Talk:The War of the Worlds (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Disambiguation page Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


We need to reconcile and/or merge the "Radio Play and Panic" section with War of the Worlds (radio).


  • the extent and degree of panic
  • how many disclaimers were made during the show

--Ed Poor

Ed, why the heck would it matter how many disclaimers were made during the show?

I think to show how likely it was for someone to hear the broadcast and find out it was a hoax before they reacted with panic.

-Not Ed

Not very likely, I imagine... I've heard a recording of the broadcast, and can personaly confirm that there are a total of three major disclaimers throughout the entire hour worth of audio. The first is made right at the beginning of the broadcast (and explicitly states it to be a work of fiction) while the second is after the long radio-esque broadcast and before the 'diary' second half, and is more of a 'we'll be right back' sort of thing. The third is made at the very end of the second act, where Wells himself wishes the audience a happy halloween, and ominously exclaims: "Remember please, the terrible lesson you learned tonight..." -- 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have 2 War Of The Worlds movies, one is an old english one, and one is the well known one with Gene Berry but I can't find any info on the old one and it's not even good, also it's in black & white. I'm Elaine, my email is

Try . They have info on pretty much every movie ever made. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"Note: This book's Copyright date (1987) was "modified" by the publicist to appear to be Copywritten in 1985, so catalog data should be cross-checked.". What book is being talked about here? Anyone? DJ Clayworth 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Series[edit]

I can point out a dozen problems with the series: the fact that it was a continuation of the original 1953 film makes it very inconsistent. For instance, the aliens in the series come from a garden planet. So, why weren't there bacteria and viruses on this planet too? And the aliens' appearance was changed! And there was no gore in the first film. The alien who touched Sylvia didn't gouge her eyes out! And the aliens didn't take over any human bodies in the film. Okay, so the series says that there was a bunch of humans who were taken over by aliens in the first invasion. Why, then, do we see no people with ugly scars on their foreheads or cheeks in the film? The film's reason for the invasion made sense: Mars was growing uninhabitable, so they decided that they needed Earth. In the series they're angry about us trashing the planet so they decide to exterminate us. That's retarted. Why don't they stay on their own garden planet and leave us alone? What we're doing doesn't affect them at all! And the series hardly ever used war machines! Who wants to see a bunch of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in The War of the Worlds? Apparently the director of this series wasn't at all satisfied with the ending of the film, so he decided to "revive the aliens". Pitiful! Scorpionman 04:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I love the first season of the series, and I can, with great enjoyment, refute and argue against many of the negative comments directed at the first series (have your way with The Second Invasion all you want). There are many questions plagued with the naysayers of the series: one is if they've ever read the novel. Personally, I don't get the painful loyalty to the 1953 film. Yes, great special effects (mainly just those related to the war machines), but Wells' original story has been better told. I think many who adore the film are not familar with the novel, or at the least, read its text. Much of the complaints make it quite clear. The first series is more loyal, not in a blow-by-blow detail, but rather in its carrying over the themes and commentary that the 1953 film skip over without heed. One thing the series never gets praised for is its amazing subtlety. Show gore galore, and everyone suddenly has too short of an attention span. Fans of the story in all its incarnations should know better than to be so superficial. My point is that many who pass it off clearly didn't try to watch it in its entirety, only stumbling upon bits and pieces. You make this clear in some of your gripes. Hell, some of them are refuted in the article on this site, so you have no excuse. Your first question is one that you should also be asking of the novel and of the film that is mainly in your enquiry. Why would a garden planet be more likely to have any indigenous bactera than that of Mars depicted in the film? As for the notable change in the aliens - well, many will agree with me that while there is no clear explanation within the show's continuity, it works much better; not just for the series given some of the feats they do, but also because the Martian in the film is not one of its strong suits. The gore is another thing in relation to the novel. I've said it once, and I'll keep saying it: Pal's film was a Disney-rated version of the original story. In the book, there is much violence: people being burned alive and blood drained from the bodies of humans. Do you honestly think that intolerant and violent creatures would refrain from bloodying up what they perceive to be an inferior race. At the time of the film, they had indestructable war machines. Death would come for the pathetic creatures, they must have thought as they were very confident in the currect success of the war. But by the time of the series, they had to improvise, and thus they had no hesitation of murdering the proverbial rats with their bare hands to accomplish their goals or remove anyone who got in the way. Again, this lack of continuity, I believe, is more attributed to the film's depiction of the aliens, as the series is more loyal in this regard. Another fault you make evident in your criticism is in the number of humans possesed from the "first invasion." There is only one known alien to have survived the 1953 war: one who was sparred only through the taking over of a body that contained an odd immunity to Earth's bacteria. By the way, the sores and scars you see are due to poisoning from the radiation they need that revived them due to its negation of bacteria in 1988; Quinn's are absent because he doesn't need radiation - thus why his kind are after him, so that they can disect him to exploit the secret to secure their occupation. Another loop in your quotes: the motive of the aliens in the series is pretty much the same as those from the film and Wells' story, only differing in moving the background of the invaders, which worked better as it was well known that Mars was long empty. Mor-Tax is a dying world due to a fading sun. Earth is not only a new home, but it has the potential to become a replica of their own world. Their defeat at the hands of bacteria only cements their hatred for they seem to directly blame the diseases their new world holds on humans. You've got to love the irony that the bacteria is purged due to man-made waste. I thought the alien possession aspect was handled better than the tired Invasion of the Body Snatchers comparisons indicate. The possessees often give us both chills and humourous moments. The aliens also had a lot of collective personality that reviewers shamefully gloss over. As for the lack of war machines, well, how short would the series be if the aliens got those back for the entirity of the run? And I'd hate to see an entire show based around running from machines, especially those that can withstand atomic bombs. No, it was better to do what they did: bring them in early so that they can be destroyed, thus removing the aliens' inverted Kryptonite and leave them open for exploring their collective character, which is very facinating gave the show quite a distinctive personality. And, of course, I've got even more where all that came from (yes, I love the series with a passion, not a blind following), but I don't think this is the place. Any further complaints and the like on the series should be posted on message boards such as here or those on the respective IMDb page. I'll show up eventually there to make good arguments. --Bacteria 09:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's my refute: the series was all right, but I don't know why it had to have a connection with the original (and better) film; if the film is as bad as you say, then it should be totally seperate from the series, and vice versa. Scorpionman 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The bacteria's role in the story has nothing to do with the lack or abundance of them on the Martian's home planet, but their foreigness. Much the same as colonisation on Earth has always been bought with the numerous deaths of either the colonisers or the colonised at the hands of new and foreign diseases.

