Talk:The Zombie Survival Guide/Archive 01

message: This is not a Satire, nor a Comedy. Fictional, A Parody, yes, absolutely! But not a satire. For evidence of my point please see enclosed links. Thank You. --68.34.21.221 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! You don't need to appeal to "the admin", just go ahead and make the edit. --McGeddon 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I warned you for removing other information. Specifically, I had a problem with the edits you made that suggested this book was anything other than fiction. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Is Not A Satire

message: According to Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles, Google testing is a valid method.
With that in mind, I present a Google search for ZSG, garnering 572,000 results. When the phrase it put in quotations, the results drop down to 154,000.
Entries include the numerous online stores (like ThinkGeek), a (partial) visual companion to the book done entirely with LEGOs, numerous book reviews, a Flickr entry, and a fan listing. Is this not enough to verify ZSG's notability?
Personally, I think it is. Unless anyone can present a valid argument otherwise, I'll remove the notability flag (waiting for a bit of discussion, though). EVula 22:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google testing is, by itself, absolutely not a valid method. 216.165.147.36 03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for Notability 

message: Phew! Took me a while, but I finally finished my rewriting of the entire article. I think I ended up keeping about 5% of the original article...
Hopefully this will help us get the ZSG listed on the damn zombie page. :) EVula 06:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Overhaul 

message: I just added Critical response heading; in it, I reference five different reviews, including two review websites that collect other users' reviews. I'm doing this to address the continual dismissal of this article as spam; the references also serve to bolster/prove the article's Verifiability and Notability.
Furthermore, here are the results of an Alexa test I performed on each of the five websites:
#Amazon.com: #13 
#bbc.co.uk: #21 
#thefourthrail.com: #84,381 
#horrorchannel.com: #55,610 
#epinions.com: #493 
Admittedly, items #3 and #4 aren't especially high (especially in comparison to the others), but the Alexa test page says "ranks worse than 100,000 are not reliable"; neither are worse than 100,000. However, #4 is highly relevant to the subject (though it could be argued that it is biased, which is why I cited it fourth), and I wanted to include #3 so that I could show that not every review was entirely positive (thereby maintaining a NPOV).
Phew. EVula 17:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Critical response" heading 

message: wow, im really glad my merging of Solanum worked out so well. I only wrote it 10 minutes ago and then i had to do all of this. But at least it is where it belongs... right? Well, whoever flagged it for moving, thanks, you were right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exxentrix (talk • contribs) 
:Uh, for the record, it is usually best to wait more than a single hour after a merge notice has been put up before you go ahead with it. While I wouldn't have disagreed, the Solanum section needs considerable work before it is in line with everything else; I spotted half a dozen different typos and formatting errors after a very cursory glance over it. EVula 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging 

message: Would the Class Outbreaks be labeled "fiction"?
:Yes, the whole thing's a work of fiction. Graphia 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is one thing the government cannot cover up - the basic laws of physics - get a science education and don't waste people's time with the nonsense. This is wikipedia not quackopedia. --Fredrick day 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional? 

message: damn he wrote them so realistically i actually believed everything of them to be real, how do we know they are fake?
: Because Romero-esque flesh-eating zombies aren't real, and so any outbreaks of them would also be not real?  --Dr Archeville 12:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  so the historical things were fiction? 

message: So I'm watching the Lonelygirl15 videos on Youtube(now that the secret is out), and what do I see on video number 27 (Girl Problems...  http://lonelygirl15.com/?p=27), but a copy of the guide sticking out of a bookcase.  Seeing as how these videos have been outed as an actual fictional project, one may assume that perhaps the guide was placed there intentionally as window dressing of some sort.  This may very well be the first case of the Guide in other media.  I urge my fellow Wikipedians to be on the lookout for other instances of the guide showing up in other places.  Levid37 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zombie Survival Guide in other media

message: "Presented facts are largely compatible with concepts seen in various zombie films, adding another level of authenticity for fans of the genre." While perhaps 'largely' lets it work, the virus idea directly contradicts what George Romero has said of his films--which are not the majority, I admit, but they are the ones Brooks himself often references as inspiration. Thoughts? FangsFirst 07:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wrote it that way because it addresses the most common facets of zombies: shoot them in the head to actually "kill" them, how zombies biologically work, why being bitten by a zombie causes you to turn into one, etc. Obviously, it can't jive with every zombie movie, but the most common points are touched upon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largely Compatible?

message: Just so we're clear, this isn't strictly fiction, Max writes some truley believeable stuff in there and has me sleeping with a knife under my pillow each night. (More so a long dagger, but still) So I think it should be listed as "debatably fiction"
--Kaleunico (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the text: "Knives are always useful, serving a variety of functions in a range of situations. Unlike a hatchet, they can kill a zombie only when the blade is stabbed through the temple, eye socket, or base of the skull. On the flip side, knives almost always weigh less than hatchets and, therefore, are better if you are on the move. When choosing a knife, make sure the blade is no more than six inches long and always smooth. Avoid serrated knives and saw-blade combinations found in survival knives, as they tend to become lodged in their victims. Imagine yourself stabbing one zombie through the temple and turning to engage the other three ghouls but not being able to retrieve your blade." (35) --98.240.30.143 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional? I think not! 

message: This article is an English teacher's nightmare. I went over the ranged weapons section for factual and grammatical errors but the rest of the article is teeming with them. Can someone go over them? Thanks.
~Vin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.31.212 (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar check 

message: Seriously though did anyone else read this book and believe it to be true! i found it scarily believable especialy the historical accounts...I have performed searches checking to see whether any of it is actualy true and sadly have found its all just black humor....
_madmatt_
:A book about zombies might be fiction? What a bold claim, sir! 71.192.54.222 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did anyone else..... 

message: This article is WAY too detailed about the content of the book - we need a summary and then dicussion of the real world impact. --Fredrick day 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, looking back on it (as the one who wrote it all), I have to agree. I was just a poor newbie back then, who didn't know any better. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank god, it's somebody sensible ! I was expecting the usual revision war with cries of WP:ILIKEIT flying around! :-) --Fredrick day 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can still do that, if you really want... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far too detailed  

message: :Image:Zombiesurvivalguide.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Zombiesurvivalguide.jpg

message: The beginning of the article says there are 7 chapters plus appendix then lists the chapter after 5 as the final chapter.  What gives? Mdmkolbe 04:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Six vs Seven Chapters

message: This book should not be referred to as fictional, there is in fact overwhelming evidence that this book could possibly be pure fact, I believe it to be pure fact. The zombie apocalypse is a very real possibility for the future, and it needs to be taken seriously and not stomped upon by such skeptical close-minded organizations as Wikipedia.....foreshame.
-Living_DEAD_Girl69, March, 29th, 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Living DEAD Girl69 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While nobody has the right to attack you for your beliefs, this book is clearly written as a fictional guide, only for humor.75.80.82.112 (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree with the last post