Talk:World War Z

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWorld War Z has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 13, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Featured Class?[edit]

First off thanks to everyone who helped improve this article, you should all be pleased that it is now officially a Good article. The next step is to now improve the article so it becomes a Featured article. Here are a few ideas:

  1. Improve the prose of the article. I'm going to nominate the article for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review. I would ask though that if you get the time, read the entire article and make any imporvements to the prose that you can.
  2. Expand on the Theme section. The subsections in Themes need to be expanded on. Any sources that you can find that may be able to expand on the themes in the novel would be greatly appreciated.
  3. Characters section? I'm still not sure whether this article should have a characters section, what do you think?
  4. Lead section. Not sure if this needs to be improved, but if the artilce does become a Featured article, I would like to have a lead section that can appear on the main page.

Again thanks for all of your efforts so far and heres to improving the article to the next level. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guild copyediting notes[edit]

I've decided to attempt a copyedit of this article on behalf of the Guild. This space will be used for discussion of possible improvements to the prose, with an eye on criterion 1(a) of the Featured Article criteria. All these comments are from the perspective of a (lamentably anal) reader completely unfamiliar with the topic, reading the article line-by-line. Skomorokh 16:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for abandoning this article, I hope to get back to it at some point over the weekend. Skomorokh 16:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I got law school finals to study for so take your time. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

Relation to The Zombie Survival Guide
The phrase "deadpan previous book" is awkward; one would expect the introductory adjective to be something a little more basic, such as the literary genre, time of publication or format. Ideally, the tone of the first book should be dealt with in the same clause as that of the second. Skomorokh 16:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are told that the novel "follows the "laws" set up" in the guide; this is the first we read of these laws, and given that the nature of the guide is not explained, a little more context might help here. I'm not sure "set up" is the best description of what Brooks did with the laws either. Skomorokh 16:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I did not expect a response so soon, thanks. As to your first point, originally this article did have a section concerning how the zombies acted in regards to the Guide, but some editors found it to be irrelevant and it was cut down to the sourced portion that is now in the lead. Maybe instead the statement can be moved to a "Development" section where there can be a short summary of how the zombies act, plus some information about events that the author spoke of in interviews about how the book was developed. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great idea. I certainly think it is relevant, given that the guide is mentioned in several of the reviews. Glad to help, Skomorokh 12:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brooks's role in the novel
"Brooks plays the role of an agent" is dropped in with no context. If this were a film, the meaning would be clear – that Brooks is acting the part of one of the characters. Here it is unclear – is the novel presented as a genuine first-person history, is there an author surrogate or is there something more Borgesian going on? The paragraph goes on to roughly explain, but the reader should not have to guess from the opening clause. Skomorokh 16:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summary
The fragment "against zombies from remote oddities" is peculiar. Are the "zombies" and the "oddities" at war? If so, "between" might be more appropriate. It's also not clear what is meant by "remote oddities" – "remote" in terms of physical distance, emotional isolation? What sort of entities are these "oddities"? "The book charts...a war...from remote oddities...to...to..and then to" lacks clarity as a structure. "Charting to" implies transmission, when I think what is meant is more along the lines of coverage. The sentence beginning "Taking place" tries to cover a lot in one go. Perhaps the "from the view point of many different people and nationalities" fragment and the "The agent's interviews with survivors take place a decade after the war" line can be merged into the previous sentence (beginning "Rather than")? Skomorokh 16:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inspirations
This section is quite short, and the paragraph even more so, so there is no reason not give a little extra context as to what "The Good War and George Romero" are and an indication as to why or how they influenced the author. Skomorokh 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weight and omissions
Ideally, the lede should briefly summarize all the sections of the article. The current version could use a lot more of the content from the Themes, References to other works, Film adaptation and Literary significance and reception (which is glided over with "it has been praised by critics"). Skomorokh 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start work on some of these suggestions as soon as I get the chance, or unless some other editor wants to do it in the meantime. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Skomorokh 12:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made some changes to the lead. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added the development section, comments? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The development section is a little disjointed at present. The opening line is decent, and then it goes into a description of the zombies from the Guide before veering off into a new paragraph starting "Brooks said he was motivated to write World War Z by his fear of zombies." Ideally, it would be best to have a smoother, more natural flow when switching topics, but I understand that you are constrained by what the sources allow. If we could track down all the mentions of the Guide in the reviews of the novel, a fuller section might be possible. Skomorokh 02:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary significance and reception[edit]

Time Out Chicago review
The Time Out Chicago review is slightly mischaracterised. Our article:

In his review for Time Out Chicago, Pete Coco declared using an oral history to write a zombie book something that "might constitute brilliance."