Black and white movie[edit]

I'm told that there is a black and white version of War of the worlds, directed by Alexander Kodra during the 30s/40s, and I've seen clips of it on TV. Does anybody know anything about this version?

-- 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)perfectblue97

You might be thinking of Things to Come, another HG Wells novel filmed in the '30's. Maybe. Dangerdan97 03:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Channel[edit]

The Sci Fi Channel has aired H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds on 4-22-06 @ 5pm EST/EDT. Martial Law 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Bad picture[edit]

The picture on this page should be either replaced, edited or gotten rid of. The "tripod" only has two legs! -Litefantastic 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look again. It has three legs, but one of them is mostly hidden behind one of the other legs. Andy120290 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Major changes by Extraordinary Machine[edit]

I do not know what Extraordinary Machine had in mind, but changes that significant should be discussed first. So I am reverting her changes. Extraordinary Machine, if you want to discuss your changes, I'd be happy to listen. -- BBlackmoor (talk)


I do not think this should be a disambiguation page. There is no confusion about "War Of The Worlds"; there's no animal called that, there's no political movement or scientific principle called that, there is simply one War Of The Worlds, written by H.G. Wells. Period. Everything else is an adaptation of that novel. It is inappropriate for there to be a disambiguation page. This article should link to the novel, and the article for the novel should then link to adaptations of that novel. What do you think? -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I'd suggest moving this to something like "List of adaptations of The War of the Worlds" as there are a lot of them. You can then slot the novels entry in here when that is done. (Emperor 05:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

