Talk:World War Z/Archive 4

Attacking Eachother
I can't help but not understand why people keep challenging this articles nuetrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.58.220 (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Oct 2007
I did a major cleanup, removing original research and other stuff. This article was way to long and detailed about the plot and happenings in the book. The next step is to find some more encyclopedic refrenced info about the book (awards etc). --Chuck Sirloin 17:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

you vandalised the article, with a heavy american bias Automatic Mongoose 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you go back and look at the difs in the history, most of what I took out was speculation and over detail. I see that I took out a couple of lines about cuba and some other countries, but thats because it said "this section deals with the rise of cuba" instead of something in a better narrative.  I have no problem with more discussion of the how other coutries factor into the book.  Mine is not a pro-america bias, but rather a non-OR/speculation bias.  Try to assume good faith pal. --Chuck Sirloin 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, vandalism is the deliberate removal and/or addition of content to harm wikipedia. This is hardly vandalism.--CyberGhostface 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the rewrite is terrible and it clearly an american bias for instance "Old U.S military battle tactics are resurrected such as firing lines and hand-held weapons." not only is this wrong in the real world context (the Romans Greeks Persian etc all used handheld weapons, plus a rifle is hand held and there still used to today so its hardly old) but firing lines more specifically squares were resurrected by an Indian general not an american. Automatic Mongoose 03:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So how does it qualify as an 'addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia'??--CyberGhostface 03:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was already cleaned up once and doesn't really need it was in good condition before you butchered to remove as much reference as possible to the rest of the world, have you read the book at all? then you realised it wasn't OR Automatic Mongoose 03:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just read the book. Not sure where you are coming from.  That is why I removed all the conjecture about the links to his other book. And all the OR about the virus and everything else.  I am not the only editor here on this track. --Chuck Sirloin 10:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

what OR? it reference the first book, which this is a sequel to. the rewrite you have done is extremely poor and POV perhaps you should try doing draft first before lowering the quality of existing articles Automatic Mongoose 12:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, give me a page reference in WWZ where they talk about the other book. ANY PAGE. You can't because he NEVER MENTIONS THE OTHER BOOK. --Chuck Sirloin 14:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the text that you keep reverting: "Brooks has not stated if these two timelines are identical, but The Zombie Survival Guide is a real book in the World War Z timeline, as it is referred to indirectly." THIS IS TOTAL SPECULATION. Where is it referred to indirectly? LIST A PAGE PLEASE. --Chuck Sirloin 14:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

page 197 and the front cover Automatic Mongoose 02:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The front cover says no such thing that I see and 197 says "the civilian survival guide helped but was severely limited", no where does it say that it IS his "The Zombie Survival Guide" and assertion to the contrary are again, just conjecture. --Chuck Sirloin 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I was just passing by, but on the World War Z website it mentions specifically that the Zombie Survival Guide was used during the zombie war. It's under the tab "Autor" on the left. First paragraph. Hope this helps. http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/worldwarz/ 69.128.6.61 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This would have to be put into clear context in the article, though, and can't be stated as a fact from the novel. It's from a promotional website, which was presumably written by a random site designer, and possibly unapproved by Brooks. --McGeddon (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey. So I took a look at the rewrite, and I think the page is fine now. Automatic Mongoose, can you explain your issues with the page a bit more? In what way is the page slanted towards the United States? If the book is written in that way (full disclosure: I haven't read the book, though I did read "Zombie Survival Guide") then how would you change the article to accurately reflect the plot of the book?

Before the rewrite, the article had a number of OR sections. "Brooks has not stated if these two timelines are identical, but statements like " While there is no mention in World War Z of any encounters with zombies before the initial outbreak, in The Zombie Survival Guide the author does include a number of references to minor and moderate-sized outbreaks that occurred during this time period" and "The Zombie Survival Guide is a real book in the World War Z timeline, as it is referred to indirectly" are providing conjecture on a topic. Unless it's been explicitly stated (and therefore can be referenced) in the books, you can't put it in the article. As per WP:TONE, using the second-person ("we", etc) is inappropriate, so statements like "In this section, we learn more about the infection" should be removed.