Time Out Chicago:

The mock oral history is the perfect form for getting at the sweeping perspective of Z, even if it does limit some of the genre’s more traditional pleasures. A few chapters are genuinely scary, but they’re in the minority. Bending horror to the form of alternative history would have been novel in and of itself. Doing so in the mode of Studs Terkel might constitute brilliance.

The brilliance claim would seem to relate more to "Bending horror to the form of alternative history...in the mode of Studs Terkel" than "oral history". Skomorokh 12:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does the new version look? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, no mischaracterisation in the new version. Skomorokh 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

There's a short Chicago Tribune piece from May 4, 2--9 here that might be of use. Skomorokh 03:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that too, thanks. Not sure how to work it in yet. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to The Zombie Survival Guide[edit]

The article states that this book is a follow-up to TZSG, and follows the "laws" set by it, but that doesn't seems somewhat inaccurate. In reality, as well as within the world of the book, The Guide was written before World War Z (both the book and the event). However, The Guide reads like it's intended for a world where zombies are not only in existence, but also somewhat commonplace. It even goes so far as to list several instances of Zombie Outbreaks going back (as far as I can remember) to the 1800s.

However, the way that World War Z reads, it makes it seem that zombies weren't really around until shortly before the war. If WWZ is really supposed to be a follow-up to TZSG, then that seems like a serious continuity issue. --TwilightDuality (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks stated that the Guide is from the same universe of World War Z. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source? --TwilightDuality (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its already listed on the article but you can see it here: [1] Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the zombie outbreak that consumes the world in World War Z starts with an Chinese child who is bitten while diving down to a shipwreck with his father. That fits with the first book which includes several stories about zombies that wandered onto the shore after becoming infected while on ships years ago. The first book tells accounts of stage 1-3 outbreaks which are contained for the most part while the second book covers the 4th and final 'Stage 4 outbreak' which is a totally un-contained world-wide outbreak.F4M !! 20:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aintitcool.com Quote[edit]

The article is misquoting Aintitcool.com. When I checked the source, the quote in question ("This isn’t just a good adaptation of a difficult book... it’s a genre-defining piece of work that could well see us all arguing about whether or not a zombie movie qualifies as “Best Picture” material.") is not a commentary on the leaked script, but rather the concerned author's opinion on the possible impact of a film adaptation of this book, should it be handled correctly. --TwilightDuality (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree. Reading the quote again and taking in the entire article, it seems he is talking about the leaked script itself. Does anyone want to give a third opinion? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

Concept Art[edit]

Removed the following - "Production designer Daniel LuVisi posted a piece of concept art depicting the Battle of Yonkers on DeviantArt in January 2009.[37]" due to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT The referenced article makes no claim that LuVisi has been hired to work on the film. The artwork "was put together as a try-out." It's fanart. --Donkey Hotay (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: in-article link to Terkel's "The Good War"[edit]

The presence of the quote marks around the title of "The Good War" (in addition to the italics) is not an error; they're part of the book's title, which refers to the common shorthand by which many of Terkel's contributors called World War II. -- 66.55.222.158, 00:46, August 15, 2009 (EDT)

Film links question[edit]

Has there been any actual confirmation that this site is actually connected to the upcoming film adaptation for WWZ? Or was this just a case of putting 2 and 2 together?--Nick??? 12:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of zombie novels[edit]

FYI. Ikip (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Character Text[edit]

