Talk:World War Z/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  parts missing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Thoughts after first read

message: 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)
thread_title: Bill Maher or Jon Stewart

message: 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.
***I just checked the tiberium page, and it does not appear crippled.Hatedthirdborn 04:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Man in Black AKA the Vandal

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  plagiarism 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fortified Motorways 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: 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.
* - A review by Steven H Silver
* - A review by John J. Reilly, albeit on his personal page
* - Something on NPR, I haven't listened to it yet
* - An interview with Max Brooks. It's on a blog, which kind of sucks, but interviews usually get a pass.
* - Another interview, this time on a fansite.
* - A review on The Onion's AV Club, definitely a good source
* - Kirkus Reviews review, ditto
* - 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
* - A brief interview with Brooks in Publisher's Weekly
* - Apparently WWZ won an award as an audiobook
* - Nomination for that award
* - More in PW about the audiobook
* - A capsule review of the audiobook at PW
* - 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some possible references for this article