already gave my thoughts on what should be done with the plot summary in the quality section a few days ago. I would try try doing it myself, but I haven't had time to finish another set of articles that I became custodian of yet, so it would be a couple weeks. Westrim (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be trimmed until the article's entire coverage of the plot does not exceed 700 words in length. End of story. We have guidelines for a reason - to stop fanboys from endlessly extending plot summaries until they form Reader's Digest versions of the works themselves. This one is currently halfway there. Broad swathes of less important narrative should be jettisoned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Where in the guidelines does it limit it to 700 words? I looked around because I haven't heard of an official limit before. WP:PLOTSUM doesn't actually give a word count and Wikipedia:Plot summaries actually says between 300 and 500 words. Am I looking in the wrong spot? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's been changed since last I looked. I'd be even happier with 300-500 words. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I interpret those guidelines though is that the guidelines only recommend that length (in fact it says that word a few times). Also Starship Troopers a Featured Class article has a plot summary over a thousand words long. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing is that they are guidelines, not rules. They work for the majority of articles, but there are exceptions for matters such as notability, or, as in this case, complexity. This is a largely atypical novel; there are no main or even secondary characters (unless the interviewer is counted), so we can't just summarize the most important events for those characters. Mindless cutting will not improve the article, which is our ultimate goal here; of course the section should be easy to read for passersby, but it still needs to do the job of adequately informing them as well. Westrim (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone feels there beloved article is the exception, but the guidelines are there for a reason. The minimum about of words possible to articulate the information at hand, not fanwank and not plagarising large sections of the plot. Succinct and snappy is what you should be aiming for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.231.231 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the 300-500 word length comes from a Wikipedia essay and not a guideline so we are not exactly bound by it. The actual guideline on plot summaries doesn't give a word count and tells us to use our common sense when writing one. Let's try a new path instead however. What specific parts of the plot summary should be removed? Give me your suggestions and I will make a new version in one of my sandboxes and we can see where we go from there. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be condensed more than anything, but certainly the parts about yonkers and the oceans swarm are entirely superflous, and there doesn't need to be mention of so many countries stating that it was multiple perspectives around the globe and then one or two examples. You don't need to give a blow by blow account of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.231.231 (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you up to Yonkers. It was one of the few battles in the novel that actually was given a detailed description (about 13 pages in the hardcover) so I think it warrants a line in the plot summary. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As the anon suggests, everyone tends to believe that the article they're defending is an exception somehow. i don't look at the current state of the article and go "wow, that's a helluva complicated plot"; I look at it and go "what a huge amount of trivial plot narration". Anyway, I'll have a go at a condensed version later; it seems that on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, the narrative can be pretty easily trimmed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have created a shorter plot summary here. It is now at 793 words. Feel free to edit it or tell me any comments so that I can further improve the plot summary. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I now managed to get it under 700. Please take a look at it in my sandbox before I decide to place it in the article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I've made some copyedits to your sandbox version to improve flow without losing too much more detail. I think this should go in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll give it a few more hours to give other editors a chance to look at it and then I will place it on the article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The possible new summary is up on the article. As you can see that new summary is more condense with only a couple of examples removed. I tried (and Chris helped) to make sure that most of the major details were not removed and several important examples were also kept. Feel free to make any spelling or grammar changes to the plot summary but please before making any major additions or deletions to talk about them here on the talk page. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

yet again you've done fine work, But i would suggest it can be refined further, for example rather than talking about yonkers or land warrior you can say, Modern tactics and technologies proved ineffective. then talk about the fact the went back to 19th century tactics and weapons, rifles, and infantry squares, thus condensing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.231.231 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I took some of your suggestions as you can see. I disagree with you though about the politics in post-war Russia. Since Tsar is the Russian word for Ceaser, it seems more likely that they have a Tsar than a president. Also the fact that Russia is now the "Holy Russian Empire" suggests an autocratic ruler instead of just a more powerful president. Still this could be speculation on my part so if a third party wants to comment I would appreciate it. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what anybody thinks the post-war leader of Russia is. If it's left to interpretation, it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. You just need to write what it is, not a proposed theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.19.99.1 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirkman's comment