I think I've said it somewhere else, but I'd just like to state for the record that I'm very much opposed to this addition of a dense and not-at-all-summary-style list of characters. Scartol • Tok 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've recently removed a lot of original research from it as well, but now all that is left is just plot summary. I am very much inclined to deleting the section. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, although I wouldn't go so far as to wipe it entirely. Could it instead be boiled down to a sentance (two at most) identifying the character and their role in the plot? Maybe the voice actor list (and later the film actors) can be rolled into this. Something like (but in no particular order:
  • Arthur Sinclair, Jr. (voiced by Alan Alda in the audiobook, played by FooBar in the film) is the director of a American government agency required to allocate scarce resources and re-train civilians in the jobs required for the nation's survival.
  • Ajay Shah (voiced by Ajay Naidu, played by SomeGuy) is an Indian civilian who recounts his escape from India via the Alang ship breaking yards.
Thoughts? -- saberwyn 22:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not complete. Some characters are missing. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it down, and added the rest of the characters. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 02:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not a big fan of "characters" sections at all, and right now the list looks a bit choppy and disjointed. Before going to FAC, I recommend you ask either Awadewit or Moni3 (or both) to have a look; both are experienced in the ways of literature FAs, both are friendly and have worked on Wikipedia for many years. Scartol • Tok 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itstartswiththeflu.com?[edit]

Is there any confirmation that this website is actually related to the movie? Having read the book I don't see the connection unless they plan on changing some of the fundamentals of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.236.199 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with "running to the sea"[edit]

The book details that infection was just one of many problems facing survivors trying to survive at sea..just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.107.253 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to IMDB[edit]

IMDB has moved the content to their pay service IMDB-Pro. The link effectively points to an ad. Is there a reason it is still here or can it be removed?

92.116.253.194 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - that's a pretty pointless link now, at least for the 'external links' section. Kuru (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Carnahan is writing the new screen play.. not Straczynski anymore.

Straczynski out Carnahan in[edit]

Matt Carnahan is writing the new screen play.. not Straczynski anymore.

Plot summary...time to prune?[edit]

Is it just me, or is the plot summary getting a little overlong and overdetailed. Is it time to trim off some of the fat? -- saberwyn 00:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does Iceland a cold cold cold country become infested?[edit]

If zombies freeze and I assume die then how does Iceland become infested as opposed to a sanctuary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.180.41 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous .Wzrd1 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland is not a "cold cold cold country". It is warmed by the Gulf Stream and average temperatures are usually above zero Celcius. Iceland is also volcanically active. It is Greenland that is colder - although not hugely, every degree is significant close to freezing point. Much of the land mass is covered with ice sheets. Greenland was supposedly named so in an early and possibly unsucessful form of marketing by the exiled Erik the Red. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed quote from blacklisted source[edit]

The following line has been removed from the "Film adaptation" section of the article, as the source article is on a blacklised url (examiner.com), and is a dead link.

Despite his lack of artistic control, Brooks did say that the movie "has to be epic ... and if it isn't the Lord of the Rings of zombie movies, I don't want to see it get made."


-- saberwyn 10:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are sites where hes quoted saying that like here http://fannetastic.com/max.htm. BTW Then it shouldn't be made, as its not going to be epic like LOTR, not on content, meaningful themes, book sales, its budget, fan numbers and not on the teenage style wring in the book. I found it very boring, didn't finish the book. How deluded is the author to even think its up there with LOTR in any comparison ? Very Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it is what he was quoted saying. To suggest otherwise is to run afoul of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You gave your personal opinion, which is original research and your point of view, rather than a well respected source to provide that information. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought .Wzrd1 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral wording?[edit]

"He also cites the U.S. Army as a reference[5] on firearm statistics, though he does not state how those statistics were obtained."

Why would he need to state how those statistics were obtained? Surely we should, by default, assume that he obtained them in the normal way, which is why it's not specifically stated? This sounds like it's slightly biased against him, as if it's accusing him of something.97.126.163.174 (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Influence in academia[edit]

Does room exist for comment on its use in academia, I say this in reference to a new book explaining international theory that mention issues raised in this novel. International relations and zombies hyperlink--Tb7416 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were such content to be added, it would probably fit under the "Literary significance and reception" heading. I can't see any references to WWZ on the Amazon page you linked (apart from "Buy Me!" links)...is the claim of academic use of WWZ made in a reliably published review, or clearly and in depth in the book (actual discussion in the text as opposed to footnotes/references)? Those are about the ony two ways I could see it being incorporated in this context. -- saberwyn 23:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible appraisal.Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Film adaptation" section[edit]

There's been a bit of back and forth in this section over the past few days whether to mention one of the filming locations. At the moment, singling out a single location doesn't fit with the current quantity of content. However, I think that having a single-sentance section (even if it is main-linked out to another article) is a bit lacklustre for an otherwise high-quality article, and the section should expand to a couple of paragraphs summarising the film article. As a suggestion (someone will have to lift the relevant cites from the film article):