It looks like someone got to it, but I'm questioning whether they should be kept. Looking at their talk page (or rather history as it's been blanked), they've had several pages they moved, moved back. Plus this person has cocked the disambiguation a bit. Although not identical, the film titles could still get confusing unless specifying a year. They've also left information in two pages in the cases of the novel (The War of the Worlds and The War of the Worlds (novel)) and Spielberg film (War of the Worlds and War of the Worlds (2005 film)). I'm trepidatious on the whole move of the disambiguation/novel, but the rest is so off that I'm willing to challenge the whole thing. Anyone else? --Bacteria 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree, "War of the Worlds" should direct here with other pages linking off- when putting in for the first time I got information about a Tom Cruise epic flop!! Surely that shouldn't be the main article on War of the Worlds as it is an adaptadtion and it's rubbish!! --16:32, 22 December 2006 (GMT)
The quick fix is to get in and change War of the Worlds and The War of the Worlds (novel) into redirects here. The whole thing is pretty horrendous as it has all been done via copying and pasting and badly. It needs fixing asap and back to something like this. If you like I can get in and try and fix things. Some hefty reverting and slapping in redirects should sort most of the mess out and then everyone could get in and done the fine tuning. (Emperor 19:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Yes, please fix this mess! I'd try something, but I myself get confused just when moving pages in the first place; cleaning this up invites a headache. I'm not even certain the user's actions were based on this discussion. If they couldn't even be arsed to at least note the work on one of these talk pages, much less go over it with others, then it's not surprising that they accomplished it via a copy-and-paste job. --Bacteria 09:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, I took the liberty of redirecting the duplicated Speilberg film to this page because, as I pointed out in my edit summary, the specific title "War of the Worlds", with the first "The" absent, is also employed by the TV series (not to mention, relatively general). I'm iffy on how the rest of the articles should be arranged, but I know for a fact that disambiguation is mandatory when you have two different articles with the exact same title. --Bacteria 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I hate to keep going and going on here, but is someone going to correct the links? I'm precautious to do it myself because much has been added to the recent novel page since the hack job (some of it actually being respectable edits), and generally fearful that the system won't let me move the pages back. Again, the move was made without consulting a consensus and done against the protocol necessary when changing article titles, so I believe all it is moot, regardless of the good intentions. If no one has done shit about it after about a week, I'm going to kiss the wind and take a chance in doing it myself. --Bacteria 15:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I said I'd be happy to do it as the sooner it gets done the sooner this mess is sorted out. I was a bit off colour over Xmas and missed your thumbs up but I'll do it now. What I'm going to do is change a range to redirects that means the old edits are still there. This will mean we can stop the accretion of problems from having parallel entries. It also means that we will then have the time and opportunity to go back through the redirected entries and pick out edits we want to move over into the current entries. I'm afraid that some of the edits will become unlinked from whoever did the but due to the trainwreck we are trying to sort out I'm afraid some discomfort is going to occur. I'll start going through things now and once I'm happy with what needs doing I'll sort it out and then leave a note directing people here in case there are problems that need discussing. Seems like a plan? (Emperor 17:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

Sounds good. But I have a couple of questions before you proceed, so it can be noted that there was an agreement here: one, am I to understand that the pages for the novel and disambiguation will be brought back to their original names? Though I don't like it, I have no real problem with the move in disambiguation, just that this attempt was done poorly and without consulting others. Also, a smaller, but still nagging problem is that this person also moved the articles for the 1953 film and two of the 2005 films (Pendragon and The Asylum). Should they be restored as well? More or less, I believe that they violate the disambiguation policy because the average person uses "War of the Worlds" and the use of Wells' name attached to the title is not entirely an unlikely search attempt for the original novel, so I think every title needs to be clearly disambiguated with small exception (namely Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds). I'd like to know, especially because one of the film's titles is used verbatim for a comic title, so disambiguating is necessary, I just need to know whether to move it back (along with the other two) or just rename it appropriately. --Bacteria 17:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Understandable concerns and ones that I share. Basically: This page stays here and the entry for the novel is that main one and should stay where it is. As you say the disambiguation policy means all variants on the theme (H.G. Well's) (The) War of the Worlds should point to the main entry (i.e. the one for the novel). All naming conventions should be pretty much set back to what they were on this edit (which is pretty much how it stands today) except The War of the Worlds (novel) should be a redirect to the main entry. I do have slight concerns over H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film) and H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) but they are adequate for now with the right disambiguation messages (i.e. pointing to the alternate and then the main disambiguation). If you'd like I'll tweak the disambiguation page so all the right links are showing and we can look over that and see how it looks. (Emperor 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

