Jump to content

Talk:World War Z/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

parts missing

where is half the articale gone all the stuff about europe and the rest of the world is gone is it sabotage? the articale cant be too long the star trek stuff go on for miles

its sabotage a guy called user:man in black hates the book, so keeps deleting it, without any justification, looks like he does it on a lot of articles, i assuming he doesn't have a girlfriend.

i am sorry for over stepping my bounds, but why is a girlfriend relevant to the discussion?Hatedthirdborn 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)hatedthirdborn
The article previously described the world of the book in explicit detail, as though it were a historical work. I've been trying to cut out the bulk of the in-universe setting and plot detail, to try and rewrite it into an appropriate summary, as well as come up with some material on conception and critical reception. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

so far you've only removed material and not added any, leaving merely stubs in your wake.Sherzo 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not yet found any useful references with which to fix this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

then dont remove sections untill you have something better to replace it withBoatman666 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts after first read

I read through the plot summary before looking at the rest of the article, and before spotting the cleanup templates. Admittedly, the complaint that it is overly long isn't entirely unwarranted, but the other two templates, well, are unwarranted. The article is no more in-universe than most fantasy/post-apocalyptic fiction articles, and, having never read any of Brooks' work, I'd say it reads just fine from an outsider's perspective as well. The template claiming that the article is unsourced is true, but there are only three sentences outside of the plot and character synopses:

"World War Z is a novel by Max Brooks which chronicles the fictional event "World War Z" or "Zombie World War". It is a follow-up to his previous book, The Zombie Survival Guide. The book was released on September 12, 2006."

There are no claims that require citation in those three sentences, and the book itself is obviously source to every other claim. I'm going to go ahead and remove the in-universe and unreferenced tags, and I'd propose that the tag about the synopsis being too long is open to some debate. MrZaiustalk 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Little tip: If you want to rewrite & vastly shorten the synopsis, you could pull three or four important points out into the article proper and replace the rest with a list of epochs like that seen in The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt MrZaiustalk 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Maher or Jon Stewart

I read political comedy guy to be Jon Stewart not Bill Maher, what does everyone else think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.111.38 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree, the mention of the "leathery blond girl" that Collins believes was the enemy, plus the reference to cocaine abuse and the lack of a family (John Stewart has one). Is enough to tip the scales towards Maher.

Plus Maher and Coulter are good friends. 70.156.152.79 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Man in Black AKA the Vandal

if you want to post a comment don't remove other people's show some RESPECT, i've reverted, feel free to post but do not remove others comments. however i am glad you finally willing to discuess your reasons on the talk page but i would appreciate you leaving the article alone until a consensus has been reached here. particularly since you regard the book as worthless.

  • I cant believe this guy deleting other people's comments off talkpages, a complete lack of manners people like that should be banned.
    • It's not the first time MiB has done stuff like this. You should see what the guy did to the Page on Tiberium. Crippled an entire article.

Locking a talkpage

I cannot believe anyone would lock a talkpage the only reason to is in order to gerryrig a consensus. I've restored the page, and i would ask user to respect each other, and A Man in Black and his edit war opponent both cool off this is totally uncalled for, i'd ask you both to refrain from editing the article, and A Man in Black one of the fundamental tenets of civilisation is free speech particularly when it comes to knowledge otherwise its just POV pushing, so please don't remove any comments, just because you don't like them, as Voltaire said "i may hate everything you say but i will fight till the death to protect your right to say it." i have copied and pasted your comment below the ones already there. Sherzo 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a plagiaristic level of detail, and had to block this user who picked a grudge pretty much out of nowhere. I don't know where 82.56.*.* came from (and I don't really appreciate you restoring talk page comments calling me a "vandal" for trying to clean up a page), but I know it isn't limited to this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

