Talk:World War Z

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.

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 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.

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)