I can live with that. The novel and disambiguation pages are currently the biggest mess to sort out, so everything else will be fairly simple. I'll wait for you to fix those two (just to be safe), and then I can move the three movie articles back (if the system will allow me). And I've also had concerns over the two similarly titled films, but given that both were released in 2005 and all, there's little to do to right now without rubbing against any naming policy. --Bacteria 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I have done the first stage. For clarity:
  • Redone the disambiguation page so it shows the actual naming scheme we are aiming for (I've removed piping and formatting for now as it was horribly confusing with the old links on top of the new ones. The move of the 3 films (1953 and 2005 ones will require an admin).
I'd suggest we use The War of the Worlds (film) as a sub disambiguation page for the various films as it is complex. The solution to the 2005 film names is to either name them after the production companies or directors (I know them as the Pendragon and Asylum versions but I am usnure what is the common one - as long as we can make it easy for people to find the other then it should be OK for now). However, it is currently not too bad and I can live with it until all the mess is sorted out.
If that seems OK then it is over to you feel free to sort the films out which should be (if we are on the same page):
And as I say this also needs doing:
That should mean every film is back in its rightful place. With the luck of the Gods few links will have been updated to point to the places they were all moved to but I'll run through and make doubly sure. The final tidy up will be going through The War of the Worlds (novel) and making sure all edits done to that entry are now also on The War of the Worlds. There might also be some minor tidying but that should be minor. (Emperor 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

I certainly agree about making The War of the Worlds (film) a sub-disambiguation page. In fact, it actually was before the 1953 film article was copied and pasted over it. It seemed like it went unnoticed because nothing really linked there. I'm not sure, though, on how it would be integrated with the main disambiguation page. As for the naming of the two films - I'd personally go with using production names because they seem most common (as evidenced by here and here). It wouldn't hurt to get counsel of some kind off an appropriate talk page before we decide to set up a vote. But of course, I'm not seeing a painful amount of errors of this, so I can imagine it can wait. For now, I've been thinking of toying with the otheruses tag, similar to what appears at the top of the Firefly article, pointing the reader specifically to the other film as well as the disambiguation page. Everything else looks okay, so it's up to a power-that-be to move the films back to their proper location barring any objections. I do have one minor lingering question, though: should War of the Worlds be left as a redirect to the disambiguation page or should we aim it for the novel? --Bacteria 04:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on War of the Worlds - I've switched it around. On the correct naming I have asked for advice form someone I have previously consulted with on disambiguation matters [1] and we may as well get it right before we request the final moves. On using WotW (film) as a sub-disambiguation you could use it like I did here Elite (comics), Colin Bennett and Steve White (disambiguation) with the entries disambiguating to the sub-disambiguation page which links up to the main one. Its a bit different here but the films will link to the book and so people arriving at one film page will probably either be looking for it or one of the other films - if not then they can move on up to the disambiguation page. For the linkinging I'd prefer to use: Template:Two other uses - see the differences here: Template:Otheruses (Emperor 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, for now I'm going to wait for an adminstrator to make their move(s), as most of what's left relates to the two movies. When this is all settled, I think the disambiguation page may require a minor bit of a rewrite now that the novel page is the lead-in rather than vice-versa. With that in mind, I've also been thinking that the novel's piece on the adaptations could use some fleshing out because it's just a list now. I'd like to elaborate a bit to distinguish it from the disambiguation list; maybe a first paragraph on the updated versions, a second on the few loyal adaptations, and maybe a third on the crossovers. Post on the novel's talk page if there are any thoughts on that. --Bacteria 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. We'll need to do a few sweeps through to get things ironed out. (Emperor 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