calling you a vandal is there opinion, but i do notice on your page it says your a member of the rouge editors? which seems to be a comedy group of petty vandals so perhaps this is justified? Sherzo 07:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a personal attack, which we don't allow here on Wikipedia. Being a rouge admin is an ironic take on the accusations of users of admins going "rogue" when they're simply enforcing Wikipedia policy.
Inicidentally, is there a reason you're restoring the plagiaristic level of plot detail right away, with no explanation? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • i never heard of them but the promise to vandalised the site on april 1st seems more of an uncyclopedia style than wiki, but it seem you have alot of difficult with other users. and there opinions and an attack would have to be definitiveSherzo 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • whenever i see an edit war i restore it to the last pre edit war condiction, though i have never seen one user have as many as you and after the first two i decided it wasn't worth it. Sherzo 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a very bad idea when you're restoring plagiarism, as well as destroying copyedits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's also considered poor form to continue deleting an article and redirecting when there is a section on this very talk page that directly contradicts your actions. Grahamdubya 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article be reverted to pre A Man In Black status seeing as he is the only one who seems to have a problem with it. At the very least unlock the main page.Boatman666 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

- Keep the book is a sequel to the highly successful zombie survival guide both an acclaimed author both of which have articles on wiki. The Book has been successful, and the rights have already been sold to Paramount for a 2008 movie. However some forking maybe in order and A man in black has some good with regards to more standard "book" formatting, Critical response etc, i notice the LOTR was mentioned on the history and i think this would be a good model to follow. Sherzo 07:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I hate it when you get an edit conflict on a talk page :)

This isn't a vote. Go find sources to which you can attribute those claims and add them to the article. The claim of the movie adaptation, the claims of success; all of that is unsourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

you complain about people being rude then you call be a liar? Film is IMDB good enough for you petal? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/ Sherzo 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of being a liar. I'm saying Wikipedia is founded on the sources to which it attributes its claims, not on the (non-existent) authority of its contributors. And, frankly, no, IMDB isn't a very good source, as it is largely user-edited and has no formal editorial process. There's a fairly decent guide to evaluting sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

and wiki isn't user edited? Sherzo 07:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

how about Variety and washington post, but then i guess since you don't write them and your opinion is law they're not worthy either? http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117945332.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 or how about the author's own page or are you gonna go an delete that aswell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Brooks Sherzo 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Which is part of why we don't cite Wikipedia articles as sources for Wikipedia articles. Now, were you going to explain why you restored a plagiaristic level of plot detail, while undoing my copyedits and style edits? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

because you were in an edit war, and compared to most sci fi stuff like lord of the rings star wars or star trek, (which have character bios that read like fanwank bios) it seemed relatively modest, and i got the general feeling your edits were more out of dislike of the book or one of this articles editors. Sherzo 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dispense with the confrontational tone. I've endeavoured to be polite to you, despite you restoring comments calling me a vandal, defending comments calling me a vandal, and the latest incivility.
Other plagiarism does not justify more plagiarism. I don't have any strong opinions about the book, but I do have strong opinions about this particularly badly-written article.
Variety is a good source; it's a respected publication with a proper editoral process. Another Wikipedia article is not, due to the trivially simple possibility of incestuous referencing. (Article A backs up article B, and article B backs up article A!) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I approached this article with nothing but good manners you were the one who reverted with out discussion, who sought to crush free speech like an extra from some orwellian nightmare. i haven't called you a vandal, i was merely defending others rights to do so. and despite your actions i have treated you with respect something you sadly lack, and have attempted to comprise between you and your enemies. I think this article is notable because along with Resident Evil and the Dead series its a major work of both zombie and post apocalyptic fiction. now if you would like to state both the reasons for your changes and what they will be and your reasons for its lack of notability i will be delighted to discuss them with you Sherzo 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not free speech.
where was the plagiarism on this talk page? Sherzo 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
as for the article there is such a thing as fair usage and i don't see any copyvio, nor plagarism, nothing is lifted directly from the book, which is a collection of personal recollections, rather than one grand story, or several interwining ones. have you read the book or are you just going on guess work? Sherzo 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The book tells a single history by using fictional primary interviews and documents and memoirs, I know. Retelling that single history isn't the business of this encyclopedia.
We need to briefly summarize the story, as context for other content about the book in the real world. We need to find sources for that content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_wars_timeline, plus the parts you removed didn't tell the history only the parts you left. Sherzo 08:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't split my comments.
Once again, other bad articles do not justify making this a bad article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, I don't disagree that the novel is notable. Instead, this article completely fails to explain why it is. We need commentary in reliable sources. Reviews, discussions of its conception, literary or stylistic impact, other authors who were influenced; that sort of thing. User's opinions that "this is major" don't establish that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please show this with examples perhaps from Resident Evil, Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings i noticed the yonkers talk page they was a link to the battle of the dale, how is that done in this style, shouldn't we keep it consistent with pre existing article styles? Sherzo 08:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any good reason to emulate other, low-quality articles. Consider instead The Illuminatus! Trilogy, a featured article about a trilogy of novels. Note that the plot summary is not the bulk of the article, and that the bulk of the article is instead about the conception, critical reception, and legacy of the novels. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So the Darth Vader bios and Yoda bios which you edit, are good? why the different treatment? Sherzo 08:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this page on a non-plagiaristic version, since it's clear that you are unwilling to do anything about this problem, Sherzo. Finding sources with which to improve this article is productive work, and should continue, but we cannot allow copyvio on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

