Talk:The Zombie Survival Guide/Archive 01

This Is Not A Satire

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I did and was warned (by the admin) that editing the page without "discussion" was grounds for losing my privledge to edit articles. 68.34.21.221 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you for removing other information.[1][2] 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)[reply]

User Wryspy reverted this edit without discussion. I am removing the reference to the work as Satire again. Max Overload

ZSG = Spam?

DreamGuy has repeatedly labeled this entry as spam, which I don't believe it is (it's come up for deletion before, but it was voted to be merged into the author's entry, which I'm fine with.

I'm (honestly) quite pissed that it keeps getting labeled as spam, but I'm not going to fight a battle with someone who is convinced he is right. EVula 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs some cleaning up to be sure, but it should otherwise be kept. If this is spam, then anything is spam. I don't see why it should be deleted or otherwise done away with. R.E. Freak 02:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll see about "fleshing" it out a bit more. I'm a fan of the book (which, apparently, is on par with being a sockpuppet), and am pretty pissed about the sour reaction that DreamGuy has had to repeated attempts at justly linking it to the Zombies entry. EVula 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no clue as to what the problem that the editor has with the article. The Zombie Survival Guide is a work of fiction that's carried out in the style of a parody of real-life survival guides. Labeling this book, which is clearly lidentified on websites and in bookstores as a comedic fiction, as mere spam is grossly ignorant of the intention of the book. Furthermore, any claim of the book not having enough notability is likewise false as the text happens to be fairly well-known (while not widely read, I'll grant that) and was authored by the son of a very famous comedian. For the life of me, I just don't see how it could be considered worthy of deletion nor can I think of a way for the article to be expanded upon so as to fit the guideline laid out in the blue tag. If the editor could actually explain how he thinks the article should be expanded upon rather than making a vague statement, then maybe we would know what to do in regards to it. Heck, he might even bring up a good point as to why it should be deleted for all that we know! RPH 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to have some solid evidence (rather than just common sense :)) to show DreamGuy before I just up and take down the notability flag. That said, I'll be removing it from the article anyway once I finish overhauling it (though I'm sure he'll just flag it again). Currently, I've done more to just set up the outline than to actually write the content, but I've got work in the morning...

I'll also re-add it to the Zombie article once I'm finished, as it will be a much more substantial article (which will be harder to argue against; I'm not picking a fight with DreamGuy because the current article isn't the world's best), and will request that he read the Talk page. I do agree with you that any insight from him for his reasons would be welcome; as far as I can tell, he reverted my edit out of spite (including an unrelated edit I made, that someone else requested!). EVula 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for Notability

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)[reply]

Google testing is, by itself, absolutely not a valid method. 216.165.147.36 03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Overhaul

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)[reply]

Nicely done, EVula! Teflon Don 07:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done. The amount of work put into your edits should be more than enough to effectively end any claims of the book being mere spam. RPH 17:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Critical response" heading

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 [3]
bbc.co.uk: #21 [4]
thefourthrail.com: #84,381 [5]
horrorchannel.com: #55,610 [6]
epinions.com: #493 [7]

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)[reply]

Amazon.com customer reviews

Please don't take it personal, but I am not quite sure if it is appropriate to cite Amazon.com customer reviews as "critical response". Above all, it is a 100% commercial site, and we aren't even supposed to place any link to Amazon.com in the article in most cases. It would be best if the article only cites responses from professional critics and media, rather than anonymous product endorsements on a commercial site. --BorgQueen 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I don't recall seeing a rule against linking to Amazon anywhere, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; if you can find it, I'll go about looking for a replacement. I only put it under "Critical Response" simply because one of the WP policy pages does state (uh, somewhere... if you want me to find the page, I probably can) that large, multi-review sites are a good source, though it didn't specify Amazon in particular; if this was a movie, I would have linked to Rotten Tomatoes, but there isn't a comparable literature-oriented site that I know of. EVula 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I found it. Please see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid - it specifically mentions "bookstores" as one of the links to avoid. --BorgQueen 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Two arguments against that:

As far as I can tell, the page is specifically talking about the External Links section of an article. Also, the article does us the ISBN linking method (once in under the Reference heading, once in the infobox).
The Amazon link is only being used as a reference (which is #2 on What should be linked to). However, I did just update the Amazon link; instead of linking to just the book's general page, it goes specifically to the Customer Reviews for the book.