OK I heard back from the person I asked and they didn't have much to add so I'd suggest requesting the last 4 moves to get everything back the way they were before this mess occured and if someone is concerned with the names of the films (worth dropping a note in on each one's talk page) then we can move them easily to a more ambiguated name. Its not a big deal. The important thing will be going through and making sure all the links are working OK. (Emperor 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Agree. It's bound to become a bump in the road later, but it's not worth stalling everything if we hadn't hit it yet. We'll just fix that when it does become an issue. The only real minor, almost insignificant issue is with the WOTW userbox. I've never been entirely sure whether the intention was for the novel or the title/story in general. --Bacteria 11:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
OK it has been a week or so and I've checked through things and they see OK. Who wants to ask for the various entries to be moved into their final resting places (for now anyway ;) )? (Emperor 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Although I've requested two moves before (one of which is still pending), they were minor and didn't have the same load on their back as this does. I'd prefer if you did the honours since you seem to know what you're doing more than I do in this.--Bacteria 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL - fingers crossed I don't let the side down ;) I'll look into it now and probably request them tomorrow. (Emperor 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
OK move requested [2] using this request:
Seems to be OK and I have added note to all the right places (Emperor 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

We now have The War of the Worlds (film) redirecting to The War of the Worlds (1953 film). As the above discussion (Steve White, Colin Bennett and the Elite in comics examples) I'd suggest using this as a sub-disambiguation page for the various films (as it is confusing after all ;) ). Along the lines of:

The War of the Worlds film may refer to:

Something like that. Thoughts? (Emperor 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

OK all the other moves have been made and I have been through the various entries and redirects and I think I have fixed all the links so they point to the right entries. That means that as well as the above idea we can safely redirect: H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds and H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds to The War of the Worlds. I'll not do it immediately but that and using the film page as a sub-dismabiguation entry seem the logical last big steps to tidying things up. I'll still need to go through what points here and what points to the main age and make sure they are all pointing to the correct entry. Someone else might want to double check. (Emperor 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

The sub-disambiguation looks all right that way; I think it even looked about that same way before the mix-up. My only question is to how to link to if from the main disambiguation page. As for making sure all the links go to their proper location, I can do that. One of the few good things I do here is looking at the whatlinkshere sections of particular articles and scanning to see if anything needs some redirection. Also since everything discussed appears to be where we've settled them, I think this already lengthy discussion needs archiving if nothing else is brought forward in about, say, a week from now. --Bacteria 13:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My thinking on the film disambiguation is to make it link up to the main disambiguation page. It can be linked down thusly: "with a vast number of books, films, TV series and comic books". I've been through the "what links here" page for H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds and H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds and there is nothing major linking ot them (hence why I think we can now point them to The War of the Worlds (which is how it should have been). I looked through the same page for the disambiguation page and that is fine (as it is new). There is a whole hog of links to The War of the Worlds via redirects (form War of the Worlds, The War of the Worlds (novel) and War of the Worlds (novel) in particular). They all seem largely to be about the novel and there are so many I'd suggest asking for a bot to go through and clean things up. We can then spot the few others that need work. So they are my suggestions: film disambiguation page, two redirects and get a bot to tidy up links. If that all seems OK we can get that all fixed up and draw a line under all of this ;) (Emperor 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

I'm ignornant when it comes to the bots. How could it be programmed exactly? I don't think it could distinguish the context in which the article is referring to the title, so I'm not sure what it could do. Otherwise, I'd like to go in myself (not all at once, of course) and do it since being able to see what's under the redirections can help cut down on looking through all the articles to have a look. Let me know if I'm missing something about this (and I probably am). --Bacteria 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I know diddly about bots too but as far as I'm aware you could for example ask it to find all references to "The War of the Worlds (novel)" and change them to "The War of the Worlds". We can be fairly certain that those links were supposed to be pointing at The War of the Worlds. Obviously there are others (mainly those pointing to War of the Worlds or The War of the Worlds that might be refering to a film or something and they will need to be checked by hand but if we can ask for a bot to fix the novel redirects then we can focus on checking the other links (it might be better to leave the bot until after everything else has been checked). However, if you'd prefer to go through them by hand and check them all to make sure they are right then feel free - I just looked down the list and didn't really fancy doing it all by hand myself but if you do then it would probably be the best and don't let me stop you ;) . (Emperor 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Well, it's not as much work as you would think. I frequently went through to do this when it was the disambiguous page and am familiar with some of these links. Plus, all those there via the redirects may simply make it longer than the target links. So going through really shouldn't be that exhausting. Taking care of redirects isn't a high priority, as long as they go to the intended article. I have no problem with a bot, I'd just to at least get a head start.--Bacteria 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What I've done: Created a sub-dismabiguation page for the films: The War of the Worlds (film). If that seems OK we can add that into the film pages (so the pages will link to The War of the Worlds main entry and the film disambiguation). I also changed these so they point to The War of the Worlds (and not the films): H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds and H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds. All of those have been cleaned up so links that were pointing to them now point to the correct entry. (Emperor 17:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