well since i can't now, can you enter the variety reference information. Sherzo 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing, to solve problems but i believe in discussion, but you yet to point out what is plageristic and how so? you've locked to your opinion and included an empty section, since no one else can edit it now i'd at least ask you remove the section reception since it makes it look silly to be there, in make more sense for your add material to it, out of interest do you know/ read the book at all? Sherzo 08:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When you retell a story in explicit detail, point by point, you are plagiarizing that story. We need instead to summarize it, instead of re-reporting it, as though it were a description of historical events.
I'm not really interested in discussing how I feel about the book. It's entirely irrelevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear you have no clue about the book the story isn't retold point by point, i'd recommend you do some research on it, http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/worldwarz/ check the world map since it has excepts from the audio book, and you see each chapter is a personal retelling of specific incidents never once does the book offer a 3rd person overview of events. Sherzo 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't helpful. I've read the book.
We need sources with which we can write about this book as an artefact in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

that seems to be against wikis style in this genre Sherzo 08:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There are many largely poorly-written articles about books, but they are not the ideal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly..This guy has no idea why he is arguing, none of it makes sense and more to a point it just makes him look like his is blabbering about nothin.--70.103.191.218 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm sorry i didn't mean to upset you by "spliting" your comments, i tend to add my response to a point indented below it, rather than at the bottom of the section i find it more readable that way, again no offense was intended. Sherzo 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Since the replies and threads above are scattered all about and impossible to track, let's split here.

We need reliable sources to attribute to build this article, and ideally they need to talk about this book as an artefact in the real world. The Variety link about the screen rights being acquired is a start. What else can we come up with? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

AV Club review: [1]
Sacramento News Review review: [2]
Washington Post interview: [3]
Pay-to-read review from Buffalo News: [4]
Pay-to-read Salt Lake Tribune article: [5]
Is that multiple and non-trivial enough for you? --McGeddon 10:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism

I dont understand how this article can be seen as plagiarism. True, the article presents elements from the book, but in the opening paragrph it clearly states that it is the work of Max Brooks. Secondly the article was written in third person not first person, as the book is.

pla·gia·rism
Pronunciation Key -[pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-]
–noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner. Boatman666 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

==

Dear lord, people. Quit pussyfooting around & just transrcibe the entire damn book to wikipedia. There's a section on characters in the article, WWZ is a collection of short stories, there's a new character in EVERY ONE! Do we really need this? Let's leave some surprises for folks who haven't read the book, already.12.144.115.136 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Number sold?

Does anyone have any idea of the approximate number of volumes sold of this book? ZombieSlayer54 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fortified Motorways

The book is never, ever, specific on the subject of the British fortified motorways. I can't even begin to imagine the impact, appearance, or logistics of this system. Am I missing something? Was this cut out of my version? Is this an allusion to something to which I was never exposed? I think this is a pretty critical part of the plot that just doesn't seem to have a clear definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ossian511 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Its being left to the reader's imagination as with so much that is only briefly covered. Sherzo 15:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i kinda have an image of a huge lumbering kinda monster truck at the front of a convoy,the name armoured motorway may if anything be a metaphore for a type of armoured road clearing method: getting back to the monster truck heading up the convey with a massive snowplow which can push abandoned cars of to the side of the road, out of the way.

