Talk:World War Z

Novels: Sci-fi Start‑class Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Horror Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archive 1 Archived 10/30/2007

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)[reply]

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

Ok, if you go back and look at the difs in the history [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

page 197 and the front cover Automatic Mongoose 02:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2] 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.