In 2007, the movie rights for World War Z were secured by Brad Pitt's production company, Plan B Entertainment. The screenplay was written by J. Michael Straczynski, with Marc Forster directing, and Pitt starring as the main character, UN employee Gerry Lane. Production was to begin at the start of 2009, but by mid-year, the script was still under development and being re-written by Matthew Michael Carnahan. Production not begin until mid-2011 because of can anyone else decipher the reasons?. Initial filming ocurred in Malta before moving on to Glasgow, (which was used to represent Philadelphia as uncertainty over tax credits for filmmakers caused the prduction team to avoid the American city) and insert other filming locations here. World War Z is to be released py Paramount Pictures on December 21, 2012.

Once the film is released (or the information otherwise comes available), a second paragraph discussing major differences between the book and the film, and a summary of reactions/reviews could be added. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 00:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems redundant to me, interested parties can just read the main article but it is better than just calling out a single location. However, keep in mind that unlike a lead section any information in this section must be properly referenced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
good point Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audiobook Section Errors[edit]

"John McElroy" is listed as a voice actor in the audiobook. The page it links to is of a man who died in the 1980s. The only other John McElroy on Wikipedia is even older. Either the link needs to remain disabled, a page needs to be made for the correct John McElroy, or that name is wrong completely. I am deactivating the link for now.

-Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.219.46 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch -- saberwyn 23:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the audiobook, Carl Reiner is credited for the voice of Jurgen Warmbrunn. I'm editing the page to reflect this unless someone can show evidence that it is Ludi Boeken, which is the listing pre-change. -- Sthayashi (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks the info about selling the rights for $1m[edit]

And Brooks refused to have Pitt on a new re-edition (and the sales of the re-edition?). --Niemti (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)--Niemti (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception[edit]

Not a very good rating. Might improve the article to see its rating. Maybe not. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/world-war-z/ This ones a tiny bit higher. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing the wrong article. This article is about the book. For the film, which has a significantly different plot, please go to World War Z (film). Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot length[edit]

The length of the plot summary is a bit excessive, I think. The article is 3000 words total, and the plot summary takes 1300+ words of it. Some of the detail can be trimmed. I don't think we could reach 700 (as suggested by WP:FILMPLOT, which may not apply here but is a good yardstick), but by trimming detail from the last paragraph we could get at least under 1000. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World War Z → World War Z (novel) – The film adaptation is probably just as notable if not more notable. Bringing in over $500 million in the box office certainly shows that a lot of people are aware of (and possibly looking for) the movie. Also suggest making World War Z a disambiguation for the novel, film, and video game, if move is executed. See below. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, as the film and game are derivatives of the (very well known) novel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You can't have a disambiguation page without having an ambiguous topic, which (per WP:DABCONCEPT) means topics that share the same name but are otherwise unrelated. Obviously a film adapted from a book is related to the book, and an article can be written that addresses this relationship. bd2412 T 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The novel can be less viewed than the film. If moved and converted to dabpage, stats of the novel will go down more. George Ho (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the film has more hits right now, it was only released a few months ago. It's trending down quickly, and by the looks of it the film and novel will be about the same in April or May. Are you sure that's not just WP:RECENTISM? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - both the novel and the film are well known, so disambiguation is needed. Anonimski (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author oppose - I can't close the requested move now, since there's disagreement, but I realize that my suggestion was unneeded and I agree with Crisco and BD2412. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is general consensus that source material is the primary topic, with a few exceptions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on World War Z. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on World War Z. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisks (*) in the Audiobook Cast[edit]

There are several asterisks listed after names in the list of the audiobook cast indicating that they should refer to a note, however I see no such note.

I would assume that the marked names would be either the cast in the original abridged audiobook or the ones added to the unabridged version. But this is just a guess on my part.

Either way, the asterisks should be removed or (more ideally) have their note found and added. 2607:FB90:220A:BD3C:5C34:412C:2FF:ADAB (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World War Z. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overly detailed plot section[edit]

As of 08/18/2020, the plot section is excessively detailed, sitting at over 3300 words, and could use some cleaning up. I am hoping to work on paring it down a bit, but if anyone else can provide assistance as well, that'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio144 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m responsible for the overwhelming majority of edits on the article since early August. It currently sits at 1,273 words. Let me know if there are any sections you would like me to revise. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_Z&oldid=1205806174"