Then either elongated, flexible `walls`-maybe made of large amounts of that material which is soft like cloth, until electricity is passed through it, after which is assumed a pre defined shape and hardness(ive no idea what its called but ive seen it demostrated many times) stretching indefinatly back, voerign both sides of the convoy to the rear of the lead truck, even technically to a distance of a few miles, within which are driving tanks, APCs etc-at midway points withing the barriers on either sides of the road, are engine platforms and fuel tankers-in order to simply support the wieght of a potentially miles long protective side walls-does that make senseGashmak 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

trivia

am I the only one who dose not see the Trivia section as relevant? It just seems out of place, any opinions? Boatman666 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mel Brooks connection is maybe worth noting, but the other two are very weak. Trivia sections should always be avoided, so feel free to work this sort of thing into the article, if you ever see it on Wikipedia. --McGeddon 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

--Absolute War versus Total War

I believe the author made a mistake when stating within the book that total war is commiting one hundred percent of the population to the war effort one hundred percent of the time. Saying this, he is describing absolute war, as opposed to total war, which is having your entire populous devoted to to the war effort, in mind in spirit.

Article Length

I was browsing, and preparing to add to the European section on Colonel Adler's attempts to protect Hamburg, when I realised the article's been flagged as 'too long'! How much more can we seperate it down? I'm a relatively new Wikipedia user, so I've never had to deal with an article this long! Any advice? BitterGoth 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soubriquet (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC).


The Article has actually been shortened signigicantly in recent days. I don't know how to go about getting it reviewed to remove the too long tag. Max Overload 13:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only is this article too long, it is a shambles - I have yet to see so many spelling mistakes on one Wikipedia article. It is based almost entirely on fancruft and is for the most part entirely unencyclopediaec.

Wikipedia is not paper; if an article is longer than 32 KB, why not simply spread it across 2 pages?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

isn't this article incredible long? does i really need to give away so much of the book's content, and where is the section on critical response? Foxley of Grim 09:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's actually incredibly maddening; whenever I perform a massive cleanup operation on the page, within two weeks the removed material is almost entirely there again, having been added piecemeal in the interim. At this point, I've pretty much given up on any routine maintenance of this article (check my comments in the top Geopolitics section). --Grahamdubya 23:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I kind of figured that would be the inevitable result of any attempt to cut the article down. Most of the bad articles I come across are bad because nobody actually cares about the article or the subject; this one is bad because too many people apparently care too much about the subject to allow the article to be brought in line with Wikipedia standards. I keep wanting to AFD the thing, even though the topic is obviously notable; it might be the most irritating article I've come across. Propaniac 12:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Got i say i agree with it being cutdown, it was overly long though i think total war deserves a little more than two linesSherzo 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Some possible references for this article

This article needs a healthy dose of WP:WAF, as well as some actual references so we can say something about the book in the real world (how it was conceived, how it was receieved). I've been digging for references, and here's some potentials.

  • [6] - A review by Steven H Silver
  • [7] - A review by John J. Reilly, albeit on his personal page
  • [8] - Something on NPR, I haven't listened to it yet
  • [9] - An interview with Max Brooks. It's on a blog, which kind of sucks, but interviews usually get a pass.
  • [10] - Another interview, this time on a fansite.
  • [11] - A review on The Onion's AV Club, definitely a good source
  • [12] - Kirkus Reviews review, ditto
  • [13] - A brief review in the Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky
  • Brooks, Max. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. 2006 Reviewed in Booklist, August 1, 2006. Page 56 - Booklist's review of WWZ
  • [14] - A brief interview with Brooks in Publisher's Weekly
  • [15] - Apparently WWZ won an award as an audiobook
  • [16] - Nomination for that award
  • [17] - More in PW about the audiobook
  • [18] - A capsule review of the audiobook at PW
  • [19] - WWZ's profile at PW, includes bestseller info

I'll be adding to this list as I find things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a link to Variety reporting on the film adaptation was already here, so I just used it as a ref. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A Google search of washingtonpost.com; I'll go through this for more later. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_Z/Archive_3&oldid=1128415008"