I still think the link should stand, but I'll see about finding some other links to bolster the section at some point. I'm a bit busy right now, though, so it might be a while before I can do anything with it. EVula 18:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merging

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)[reply]

Ohh yeah, i forgot how sensative everyone is, i mistook this for real life, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exxentrix (talk • contribs)

Protip: being touchy about people being touchy, and then pretending to take the moral high road, all while not signing your comments is cruise control for kool. 24.205.34.217 23:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional?

Would the Class Outbreaks be labeled "fiction"?

Yes, the whole thing's a work of fiction. Graphia 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had wondered about that, until I realized that there are no citations for any of the outbreaks listed...and I actually felt pretty foolish at first because I had gone online looking for more information on a couple of them. I realized (when I didn't get a single hit on any of them) it was all still fictional.

Ok, so you haven't found any information on them. No proof that it's fictional. There's at least some, if minimal and highly debatable proof that it's true. ZombieSlayer54 22:19, April 4th, 2007, PST

No. There is no proof. Max Brooks made up all the "references" in the back of the book. Maybe you need to call Max Brooks, the Saturday Night Live writer who wrote the ZSG, and ask him if his book is fiction or not. Then go read World War Z, the sequel, and try to understand that the world isn't overrun by the walking dead right now. Who let's these dumb kids in here? Get out of you mom's basement, ZombieSlayer54.

who knows, there's alot of things the government does not want its people to know and can easily cover up, i wouldnt even let the possibility of this happening past me.

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)[reply]

Copyright Concerns?

I'm a huge proponent of fair use, but it seems that this page is rife with more than simply "questionable" similarities to the book. Most obviously, the section on Solanum is simply an abridged copy of the text in the book, nearly word-for-word. I will try to compose my own version. Since I cannot make any promises, I invite anyone else to work on a more author-friendly version. : Zenter 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% in favor of rewriting the Solanum section; the only reason it is here is because somebody merged it after about an hour of discussion. I cleaned it up a bit afterwards, but I do have other things to do too.

The rest of the article I can honestly say is not a copy-vio (I'm the one who wrote most of the article, and made sure not to rip out passages of text). EVula 15:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so the historical things were fiction?

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)[reply]

My friend and I were talking after reading this book, and it has comed to our mind that with all the genetic engineering going on now, and how viruses mutate..Isn't possible for scientist or just nature itself to come up with a rabbies viruse that isn't killed with a vaccine...therefor creating what could be called a "zombie" not in the living dead sense but that they are crazy and live off natural instinct..sorta like in "28 days later" that my friends could indeed happen in the near future...

No. Evidence. Of fictionalization. No offense, but until I see actual evidence that such things implied in this book CANNOT happen, I will continue to say that this is all truth. ZombieSlayer54 22:21, April 4th, 2007 PST

Zombie Survival Guide in other media

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)[reply]

does max believe it? i mean even though its fiction does he believe it himself?

He doesn't believe it's fiction. Therefore, until I see actual evidence that it is, I'm presuming it's truth.

Critical response section

I've deleted the critical response section and removed one of the reference links. This section was full of private fan reviews. The BBC link that I removed was not a review from the BBC but a review by a member of their discussion community. I have reviewed this book on Amazon but I would not consider that to be a reliable source in any way. I have also taken out the comment that the evidence at the back is compatible with real life events as that is not the case, and is a claim that would have to be cited in any case. MLA 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was grasping at straws when I wrote that section, as another editor had this article firmly in his sights for deletion (a lot of discussion about that can be found at the top of the talk page). I think the section can probably be rewritten using better sources than were available at the time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I think the external links section serves the keep cause better in any case but happy to do my bit to help find further reliable sources if necessary. MLA 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that it has spawned a sequel and is its second print also serve to make the "keep" argument. :)

I've removed the references section, since the whole thing is unused at this point (aside from the book itself, but it seems silly to cite that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largely Compatible?

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Label as fiction?