Robert Kirkman writer of The Walking Dead and Marvel Zombies said this at the Baltimore Comic Con: At this point, the floor was opened to questions. Kirkman was asked if he’d read Max Brook’s popular zombie book, “World War Z.” Kirkman said that he hadn’t and absolutely could not so long as he was working on “The Walking Dead.” “I met Max Brooks and actually told him that,” Kirkman said. “He told me he couldn’t read ‘The Walking Dead’ until he was done with ‘World War Z’ but he really liked it when he did. But I’m not going to finish ‘The Walking Dead’ any time soon, so I’m never going read his book.”[5]

Can any of this info be included in this article or is this better situated for the The Walking Dead Article? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh. It's mildly interesting trivia, but it's only tangentially related to the book. "So and so doesn't have an opinion on World War Z" is kind of empty. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it sure seemed like that, I just wanted a second opinion. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

SIR

The SIR rifle was a semi automatic, not a Single-shot rifle. From the book "It might have kicked hard, and it only fired on semi, but it was super accurate and it never, ever jammed! ". I'm not getting in a revert war but there it is. Scottanon (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

GA status?

Does anyone think the article should be nominated for GA status or does more work need to be done? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

alot more work before its even close to a GA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.8 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Like what? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

for starters, you the section plot introduction is pointless, either include it in the introduction or put it in the summary, and the summary needs to be heavily pruned it is far to long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.70 (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your probably right about the plot introduction, I'll work on that soon, but I'm going to disagree with you on the length of the summary for three reasons: 1) there is no official length in the guidelines for summaries, 2) the current summary was a work of compromise between several editors, and 3) several Good and Featured novel articles I found have longer plot summaries than this and still have kept there status. However I can compromise, either make some edits to the summary or suggest some here and we will work something out. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think amazing work has been done on this article and you should put it forward for assessmentSherzo (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the artice for GA status, you can check it out here: WP:GAN#LIT. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

script

This was removed from the article without an explanation:

Portions of the script were leaked onto the internet on September 5, 2008.[6]

If it was because its not reliable thats fine but I just want to know if this is the script or not. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

audio play?

Is the World War Z audiobook really an audio play? It seems they are two different things and despite the novel's full cast, other audiobooks have used full casts and still not be considered audio plays. Does anyone have an objection if I recategorize the page? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Character section

Would the article benefit from a character section? I've been working on a Character section in my sandbox based off the old one that was deleted. I got rid of a lot of OR and tried to keep them short to avoid restating the plot but I am not finished. Check it out and feel free to edit it if you have any ideas. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Crap I noticed several characters are missing, well thats what I get for resurrecting a deleted article. I will add the reamaining characters when I get the chance. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The gun called "meg"

I'm not that attached to this line, I added it because it was mentioned in the an interview with the author. If the consensus is to delete I have no problem being the one who does it, but could we reword it to say that Brooks makes pop culture references throughout the novel and use that as the example? In fact that was pretty much how the Q and A went down:

Q: The book has its fair share of pop culture references, my favourite being the gun called a 'meg' getting the nickname from Megatron in Transformers (I loved that show). Are there any other references in the book that you're particularly pleased with?
A: Wow, you know your stuff! I don't think anyone else has ever gotten that. As far as the other examples, I'd like to keep those a secret. It's always fun when someone, like yourself, nails it on their own!

Thoughts, concerns?

Zombie Hunter Smurf 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The key fact here is "Brooks deliberately sprinkles pop culture references throughout the book", not "the gun is named after Megatron". Reworded to present that better (preferably with a secondary source), I'm more than happy with it to be kept. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How does it look now? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

political bias

Probably should include a note about its right wing political position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.58 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Right wing? Do you have a source to back this up or is this just OR? I mean doesn't he slam Karl Rove in the novel? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Its also heavily in favour of Guns and the Monarchy and has an attack on Britain's most popular peacetime, and most left wing prime minister Clement Atlee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.58 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Without a source its just OR, I'd suggest finding a review or something that proves your point. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Max Brooks has openly said, as cited in the book, that its a criticism of the handling of the Iraq War. If anything its a liberal slant; really, though, I think its apolitical, as it's mostly criticisms about practicality and pragmatism; i.e. Iraq was fought like the Battle of Yonkers, thinking it would be like a Cold War battle when it wasn't; the same old story of the generals perfecting how to fight the last war while fighting the current one. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Redeker?

Is there an actual Paul Redeker, or is he just part of the book's universe? Or at the very least is there an actual "Plan Orange"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.2.1 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)