As a side note, I'd say that the Plot Summary section needs to be restructured. The first paragraph is a little strange, and potentially OR (that last sentence?). It then goes into one line about characters, and then a rather lengthy description of the plot. WP:NOVSTY has more information on what novel Wiki pages should look like, and it says that the lead section is supposed to be 2-4 paragraphs. So maybe move the first paragraph up to the top? Additionally, some of the references should be cleaned up to use citation templates, which I can help with if need be. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring!
Guys, this page has been reverted far too many times in the past half-hour. 82.26.98.80, you've been warned about violating WP:3RR, which you actually broke. Since we've reached consensus, I believe, I'm going to revert this page back to the longer version. If you've got an issue, BRING IT UP HERE. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an editor who simply stumbled upon this doing recent changes patrol (mass amounts of removal triggers people to review it), I have to say that I do not think completely removing all the sections from the plot is helpful at all. leaving in one short paragraph about the book doesn't help a reader like me, who has never heard of this book, get an overview of the book in the slightest ("Brooks addresses current issues such as environmentalism, the Iraq War and international health care." - This doesn't help someone understand the plot of the book). While I understand that User:82.26.98.80 was interested in reducing the plot summary, I honestly think it was the wrong way to go about it, and the article is now a shell of the old version, which gave a good amount of information for someone who has no knowledge of the book. While that version could use with some pruning, and removing the in-universe voice, it is a much better article than the current revision, which offers basically no synopsis at all. Just the opinion of someone who has never heard of this book, and has no stake in it other than wishing to see an article that appeals to all readers. The mass-removal of over half the content does not improve the article. Ariel  ♥  Gold  05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have yet again, asked the above anonymous editor to come discuss the issues. My opinion stands: This article has not been improved by removing over half of it, it has been harmed, as the plot summary was helpful to those who have not heard of, or read this book, and it should be restored, and then edited to align with policy and guideline. Ariel  ♥  Gold  06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to creat the best solution people have been unhappy particularly man in black with its length and not dealing with it a "real world artifact" if you compare to the original version you can see alot has been cut down, and the tag about the plot being overly long as i've read the book the summary pretty accurately sums it up without spoiling the story which i assume was the primary concern.


 * btw helloAnnyong thats an awesome name, arrested development was ace, but a consensus is when all sides come to a common understanding, what you have i a 2 to 1 majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.98.80 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks. Your solution may work in the short-term, but it doesn't help the situation as a whole. We shouldn't have to knock down the page to an inferior state; there should be a better solution. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 06:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Anon, thanks for coming to discuss things. I've had to remove your references as you cannot add the book (subject of the article) as a reliable source. I request again that you read that policy, and review verifiability as these are some of the core policies here, and need to be followed. Whatever the "original version" was isn't the issue, the article had just undergone a re-write not three days ago, and you removed over half of the article. Please read the comments above I've made, removing the sections did not help with readers unfamiliar with the subject. The current revision is not as helpful as the one I linked to for the average reader. I believe the old revision should be restored, and the issues dealt with, not by blanking the article, but by fixing them. Thanks, Ariel  ♥  Gold  06:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well.. the anon user was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. I think we should revert the page back to the larger edit now. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 06:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm an uninvolved party here, only drawn due to the massive removal of information. I gave my own personal opinion, but I'd suggest asking those editors who commented on the article in the above section what their thoughts are, and then adding in relevant, helpful plot information to improve the article for someone like me, who has never heard of, much less read the book. Sort of a "Cliffs notes" version, lol. Ariel  ♥  Gold  06:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i've restored the best quality version Automatic Mongoose 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh.. on what do you base that assessment? I'm reverting, as the other version was not plagued with WP:OR like yours was. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 23:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that HelloAnnyong's version is superior for the original research reasons. Automatic Mongoose should not just revert at this point, but instead should make a case of any changes he thinks should be made here on the talk page. Rray 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Details
Why don't we have a short summary, and then a longer thing, headed by a big SPOILER warning? -inkfeeder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.57.123 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie
Are there any news on the movie?--Nemissimo (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cycle of Life
this article reminds me of a forest, ever so often ther is a purge forest fire, and then it slowly states regrowing all that was lost, those who are so insistence on pruning down the article should actually stick around to keep a watchful eye as the foilage regrows! soon your see the fanfic addition once again including the bizarre pictures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.101.29 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Worst version yet
this is probably the worst version yet i've seen of this article, it needs to be culled again, as the chapter descriptions are overly long unnessary and smack of original research. The Last Man in Black version should probably be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.101.29 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Koreas
Just a quick note, North and South Korea are backwards in the current version of the article. In the book it was the North Korean population that disappeared, as observed from South Korea. I'd fix the article but I'm a complete wikipedia novice and have no clue what I'm doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.89.92 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right and I made the necessary changes. Probably someone just made a simple mistake. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Major edit - trimming
I took the liberty of combining the 'plot summary' and 'major event epoch' sections together and drastically trimming down the plot summary to a discussion of what (I think, anyway) are the most important elements of the novel. It's still a bit long, I think, but it looks a bit more concise and manageable now. --Joseph Q Publique (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh
Why was this trimmed down so much? I actually LIKED it when it was super long. And now the characters list is gone?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.168.28 (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mention in AICN
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36168 Published on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 3:21am Moriarty’s One Thing I Love Today! JMS’s WORLD WAR Z Script! ... I love this script. Love every dark, somber, upsetting page of it. This is a horror epic, a serious, sober-minded adult picture waiting to be made, and it’s one of the best pieces of screenwriting craft I’ve encountered in a while. It’s not often I get excited by the actual words on the page as a read, but JMS pulled it off here. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes I made.
I just made a couple changes in the plot section. Whoever wrote the original needs to pay attention to detail when they read a book. The book never states that Great Britain becomes a major oil producer, just that they found enough under Buckingham Palace to sustain them during the siege. The book never states that Tibet is the most populated country in the world, just that Lhasa is the most populated city. Sorry, but I'm pretty anal about these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerlee (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Its clear you haven't read the book. they found Oil under Windsor Castle, and it was enough to get the country back on the road before anyone else was principle to their armoured motorway strategy. As for Tibet it say that the announcement of elections in the most populus country and it became one of the key refuges during the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.102.112 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So I have the book in front of me, and I'm looking through for 1) the UK oil production fact, and 2) the Tibet most populous country fact. The only thing I can find on UK oil production is on pg. 192, the whole largest paragraph. It doesn't mention anything about the UK being the largest oil producer, it just mentions being an oil producer. I can't find the interview referencing Tibet, so could someone list page numbers? And additional page numbers if there's more on the oil question? Thanks. I just think we should discuss this and get our facts straight before we keep reverting each other in the article. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * first you leave as the original which is good protocol, now this matter has already been previously discussed so i would ask you check the archived conversation.
 * The People republic of Tibet the world's most populus nation is first chapter second story (the people smuggler) begins page 12
 * Britain and oil, 6th chapter first story (British Author), 6th chapter again 8th story (Chiliean Naval Attach)