Why should we label this as fiction if Max Brooks himself says this is true? We have no evidence this is false, and little, even if it is highly debatable, evidence that it is true. If not label it true at least label it as supposed fiction, because as far as many people are concerned it can only be supposed that it is fiction. ZombieSlayer54 22:15 P.M., PST. April 4th, 2007

If you've got any sources for him genuinely believing that zombies exist and are a threat, then we should rewrite this article to reflect this. If you've got a source for zombies existing then we can go so far as to call the book non-fiction. But a few interviews where Max uses a comedy "believing zombies exist" persona are meaningless. --McGeddon 09:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that wanted sources of him genuinely believing that zombies exist, right? Even though in the book he clearly states his belief in zombies. I'd call that an excellent source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talk • contribs)

It's quite a poor source, as it's indistinguishable from a book written by an author who doesn't believe in zombies, yet decides to write a one-off book as if he did. --McGeddon 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has he ever said he DOES NOT believe in zombies? No. Has he ever said he has? Yes. Frankly, I don't see what the problem here is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZombieSlayer54 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Those of us in the real world realize that it is a piece of fiction. Feel free to join us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see moderators setting such a good example on politeness for the other members. We should all be like you, EVula.

Just revert and ignore, EVula. I've seen people who honestly believed at some point that ZSG was based in fact, but this guy's just a wiki-troll. Teflon Don 09:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look. I'm stopping, ok? Just, don't call me a troll just because I was attempting to share beliefs on Wikipedia.

It's important to note that even if the author believes in zombies, it does not make the book non-fiction. In fact the beliefs of the author are irrelevant and a red herring; I suggest that editors keen to keep the description of the book as 'fiction' in the article not even debate the truth or validity of the author's so-called beliefs. It's clear from bookseller websites and reviews that the book is being marketed as fiction; what the author believes, or in fact what is true is irrelevant, because we are discussing the BOOK, not the actual existence of zombies, if any. Anchoress 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional? I think not!

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)[reply]

Zombies are not real, this book is fiction - any attempt to use weasel words will be reverted. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, do you really think a knife will help if we zombies took over? Habaneroman ^SignTalk 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fictional with "real world implications". I have to admit though, when i read the opening chapter, I did feel a slight chill.. And I've kept a number of relevant snippets from it, such as "blades don't need to be reloaded". I also may or may Not have a contingency plan...just in case. Geno-Supremo (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. Sorry to offend believers. Habaneroman ^SignTalk 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book would technically be classified as non-fiction. Not because it is real, but because it is under the category of humor and parody. Humor and parody are in the classification of non-fiction. The material discussed in this book is fictitious, but because of its parody based writing within the book, the top should be changed to non-fiction with clarification as to why. If anyone needs an example of a book of fictitious writing classified as non-fiction, and the author uses an expository argument to make it seem like fact. Of course it is fictitious in its subject material, but it is strictly a parody. Plus, look at any book store, it would be classified as non-fiction because it would be under "Humor and Opinion." Both are non-fiction. Look at the Alphabet of Manliness, Men are Better than Women, or even I Am America and So Can You! All are non-fiction, all deal with just opinion with false events taking place in a lot of the material written. --Crazedoutchild (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds reasonable, except for the I am America and So Can You part. That is undebatably truth. Habaneroman ^SignTalk 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toucher...Toucher. Now, can't someone change the fiction to non-fiction?--Crazedoutchild (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not fiction. --Peace out (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peacey, Peacey, Peacey... Read your the whole section before you comment. We have already established that, unless you mean that you believe that Zombies will some day take over the world. In that case, go join ZS and fight the walking dead. Habaneroman ^SignTalk 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar check

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).[reply]

Did anyone else.....

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)[reply]

Far too detailed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can still do that, if you really want... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as a random passerby, I actually like this kind of detailed article. But yes, it does need a real world impact section. Just my two cents. 199.126.134.144 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone mind explaining why a "WAY too detailed" summary is inappropriate? I can see why you should have a short and then a long summary, but I don't see why a long summary should be removed. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Zombiesurvivalguide.jpg

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)[reply]

Six vs Seven Chapters

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)[reply]

I agree with the last post

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I concur. Habaneroman ^SignTalk 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this book is writen for fictional purposes, but the information in the book could be used in the situation of an actual outbreak. I don't think anyone will ever agree on weather zombies could be a possibilty or not. But anything can happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.230.5 (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]