As discussed I have now adjusted the film disambiguation pages to point to The War of the Worlds (film) (as the 2 main things you want when viewing the films is either the novel or to check if you have got the right film - those then link to the disambiguation if they want to track something else down) and I've linked it in from the mention of other film adaptations on the main entry and on this one so everything hooks up. This all should help iron out the confusion that might arise from 3 films with very similar titles being released in the same year (although one wodners if some film makers were hoping to trade on that confusion ;) ). Hopefully the demonstration is clearer than my description. It also works well with Category:War of the Worlds films. (Emperor 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

WP:RM request[edit]

I moved the 1953 film since that looked like there was two articles with overlapping information. I did not do the others since they may have been cut and paste copies. If that's the case, then a history merge may be needed, beyond my knowledge base. Since this was resolved here, I think the request should be listed in the speedy section of WP:RM, no need for a long discussion. But that's my opinion and I may decide to move it. I will probably not be following this discussion, so if you need me to do more, leave a message on my talk page. Vegaswikian 01:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes there have been a lot of messy edits. We managed to stop them and tried to fix things but have reached the limits of our abilities. I suspect some seriously fany pair of merging tongs might be required to sort it all out because, as you say, the history sections also need merging but at one point there were parallel versions of the two entries so there may not be an even "join" although we did what we could to stop problems with versions I can't guarantee there were some. Hence why we had to kick it upstair for someone else to sort out ;) (Emperor 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC))
Hi. I've just completed the request listed at WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals. One of the 2005 films had a split history that required merging, so that's done, and the other more straightforward moves are completed as well. If there's any more administrative assistance required, please feel free to let me know. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks that is great. It all looks good and I currentl can't think of anything else that needs admin help. We'll go through everything and make sure it all points to the right place. We'll give yuo a shout if anything esle crops up. (Emperor 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Takes by other authors[edit]

I've removed this section, and placed the references in the influences section, since the editor who wrote those paragraphs gives no direct evidence that the works were intentionally echoing the plot of the novel. Also, to describe the artilleryman's vision as an "alternate ending" requires a rather liberal definition of the term. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that Wells ever intended to end the novel any other way than he did. "Speculation" is better. Serendipodous 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Someone added the 1968 broadcast The War of the Worlds (radio 1968), which seems worthy of an entry as it also sparked a panic. However, there are numerous other radio adaptations [3] [4] - which raises the question: which of those are also notable enough for an entry? Strikes me from looking at those links that we have the 1926, 1944 and 1949 ones which also cause panic. So the next question arises: Do they all need their own entry? If not they do need a mention but the Orson Welles broadcast entry seems solid so should there be an entry like List of The War of the Worlds radio adaptations? If so should the 1968 one be merged in there? In fact should we move The War of the Worlds (radio) to The War of the Worlds (radio 1938) and use the radio entry as a disambiguation page like The War of the Worlds (film) which would act as a version of the List but by its very nature wouldn't be so long. It needn't be an either or - you could have the list and make a disambiguation page. Just some thoughts. I'm going to ponder this one for a bit but my initial thoughts are that we will need the list and we can link to other entries using

. If a lot of the other broadcasts spawned their own entries then we might want to look into creating a radio disambiguation page. However, that is just my provisional thoughts. ;) (Emperor 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

"H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film)"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film) is under discussion, see Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) -- (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)