the line about Britain becoming an oil producer is non sensical the way you changed for the simple fact that Britain is already and oil producer and is part of the oil reference basket, (see Brent Crude). This is another stylistic note but you should really read the paragraph before changing since, "He also offers an interesting juxtaposition between the modern world and that of postwar Earth" as with your changes that is no longer supported other than by the cuban example, so you should look to restructure that when you edit, but given the months of debate and argument it took to agree on that opening para in place of the original horrendously fanwanked article i'm loathed to reopen that paradora box now.


 * You say this is a matter which has been discussed before, and the conversation is archived. I checked the archive and could not find such a conversation. Could you please provide a link to it?


 * Likewise I'm looking for the information within the stories you specified. I couldn't find anything on Tibet in the story you specified beginning on page 12. Could you note a particular page where it mentions Tibet? The same goes for the story by the British author, can you give a page number where he says that Britain is a major producer of oil rather than just that they pump oil? On the last story you mention, I see talk of British fortified motorways at the top of page 265. Aside from that, I can't find anything on Britain at all.


 * The fact is that the information within the book does not support your claims, or at the very least, I haven't been shown otherwise. Please provide us with specific page numbers for the information in question. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually since your the one want to change from the consensus version your required to provide us with sources to support your claims, since if you read the archive your'll find users like man in black (who is a stictler for accuracy) Sherzo and V5 all had no issue with it and all had read the book, whereas you got a major fact in the British story wrong, the location is referred to frequently as Windsor castle and Buckingham Palace is never mention once in the text which does make me doubt either your comphrension of the text or the veracity of your claims.


 * Please provide a link to the discussion that shows that the article version you support is supported by consensus. Also please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

its in the box at the top of this page labelled archive


 * Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I know where to find the archive pages, but these pages contain many, many discussions. I have searched through these three pages of archives, and could not find any discussion that looks like the one you've been alluding to. Could you please provide a specific link to a subheading containing that discussion? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

well you obviously haven't read them, but the archive has been oddly indexed, but the discussions took place between june and july last summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.111.134 (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of specific evidence or consensus, I'm inclined to change the article back to using Kerlee's facts, since I can confirm they are supported by the book. Your allusions to a consensus happening last summer make for a very weak argument, IMO (I read /Archive 3, again, and still didn't find anything). Since consensus can change, I think we can try discussing the topic again. And most of all, consensus can't overrule hard, relevant facts: I'm afraid the book just does not support your position, and you haven't taken any reasonable steps to demonstrate otherwise. -FrankTobia (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)