Talk:The Zombie Survival Guide

message: I added a line or two on the name "solanum": it struck me that it could be a rather terrible pun...  Completely open to discussion on this one! Geno-Supremo (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the line, as it is nothing but original research, which is something we don't allow. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair cop, forgive my novice enthusiasm. At the same time, and purely for discussions sake, there are only so many places he could have obtained the word solanum; and it makes a sort of humourous sense. Still, doesn't justify inclusion. Geno-Supremo (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Solanum" origin 

message: I don't know, but the classification of this book as even slightly humorous is... inaccurate. There aren't ANY jokes in this book, nothing that could ever be considered 'humorous' about it except the back, and, arguably, front cover. I think it should be considered as just 'fiction.' 24.130.226.53 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't the publisher itself classify this book as humour? That is the important bit. Lots42 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Publishers Weekly review also described it as a comedy. Its the fact that it parodies other survival guides with an implausible disaster like zombies. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't have my book handy, but its amazon.com listing is in humor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, can we have some kind of citation for that? I want to make sure it was intended to be humorous, and not fictional. Anyone with a citation that shows the author classifying the book as fiction, please add this. 24.130.226.53 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is humorous, wouldn't it be fictional also? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It's about zombies. Do we NEED a cite saying it is fiction? Lots42 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The only part that I found to be a joke was about the transmission of Solanum sexually.--99.52.197.62 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The publisher lists it as humour which confirms the instinct that anything satirical is meant to be humourous.  I'll re-add humour to the genre section and cite appropriately. Cheers - Noosentaal(talk) 16:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: IT'S SATIRE! YOU GOONS! --99.101.160.159 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor? 

message: This page is vandalized a lot by people trying to declare the virus to be real and other acts.  Should we protect it for a while to stop this? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Would anyone object to me giving each chapter and/or section a subheading?  It would require a slight rewording of the beginning of each of those paragraphs but I think it would be an easier read. Millahnna (mouse)talk 03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably wouldn't hurt.  The flow is a little stilted as it is. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stellar, working on it right now.  Please everyone double check my work  It's been a long time since I read this so I can't remember what the documented encounters section is actually titled and didn't want to rephrase any sentences too heavily for fear that I was being inaccurate. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks really good.  Thanks for the reformating. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents 

message: Wasn't there evidence to suggest the documented encounters were linked? For example, a 'surviving' zombie from battle wanders off and causes a mini-outbreak the next state over. Or maybe I am just thinking that would have been cool... Lots42 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the American (Los Angeles) ones had that implication. 193.60.133.202 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: There were a couple that have heavy insinuations, but there was also the pair of stories about the fort in the desert (the first story was the outbreak, the second story was when an airplane went down near there and they found the place deserted). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documented Encounters 

message: Just for information, I started to read the book recently and was ashamed to see no page on the french wikipédia existed on it. So  I started to translate it in french. WolfyMoon (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  French translation 

message: is there an equivalent of this book in regard to vampires?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vampires 

message: should a section be included mentioning the errors and glaring inaccuracies riddling the book, specifically the weapons section? it's a pet peeve of me, as a gun fan, to read a book describing shotguns as point-blank weapons, all assault rifles and submachine guns as full auto, .22's as useful, etc. that's not even starting on the nightmare of a "biology" section.
also, an honorable mention to the borderline "all whites are evil" racism in the "recorded events" section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlord396 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Until you can find a reliable source that talks about it, the question is moot. BTW, most (aside from gun grabbing politicians) agree that a true assault rifle is select fire (which included automatic fire)  , and there would be no such thing as a semi-automatic submachine gun. If it only fired semi-auto, it wouldn't be a SMG. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: I've gone through a done an overhaul of the article to address several issues and do some clean-up. I removed the mention of the book being on the New York Times Best Seller List, as the cited source didn't actually include The Zombie Survival Guide and I can't find any other sources that prove it. Please feel free to re-add/revert this change if you can find it or if I've missed something. 
Most importantly I cleaned up the film adaptation section. I'm not even sure if this belongs here as it's an adaptation of World War Z, not the Zombie Survival Guide - though Brooks has said they're basically the same universe.
I added a background section and included a quote I found from a 2013 NYT interview, in which Brooks states he considers the book to be in the self-help genre, instead of humor or horror.  
I removed the flash card deck as an "adaptation". It's just promotional merchandise/kitsch, not a proper adaptation.
It might also be worth including a note about how Brooks started a lecture series around the subject matter of the book, which has led to him speaking at events for the U.S. military - but I'm not sure if that's because of this book or World War Z. WilliamTravis (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul